The Gentle Cricket

Credit where credit is due

2009-10-09T20:21:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago President Obama had a little media dust-up by calling Kanye West 'a Jackass'. Never had I agreed with the President more. However, this is clearly not a statement that a president should be making about a private citizen (no matter how big of a douche-bag that private citizen may be). President Obama made this statement off-the-record, however--it was publicized inappropriately.

Today's somewhat shocking news that the President has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize brought another Obama statement that I found reassuring. "I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of many of the transformative leaders who have received this prize." Classy. A President being honored with such an award should be a proud moment for America, and I think it still is...but I also think that any honest observer can recognize that there isn't much basis for the award. Perhaps the President will make great strides towards world peace..but not yet. Turning down the award would be incredibly poor form, and I think that the President's self-deference in his public statements are perfectly appropriate.

Overall I think today's award says much more about the Nobel committee that it does about our President. If I were a past recipient or a current contender, I would consider todays decision a bit offensive. But I don't think President Obama could have handled it better.

Pres. Obama's School Speech

2009-09-03T11:50:00.000-07:00

For the past two days the topic of conservative talk radio has been the President's planned speech next week, to be broadcast to schoolchildren throughout the country. While I can understand some of the concerns that conservative talkers have expressed, I think those concerns have been exaggerated and blown way out of proportion.

Personally, I think its a great idea for the President of the United States to address children during their first week back to school. Much in the same way that the President can wield the bully pulpit in driving legislation, so too can he use it to encourage children to stay in school, work hard, and be respectful young citizens. I hope the President does it again the next three years (and I hope President Romney does it the following 8 ;)

Of course, the President could use it as an opportunity to politic; to try to extol the virtues of health care reform, etc... And I would consider this incredibly inappropriate. However, there's no indication that he plans to do so, and I think it would be a politically stupid move. Furthermore, I consider it wrong to convict him of exploiting children before he has done a thing.

My thoughts on the Health Care Debate

2009-08-13T11:15:00.000-07:00

I've been notably absent from this blog for some time now, but with the current state of affairs surrounding health ~~care~~ insurance reform, I figured I should jump back into the fray. What really motivated me was a short clip from President Obama's recent NH town hall.
In the above clip, the President describes how we pay our primary care physicians so poorly, yet pay surgeons quite generously. He's absolutely right on this fact, though he has greatly exaggerated the numbers. A surgeons fee for an amputation is in the ballpark of maybe $2,500. Frankly, I whole heartedly agree with the President that our health care is structured in a way that disproportionately rewards treatment over prevention. Yet, I see things through a slightly different lens.

First of all, a dominant reason why a primary care physician is paid a "pittance" is because of government run programs like Medicare and Medicaid. With medicare reimbursements below what the market dictates, physicians and hospitals make up for this by increasing volume. That means that physicians have less time to spend with each patient, reducing their ability to perform the time-intensive interventions that the President is discussing. With rhetoric about cost-controls in the current legislation, and proposed cuts to medicare reimbursement, how am I to believe that this will improve--in fact, I would anticipate that it would worsen.

That's not to say that addressing this issue isn't important, though I believe that it could be done in a more efficient way. Decoupling private insurance to a) employment and b) state of residence or community would be a good start. With our current system there is actually a disinsentive for insurers to pay for preventative care, because as soon as you change jobs they will no longer be your insurer, and thus your amputation will be on someone else's dime. If it is in an insurer's best interest to keep you as a customer for a longer period, then it will be in their interest to reward cost-saving preventative measures.

Second, while a public option would have incentive to reward preventative care, they would also have an incentive to withhold costly care. We see this over and over again in country after country. While I do believe that America can accomplish things that others can't, why should we expect anything different in our country? It always reminds me of a scene in Arrested Development, where Tobias and Lindsay are discussing ways to improve their marriage.

Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters.
Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people?
Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us.

Third, I notice the irony here when the President brings up medication management. Proper use of medication is a vital component of diabetes management, as it is for so many chronic diseases (hypertension, vascular disease, etc...). Whereas studies have shown that medications greatly reduce overall health care costs, their use will undoubtedly be welcomed under the Democrat health care plan, despite the fact that pharma has been a whipping boy of the left for years.

Lastly, I have grown weary of President Obama's repeated attempts to portray physicians as greedy. It seems that in his eyes physicians are willing to subject their patients to painful and expensive unnecessary procedures for the sake of enriching themselves. Whether they are taking out kids tonsils, or directing them towards amputations, he seems to believe that doctors only care about money.

We all agree that we need reform, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

RE: Sacha

2009-02-09T10:39:00.000-08:00

Sacha left some lengthy comments on my previous post, and I felt responses would be more appropriate as a new post. I'm not that interested in addressing all Sacha's points, considering my original post was an off-the-cuff opinionated response. Regardless, I thought some deserved attention.

You're putting in a lot of hard work to get that medical degree. Then you will work very, very hard as an intern and resident. What if graduates of foreign medical schools could be brought in to work at lower wages?

They can. Unfortunately, many residency programs, as well as the USMLE create artificial barriers to their successful employment (medicine is little more than a union). This summer and past fall I worked with an Iranian-born surgeon who attended medical school in the UK. Despite scoring a 99 on his american licensing exams, he is having trouble finding employment. It certainly is a boon for American born students who don't have to meet the same benchmarks, but it hardly seems like its in the best interest of their patients.

Suppose that the medical field operated in a less restricted market, and more foreign-trained physicians could enter the field. You're right that if they worked for less pay, then physician reimbursement would drop, and health care costs would be (slightly) reduced, without a reduction in quality of care...in fact, more likely an improvement in quality of care. It certainly wouldn't help me, as an individual with a clearly invested interest, but it would certainly be of benefit to society as a whole. And if the reimbursement rates dropped, then smart people who otherwise would have been doctors will go into other professions: dentists, lawyers, PhD's, engineers, etc... where they will be more lucratively rewarded.

Besides, since when is competition a bad thing? By your same train of logic, we should prevent the importation of foreign produced products. If Honda weren't allowed to sell cars on US soil, clearly General Motors would be better off. Without needing to worry about producing quality products at an affordable price, they would be virtually guaranteed people to purchase their products. Sounds great.

Also, in your original blog post, you talk about how "An engineer who designs a new products creates jobs: secretaries, product testers, factory workers, people to market the product..." really? I don't think an engineer gets his/her own secretary, and the product testers and factory workers are likely located in Malaysia or Taiwan. It may create marketing jobs, but do we really need more people to go into the "sales" profession?

My father is an electrical engineer (and he has had his own secretary in the past, incidentally). Just to cite a concrete example, several years ago he designed a new, state of the art product. Sales went up. People in the factory (located in the US, fyi) couldn't work enough overtime to meet demand, and the company hired more people to help build the products. Furthermore, the company hired 2 additional engineers to help with R&D. At his current employer (also with factories in the US), things aren't much different.

The same is true for numerous other professions. A surgeon can't exist in isolation. Consider a simple total-joint-arthroplasty. There are multiple nurses and tech's in the OR with the surgeon, not to mention those in pre-op and post-op. An anesthesiologist is required for the procedure. People are employed to clean up the room after the surgery, to manufacture and sell the prosthesis, people paid to bill for the procedure, people involved in the supply chain that got the prosthesis to the hospital...and secretaries to schedule the surgery, schedule the blood donation, coordinate the OR schedule, etc....

RE: American Worker

2009-02-03T15:03:00.000-08:00

The Coalition for the Future American Worker has a new television ad stating that we are currently bringing in 1.5 million new workers, which is poor policy in a time when millions are being laid off, stating "Ask why we keep bringing in 1.5 million foreign workers a year to take American jobs."

This seems like an incredibly simplified way to approach the issue. What isn't stated in the 1.5 million figure is the number that have advanced degrees in fields such as computer science, engineering, medicine, etc... Such imports fill positions that require immigration to meet domestic needs. Personally, I think its better to have a foreign engineer residing in America--where they will pay taxes and contribute to our economy--than in India or China, promoting outsourcing. Additionally, these highly-skilled workers actually create jobs. An engineer who designs a new products creates jobs: secretaries, product testers, factory workers, people to market the product, etc... Frankly, as I've said in the past, we should be increasing the influx of these workers.

The issue of the unskilled workers is open for more debate. There certainly is overlap with many American workers, particularly those most likely to make minimum wage, but I think this is in large part a function of minimum wage restrictions...and is more than I want to type about now.

An Odd Incentive Structure

2009-01-26T04:51:00.000-08:00

One argument I often hear regarding Universal Health Care (that I rarely give much credence to) is that it is a conflict of interest to have the same people that are charged with funding your retirement be in charge of prolonging your life. In other words, it creates an incentive to provide less than stellar care, because it means a reduction in social security payouts. Again, I don't think this is a strong argument, despite the fact that it may be technically true. I just can't believe that any policies would be enacted that would see this to fruition.

However, a similar sort of conflict of interest seems to be too much for Speaker Pelosi:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government

Now, there are certainly valid reasons for wanting to extend family planning services. Similarly, I think it is valid that the state supplies services such as education and health care for children (although maybe not to quite the extent that the current congress has decided). Yet, this exchange strikes me as creepy; that the third most powerful person in our government (and one unlikely to be strongly opposed by her senate counterpart or the executive branch) believes that she should be targeting birth rates in order to balance the government's checkbook.

Again, there are certainly valid reasons to support family planning: reduce the number of abortions, promote womens health, etc... This is certainly not one.

And so it begins...

2009-01-21T18:35:00.000-08:00

He's sticking to at least one campaign promise....

U.S. President Barack Obama may order a hold on a proposal issued in the final days of the Bush administration to expand offshore drilling in previously banned areas, an Interior Department official told Reuters on Wednesday.

Shortly after being sworn in on Tuesday, Obama ordered all federal agencies and departments to halt pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff.

An Interior official said the department is waiting for clarification from the White House on whether a proposed draft of a five-year plan to lease areas in the Atlantic and Pacific waters for oil and natural gas drilling can go forward.

The link is HERE.

Born Again?

2009-01-20T07:27:00.000-08:00

To add to my previous post, this website pisses me right off. This is a perfect example of how for some people, love of country is contingent upon something else, in this case the election of Barack Obama. Sounds more like "Fair-weather Americans". Now, admittedly, this site does not express itself as a supporter of Barack Obama, nor does it claim to be Democratic. Yet, the verbage and timber makes it clear, to me, that it is so aligned.

Why should one only love their country when their party is in power? As a Republican I'm very much out of power...but I love my country nonetheless. Where were these people over the past 8 years? Did they not consider themselves American? Where will they be in 4, 8, or 12 years? Will they still consider themselves American if and when Republicans take control?

Early Thoughts on the Obama Presidency

2009-01-19T05:57:00.001-08:00

Two things have come up recently in a number of other blogs that I want to comment on.

The first is a series of pictures of Iranians burning pictures of President Obama. They've come up on a number of "conservative sites" that I frequent (as well as the few "liberal sites" I check). These were standard fare during the last 8 years, but they still pissed me off every time I saw it. What was worse was the response from many of his fellow Americans. Many people tried to justify the actions, and some people even mimicked them during protests and rallies. Now that the target of hate has changed, I'm still pissed off. I may not agree with him on many issues (I'll get to that in a second), but he's still the leader of my country and a fellow American. Fortunately the sites that have posted these images have also condemned them, something I wish the Liberal sites I read would have done over the past 8 years.

Now, to some early complaints. Awhile back, I think over at The Corner they had a discussion about the difference between conservative love of country, and liberal love of country. I think these generalizations are often very wrong, and at the time I didn't give it much merit. However, someone said that the difference was that 'conservatives love their country for what it is, what it has been, and despite its faults, while liberals love their country for what it could be'. America would be great, if only we elected Senator Obama. America would be great, if only we had universal health care. Again, I have enough liberal friends to know that this characterization is not true. However, I continually get the impression that it fits for President Obama. Throughout his campaign he talked about fundamentally changing America. More recently, on his (very humble) train trip to DC he said at one stop that "we need a new Declaration of Independence". I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that much of this is just his normal aggrandized rhetoric, but it really rubs me the wrong way. I don't think there's anything wrong with the fundamentals of our country, and I don't think we need a new Declaration of Independence. We may need to change some details, but I love my country the way it is.

What happened to Due Process?

2008-12-15T10:41:00.000-08:00

From everything I've heard, it seems pretty clear to me that Gov. Blagojavich is guilty of quite a few crimes. However, that is my opinion based on media reports, pundits, and a few synopses of the allegations. With the evidence being so damning, I'm not surprised that Illinois lawmakers are calling for the Governor to resign--whether he is found guilty or not, he cannot be an effective executive during these times.

However, I'm a little annoyed by Attorney General Madigan's push for his resignation. As the Attorney General, shouldn't the people of Illinois expect her to wait until he's seen his day in court to condemn him?

A few thoughts on Election night...

2008-11-04T18:43:00.000-08:00

Ohio has just been called for Sen. Obama, which should pretty much ensure his win. Should this hold true, we're in for at least four years of an Obama presidency. I have been (and will most likely continue to be) a critic of Sen. Obama. I disagree with his stance on many issues, and with a powerfully Democratic congress, its likely that a host of unfavorable policies will be adopted. That being said, first and foremost we are both Americans, and we both want the best for the country. President Obama will face many challenges, and I hope that he succeeds.

McCain, SF Chronicle Invite Obama

2008-07-30T09:09:00.001-07:00

The Editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle gives kudos to Senator McCain for suggesting that Sen. Obama join them in a meeting for their endorsement process.

Sen. John McCain came up with a terrific idea Monday when he was handed an invitation to meet with our editorial board as part of our endorsement process.
"Why don't you invite Senator (Barack) Obama to join me?" McCain suggested.
...
Senator McCain gets extra points for proposing a unglossed, unscripted, groundbreaking version of the presidential debate in the bluest of states and at a newspaper that last endorsed a Republican for president in 1992.

Despite reservations about many of his policies, this upfront, open aura of Sen. McCain should be a breath of fresh air to everyone. When was the last time we saw a politician who was so willing to answer questions posed by those who, by most measures, aren't likely to vote for him? Compare this to Sen. Obama refusing to attend a FOX News Debate. Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, I hope everyone can appreciate Sen. McCain's pursuit to have open dialogue.

Media Bias from around the Web

2008-07-25T06:09:00.000-07:00

Theres a lot floating around the web today concerning the media love affair with Sen. Barack Obama. While some think its a myth (e.g. the progressive site Think Progres). Well, Investors Business Daily took a look at the numbers, specifically donations to candidates by members of the media.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
...
What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

This should refute the "well, Obama's just more newsworthy" line that many espouse to refute alleged bias.

Rasmussen polling shows that more people are beginning to recognize this bias. According to their polling, 49% of people believe the media is trying to help Senator Obama (up 5 points from last month), with 14% saying that the media will try to help Senator McCain (note that this polling occurred before the New York Times refused to print McCain's op-ed). I'm not sure that these polling numbers reflect the 100:1 spending ration observed, but they do represent that the public is partially aware of the biased coverage.

Lastly, to highlight the disparity in media coverage, consider the following from the Wall Street Journal:

CNN interrupts a discussion of whether the media are in the tank for Obama for a news bulletin that Obama's plane has landed safely--a dog-bites-man story if ever there was one.

You've got to be kidding me. This is over the top, and I hope Wolf Blitzer recognizes the irony here. During a discussion on the situation room about whether the media is biased towards Sen. Obama, they interrupted the story to provide coverage of "O Force One" landing. Blitzer followed the interruption with:

All right, Sen. Obama has just arrived at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel. And upon his arrival from Amman, Jordan, he made a brief statement, reaffirming his strong support for Israel.

Cross posted at

We Are the World vs. We Are the Change

2008-07-24T11:31:00.001-07:00

From my favorite blog, The Campaign Spot, comes this challenge: Try to figure out if the following statements come from the song "We are the world" or Sen. Obama's ~~Campaign rally~~ completely not-campaign related speech in Berlin:

UPDATE: Pop quiz, hot shot. Pick out the "We Are The World" lyrics vs. Obama speech lines.

A: "We can't go on pretending day by day that someone, somewhere will soon make a change."

B: "This is the moment we must help answer the call."

C: "But if you just believe there's no way we can fall."

D. "The world will watch and remember what we do."

E. "Let us realize that a change can only come when we stand together as one."

F. "We cannot afford to be divided."

G. "These now are the walls we must tear down."

H. "This is the moment when we must come together."

I. "They'll know that someone cares, and their lives will be stronger and free."

You'll have to go HERE to see the answers. I only got 3 of 9 correct!

The Benefits of Ethnic Cleansing

2008-07-23T13:14:00.000-07:00

Note the following exchange that occurred when ABC's Terry Moran interviewed Sen. Obama :

Moran asked what Iraq would look like now if Obama's policy of withdrawing in the face of the violence had been implemented.

"That is a hard thing to speculate," Obama said, "The Sunnis might have made the same decisions at that time. The Shii’as might have made some similar decisions based on political calculation. There was ethnic cleansing in Baghdad that actually took the violence level down. And so, as I said before. Nobody has a crystal ball. If we did you just hire the guy with the crystal ball."

I haven't seen the original transcript, so this is coming via Jake Tapper of ABC blogs Political Punch.

Is the senator really going this far out of his way to avoid saying the surge was a success that he wants to credit ethnic cleansing for a 90% reduction in violence?

Cross posted at

Well Then Who Are You Talking To?

2008-07-16T06:13:00.001-07:00

In January of 2007, while still vying for the Democratic Nomination, Sen. Obama said

..we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the groundemphasis mine.

This was just one of many similar statements. It's now pretty clear that the surge has led to a reduction in violence, as McCain had predicted. It's so clear, that the Obama campaign deleted the page on their website that called the surge a "problem" and stated that "the surge is not working," and so clear that Obama is now trying to pretend that he supported it all along.

However, as we continue to see Sen. Obama ~~flip-flop~~"refine" his position on various issues, its not a surprise that he's now singing a different tune. Yet, what should be a bit of a surprise is that--if we take the Senator at his word--he didn't speak to a single "expert on the region or any military officer" that predicted the surge would work, then who has he chosen to advise him?

Presidents rely on their advisors to make informed, expert decisions. We've seen President Bush often make errors due to his advisors. If not one of the lot of Sen. Obama's military or middle-east advisors (note that this does not include Gen. Petraeus) thought the surge would help, shouldn't we be a little concerned with the Senator's judgement in selecting his advisors? Either he's chosen an incompetent group, or a group that chooses to tell him what he wants to hear.

Mandatory Volunteerism

2008-07-07T05:54:00.001-07:00

Several months ago Michell Obama said "Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed," which many of the righty blogs spouted as an intent for a totalitarian sort of Obama Administration. Frankly, it seemed like they were making a mountain out of a mole-hill and I didn't put too much stake in it. However, only several days ago, the Senator himself said the following:

Just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously. Study after study shows that students who serve do better in school, are more likely to go to college, and more likely to maintain that service as adults. So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.

We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.

For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you - that's how we're going to make sure that college is affordable for every single American, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.

I'll need to look at this piece by piece:

Just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously.

Agreed. Everyone should be proud to serve their country and community. However, I don't think that they should be required by the government to do so.

Study after study shows that students who serve do better in school, are more likely to go to college, and more likely to maintain that service as adults.

I don't doubt this for one second, yet this is only an association, and does not prove that volunteering causes college attendance. I would argue that the people who choose to volunteer are the people who are already highly likely to attend college, anyway (this is my anecdotal experience from High School, College, Medical School). Citing an association means nothing--the number of storks in the UK is decreasing, as is the birth rate...that doesn't mean that storks bring babies.

So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.

I volunteered extensively when I was in high school and into college. Often I gained a great deal of pride and honor in doing so. I'm curious if being forced to do so would have brought about the same encouraging attitude. In other words, would I have viewed it as a sacrifice to help others, or would I be bitter about it if it were compulsory?

We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.

This is the most troubling proposal to me. While the quality of instruction in our schools is deteriorating, Senator Obama is proposing that we tie funding to school district volunteer programs? I imagine that the schools in the most serious trouble, where drop-out rates are above 50% and graduation rates below 10% will have the most trouble meeting these standards, and will thus be the ones who see a reduction in funding. Does the Senator really expect students in these situations to volunteer in their communities? If he really wants to be the candidate of change, lets see some real change...like a nationwide voucher program that could realize the same successes that DC has had.

For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you - that's how we're going to make sure that college is affordable for every single American, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.

Personally I don't have much issue with this part of the plan. However, I don't see this as really making college more affordable. If this program garnered a large enough pool of students, I imagine universities would just increase their tuition accordingly. In addition, I fundamentally don't agree with subsidizing college in this manner. If the money is to be spent in such a way (tied to community service), create a system of grants or scholarships instead of just one-size-fits-all giveaways. With a scholarship or grant, it would encourage students to volunteer in meaningful ways, rather than just whatever gets them their paycheck.

Singing a Different Tune

2008-07-03T07:46:00.000-07:00

Personally, I don't believe that military service is a prerequisite for either public office or patriotism. In fact, I understand what Gen. Wesley Clark recently said, though I think the way he phrased it was a little offensive (see below). It seems as though some of Obamas supporters agree with me....though they didn't 4 years ago.

In 2004, Howard Dean said the following:

Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?

FYI, for his service, Senator McCain earned a Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, two Bronze Star Medals, a Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross

In 2004, General Wesley Clark said

John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief. ...
John Kerry is a man who in time of war can lead us as a warrior, but in times of peace, he will heed the call of scripture to lead us in beating swords into plowshares.
John Kerry will lead America with strength and wisdom. He has the will to fight. He has the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace.

Replace 'Kerry' with 'McCain' and that statement makes more sense (considering McCain demonstrated more physical courage and moral values). Quite a difference now that he is saying that "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president". Aside from a complete reversal of his earlier thoughts, this statement implies that Senator McCain was a doofus (note: "riding" is much different than "flying" a fighter plane), and makes no mention of the character that Senator McCain showed during those 5 years as a POW (google "Bud Day" for a partial account).

In 2004, former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia said "We need somebody who felt the sting of battle, not someone who didn't even complete his tour stateside in the Guard." Cleland is currently supporting Obama.

I disagreed with the Democrats in 2004. Military service should not be a prerequisite for holding public office. Yet, if they felt so strongly that it does, in 2004, why are they not supporting Senator John McCain?

Hold On, Sit Down, and Shut Up MoveOn!

2008-07-01T10:10:00.000-07:00

My weekly moveon.org e-mail newsletter asks me if I am ready for 4 more years of $4 gas, arguing that under a McCain presidency, policies would ensure that gas prices remain high (presuambly the way to lower prices is to tax those who produce it). Clearly this is debatable, as increasing supply (offshore drilling, which is favored by a fair majority of citizens), reducing ethanol requirements (which Republicans are currently attempting), and promoting alternatives (that McCain has called for) would all likely contribute to a reduction in gas prices. Reducing taxes on gasoline would immediately reduce costs, though the income would have to be made up elsewhere.

Yet, if MoveOn.org is really concerned with the high cost of Gas, they may want to direct their ire at Sen. Obama. While McCain has consistently noted the strain that high gas prices place on Americans, Obama recently said that he doesn't object to them...just wishes they had risen more gradually...and might actually be good!.

Silver Lining

2008-06-26T09:24:00.001-07:00

I see a lot of statments like "The median sales price, however, fell to $208,600, down 6.3 percent from a year ago" as a catastrophic sign that hurts everyone. While I understand that the housing market affects the entire economy, I have trouble believing that falling prices of homes are a bad thing. While it is certainly not what the owners of those homes want, it is of benefit to first-time home buyers, and will likely serve to increase their numbers.

If his Online Store is any indication.....

2008-06-24T18:59:00.000-07:00

...Then McCain will be very efficient as President.

On Monday morning I ordered two McCain notepads using his online store. When I got home from work on Tuesday, they had already arrived at my door!

When was the last time you ordered something online and it arrived the following day (without any shipping and handling charges!)?

Is this an indication of how efficient his presidency will be?

Economic Confirmation

2008-06-24T09:50:00.000-07:00

Despite my conservative viewpoint, early on in the primaries I put forth some thought into voting for one of the Democrats (I could legitimately see myself voting for Sen. Biden, and I have a lot more respect for Edwards than I do for Sens. Clinton and Obama). Part of this was my general malaise for McCains policies, part of this was my perspective that policy issues matter more for legislators than executives, and part of it was a hope that spending and government expansion would be curtailed for a little while if the Congress and White house were controlled by different parties. In other words, I wouldn't be as opposed to a Democrat in the White House if I knew that Republicans would be in congress (think 1996 Welfare reform).

It didn't take too long to realize that Biden and Edwards didn't have a shot for President, and Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell to regain a majority in either chamber of congress. Its most likely that we'll have a spend-happy Democrat in the oval office, working with a Democratic congress, and government spending will be even worse that it was from 2000 to 2006. What should we expect?

Obama has not made balanced budgets a priority. Instead, he promises numerous tax cuts likely to make the situation worse, including subsidies for education, child care, homeownership, "savers" and people who work. Obama also vows to extend the Bush tax cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 a year. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of Brookings and the Urban Institute, his tax plans would deprive the Treasury of nearly $900 billion in his first term, and increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion by 2018. ..
"I suspect that McCain will be more constrained and will have a veto power over the Democratic Congress," said Alice M. Rivlin, who served as the first director of the Congressional Budget Office, as well as one of Clinton's budget directors. "If it's Obama, the Democratic Congress is going to be pushing for spending and it's awfully hard to rein in your own folks. No Democrat is going to want to go to war with Congress." Emphasis mine

Hooray.

FISA doublespeak

2008-06-24T08:51:00.000-07:00

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
-Bill Burton, Obama Campaign spokesman
October 24, 2007

"There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority... But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program"
-Sen. Obama, speaking after the passage of the bill
June 20, 2008

"He has talked repeatedly about making sure somebody watches the watchers. I don’t think you should necessarily trust an Obama Administration anymore than you should trust a Bush Administration or a McCain Administration."
-Robert Gibbs, Obama Spokesman
June 23, 2008

So, just to keep everything straight....Obama promised to filibuster something, but didn't. He believes that President Bush broke the law on FISA, and promises that as President, he won't do that....but his Spokesman says he's no more trustworthy than Bush. Is that right?

Jim Geraghty over at National Review recognizes the contradiction here, too

Respect for the Dead, and Lessons from our Mothers

2008-06-17T07:11:00.000-07:00

When I was a child, my mother told me that 'if I didn't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all'. It's cliche, but its true. While I certainly haven't lived up to that advice, I've never sunk as low as Marc Cooper, who seems to have taken a great deal of offense that Tim Russert passed away on Friday. Cooper comments on how he "cashed in" by writing about his father (who Mr. Cooper shows serious contempt for), and rates Russert as a "just above median" journalist. Unlike Marc Cooper, Russert truly was a fabulous journalist. He was tough to everyone, including Obama.

The inexplicable amount of air time devoted to Russert's death surely was laced with some potent self-pity by the networks themselves. In the sudden death of Tim Russert they no doubt caught a passing glimpse and reflection of a fate they fear for themselves.

Possibly, Mr. Cooper. However, I would say that it is far more likely that the amount of airtime was a reflection of the widespread respect and admiration for a truly great colleague. I don't think Tom Brokaw tearing up was a reflection of his own mortality. I think he, like so many others, was grieving the loss of a friend.

Anymore, cable news is about partisan bickering. Nothing is fair, and nothing is neutral. Yet, Tim Russert was equally tough to all comers. I suggest Marc Cooper show some respect for dead.

Common Sense

2008-06-06T09:24:00.000-07:00

I'm currently reading Gross National Happiness by Arthur Brooks (also the author of Who Really Cares). The premise of the book is how the things in life do (or don't) bring us happiness. Topics include family, friends, money, etc... The following section really rang true with me:

It is one thing to charge our government with helping us band together as citizens to take care of the most vulnerable. The mentally ill, for example, who do not have strong private support, truly deserve our help in a civilized society, and we cannot realistically rely on private charity to meet that need. It is another thing entirely to demand that the state take care of the rest of us--able-bodied, sound-minded, once-independent Americans--guaranteeing our wages and providing our medicines for free. This is to treat us like children. There is little freedom in the nanny state, and we can expect little happiness there, either.
It is one thing to entrust the government with the financing of massive relief efforts, such as rebuilding a city in the wake of a hurricane. But it is another thing to ask the government to meet every social want and need, from our desire for symphony orchestras to our longing for amateur sports leagues. The attitude is depressingly common that, if something is important to us, the government ought to provide it. The
ever-growing social welfare net diminishes our freedom by giving us less power to solve our own problems. It also places our social preferences in the hands of public servants--well-intentioned, perhaps, but with preferences of their own to pursue with our dollars.
It is obviously appropriate to invest the government with the responsibility to protect our nation against real dangers, such as the invasion of a foregin army or an attack on our interests abroad. But this is not the same thing as expecting governments--creating new bureaucracies in their
earnestness--to pacify us with ineffective security measures or to protect us from ourselves in the course of normal risks in our day-to-day lives. The dignity of the goal of defeating worldwide terrorism is hopelessly degraded when, in the next breath, we declare war on helmetless motorcycle riding and secondhand smoke. Osama bin Laden is a threat to America; trans fats in our food are an annoyance. We need to protest when our government fails to makes [sic] these distinctions and uses spurious logic to justify trading away our happiness. [emphasis mine].

Surprising Trends for Youth Risk

2008-06-05T12:58:00.001-07:00

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) released data on trends of of Youth Risk behavior this week with some surprising and encouraging findings. As someone who was a student during the 90's, my impression has been that since 2000 (when I graduated) students have become more sexually active and use drugs and alcohol at a greater rate than when I was in school. However, the figures from the CDC report indicate that youth behaviors are actually improving in many regards.

With the exception of inhalant use, the CDC summary indicates that the use of drugs has dropped over the past several years, following increases between 1991 and 1999. However, the summary I saw did not include prescription medication abuse, which I imagine has substantially increased (this is anecdotal, based on recent experience tutoring high-school students in Marin County).

What was more surprising to me were the changes in sexual behavior. During High School I was involved with STARS (Students Today Aren't Ready for Sex), and abstinence education program for middle schoolers. I'll note that I actually don't support abstinence-only education, which is why the findings are so surprising to me. While abstinence-only education has been on the rise since 1996, several markers of youth sexual behavior are improving.

Here is a summary of the summary:

Fewer youth report ever having sex
Fewer youth have had sex with more than four partners
The number of youth who used a condom at the last sexual encounter has been increasing
Fewer youth have been taught about HIV/AIDS

The first three of those findings are very encouraging, indicating that youth are acting more responsibly towards sexual activity. However, the fact that fewer students are being taught about HIV/AIDS is certainly worrisome. This may be due to the fact that AIDS is no longer the death sentence that it was in the late 80's and early 90's. This is a concept that we have talked about at length in medical school. Because it can be treated fairly effectively now, many people see it as a chronic disease as opposed to a death sentence and are not as fearful about contracting it. This may be an explanation why it has fallen out of favor in sex education. Regardless of the reason, this should be an avenue for further improvement.

Of course, none of this proves that abstinence-only education is the cause of the improvement, but it does open my eyes a little.

A WTF moment, brought to you by Gloria Borger

2008-06-02T19:21:00.001-07:00

I like Gloria Borger, the CNN political analyst, quite a bit. I imagine that we wouldn't agree on a lot politically, but she srikes me as someone who is willing to give spinless and objective commentary, despite her political beliefs (this seems to be a rare commodity on ANY cable news network these days). Nonetheless, I have to comment on this.

Tonight on AC 360, while discussing the possibility of Sen. Clinton getting the Veep nomination with Obama, Gloria suggested that 'there are plenty of positions other than Vice president that Obama could promise her; like Secretary of Defense." Really, Gloria Borger? Secretary of Defense? Really?

Can you hear me now?

2008-05-26T22:29:00.000-07:00

Almost two years ago I blogged about how I felt changes in the US immigration policy concerning Cubans could help bring revolution to Cuba. My thoughts were drawn from The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky. One of the theses of the book is that Jewish dissidence from within the USSR sufficiently destabilized the already weak country, contributing to its collapse. Another concept presented within the book is that totalitarian regimes can only persist by making an external villain (such as the US).

Recently Raul Castro has eased Cuban restrictions on the use of cellular phones, and in response President Bush says he will allow Americans to send cell phones to family members in Cuba.

Bush said he is making the change since President Raúl Castro "is allowing Cubans to own mobile phones for the first time."
"If he is serious about his so-called reforms, he will allow these phones to reach the Cuban people," Bush said. (LINK

It may not be apples-to-apples, but I could see this change as being one more step towards a more free Cuba. Expanding phone services and promoting further exchange of information between Cubans and their American relatives may highlight to Cubans the freedoms we have in (most of) the rest of the world, potentially strengthening the resolve for change from within.

I certainly don't think it would be nearly as effective as granting refugee status to any and all fleeing Cubans, I do see this as a step in the right direction. If only the same steps could be taken within North Korea.

Obamas relationships

2008-05-01T08:14:00.000-07:00

I listen to a lot of talk radio, on both sides of the aisle, though mostly of my own political persuasion. It seems to be the majority opinion that Obamas relationships with Wright, Ayers, et. al. should not be a consideration. Frankly, I don't buy it. I agree that his association with such characters doesn't imply that he shares their views, but it does raise questions why he has chosen to associate with people like this. If McCain had a 20 year history of a close relationship with someone like David Duke, it would be a major concern for voters--and rightfully so. So, when Obama associates with Wright and an unapologetic terrorist, it makes me uneasy.

Misleadingly misleading

2008-04-28T07:43:00.001-07:00

I received an e-mail from Howard Dean concerning John McCain's now infamous "100 years" statement. The e-mail reads:

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He's said it, and it's on tape.

But his campaign hates that he was caught. They've viciously attacked anyone who reminded the American people that he said it, including me. They've said that those who reference the 100 years comments are "deliberately misleading voters."

So we've taken John McCain's own words -- video of him saying that 100 years would be "fine with me" -- and made a TV ad. There's no confusion, no distortion, no misleading -- it's John McCain, on tape, for voters to judge on their own./

So, what does the ad show? a small fraction of the entire quote:

QUESTION FROM AUDIENCE: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years..

McCAIN: Maybe a hundred....That'd be fine with me.

The audio is then followed by a shot of two soldiers being blown up. Just for fun, lets look at the full quote:

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

So, Mr. Dean. Let me get this straight. Taking of 8 words out of an 88 word response, splicing them together, while dropping the remainder of the sentence, and tacking on video of a soldier being injured (which was addressed in the original answer) isn't misleading? Okay, lets try the shoe on the other foot.

Original quote from Obama's "monumental" speech on race:

I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man....Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans".

Okay, now lets see what our non-misleading spliced, out of reference quote looks like next to some clearly appropriate pictures:

Killing in the name of....

2008-04-25T08:10:00.000-07:00

Environmentalism.

I do care about the earth, and I do believe that we should be careful stewards of it. When I see someone litter, I tell them. I recycle, use biodegradable products, and when I don't need a bag at the grocery store, I don't take one. Prior to moving to Cleveland, my wife and I paid extra on our electricity bill in order to purchase electricity generated by wind and solar. However, I am skeptical of policies that are intended to protect the environment because there are unintended (but not necessarily unseen) consequences that often severely hurt people.

For example, consider the recent government regulation that inhalers, such as those used to supply albuterol, be CFC free. CFC's are Chloro Fluoro Carbons, and they catalyze the destruction of Ozone. Albuterol is a rescue medication that opens your airways during an asthma attack. Without it, an asthma attack can be fatal.

So, what was the unintended consequence of the change? "it could amount to a 200 percent to 400 percent increase in out-of-pocket costs for insured patients. This may impact the quality of care and general health of all children with asthma". This shouldn't be a surprise.

Help or Hurt?

2008-04-09T08:20:00.000-07:00

CNN, in its infinite neutrality, will be hosting a "Compassion Forum" soon, to provide Sens. Obama and Clinton the opportunity to discuss faith and compassion. When I first saw a commercial for this, my initial reaction was that it seemed a bit unfair to provide such a forum for the Democrat nominees, without regard to Senator McCain. For the majority of Americans, religion is an important issue when it comes to picking a president, and thus it would seem to be advantageous to provide such an uplifting forum to only one side of the aisle.

However, on second thought, this could really be a double-edged sword. While a discussion of one's faith would normally make a candidate more likable, more human, and clearly more compassionate, both candidates may have trouble focusing on this side of the discussion. Clearly Obama will have to face some questions concerning his controversial mentor, Rev. Wright, as well as the lingering "are you a muslim" question that always seems to come up (despite being completely bogus).

However, Hillary may have some trouble, as well. Remember her "Today is a day the Lord has made" statement? Her words were strained, and she appeared so incredibly uncomfortable talking about her faith. If she's going to get any boost out of this "compassion forum", she's going to have to speak of her faith comfortably.

My Immigration Policy

2008-04-05T16:13:00.000-07:00

Summer is coming up soon, which means the season to discuss illegal immigration again. Republicans and sound-minded independents are going to discuss the need to stop the illegal influx of foreigners across our borders. Soon, those opposed to illegal-activity will be endlessly called racists, the line "jobs that Americans won't do" will be used, debated, and argued ad nauseum, those sympathetic to 'the cause' will drop the word "illegal" from their vocabulary in favor of "undocumented" (as in "I'm an undocumented pharmaceutial supplier"), and millions will take to the streets to demonstrate why illegal activity is okay. Before all this gets underway, I'm going to state again my general policy on immigration.

1. Illegal immigration is illegal. Nuff said.
2. We currently only allow roughly 1 million legal immigrants per year (2007 saw 1,052,415) into a country of roughly 300 million! In my opinion, this is far too low. Immigration (of the legal variety) is a boon for America. It adds to our diversity, improves our innovation, and lets those from around the world experience the American dream. That being said, this number should be expanded several fold. I'd suggest at least 3 million per year, and personally I'd like to see 5 million.
3. Skilled and educated applicants for green cards should be fast tracked. I support them being prioritized (as they already are).
4. Employers of illegal immigrants should be penalized appropriately. That being said, they must be given the tools to verify status.

That's pretty much it. I've said it before, and I'm saying it again now. What's your policy?

More Kudos

2008-04-05T11:28:00.000-07:00

This line by Hillary makes me laugh everytime I hear it.

“I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

Kudos to Hillary

2008-04-04T09:21:00.000-07:00

Because I don't often agree with elected democrats (I find it easy to find common ground with democrats in the general public, mostly), I think its important to make a point of it when I do agree. Hillary Clinton was on Jay Leno last night, and the following exchange struck me:

JAY LENO: Well, that's really true because I ‑‑ this is a pet thing of mine. I have some scholarships that I set up for kids that want be to be mechanics.

HILLARY CLINTON: Good for you.

JAY LENO: Because you can make a lot of money working in mechanics. In our society unless you're working on a computer, oh, if you're a transmission specialist, these guys make $150,000 a year about. Somehow that's looked down "Oh, you got your hands dirty." That seems so wrong.

HILLARY CLINTON: Boy, Jay, I wish you would talk about this on your show all the time. It's one of my causes because, you know, try to find, you know, a plumber, a carpenter ‑‑ we have so devalued and disrespected the work that a lot of people don't go into it, and these are not only good jobs, these are really important jobs...

I agree with her (and Jay) whole-heartedly, and I really commend Hillary for offering such a scholarship. This is in sharp contrast to Obama saying that 'every child should go to college', and this sort of attitude likely contributes to the fact that her message is resonating so well with working class people.

McDermott...not quite clear on the Constitution

2008-04-03T10:22:00.000-07:00

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) has been ordered to pay Rep. John Boehner over $1 Million over a lawsuit from 1998. This stems from the fact that McDermott leaked an illegally recorded tape of Boehner speaking to Newt Gingrich. The tape was recorded by a Florida couple, who wiretapped Boehner's cell phone, supplied the tape to McDermott who leaked it to the press. The irony of the fact that McDermott has voted against the FISA wiretaps deigned to stop terrorists, yet supports individuals illegally wiretapping the phones of elected officials isn't lost on me. Anyhow, McDermott's statement concerning the decision is interesting:

"While the amount of damages assessed in this case is significant, I submit that defending the First Amendment is beyond measure and worth every penny,” McDermott said in a statement, adding, “With the end of this case, another threat against the First Amendment has been met and turned back.”LINK

Funny, I though Illegal search and Seizure was the fourth amendment, not the firts.

Obama's Racial Pandering

2008-03-19T09:17:00.001-07:00

Listening to Obama's speech yesterday was just infuriating. Not because of what he said in the speech, but because of what he has said in the past.

Last year I posted about his racially charged comments implying that racists are Republicans.

Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics,” he said.

(Full Story)

Ever since then I have considered him a man who, at least in part, defines himself and everyone else by race, backed up by statements he made in his first book, that

he and a black friend would sometimes speak disparagingly “about white folks this or white folks that, and I would suddenly remember my mother's smile, and the words that I spoke would seem awkward and false.”

As a result, he concluded that “certain whites could be excluded from the general category of our distrust."

. Frankly, I wasn't surprised that Obama was a patron of a church that was so focused on race. What infuriates me is for Obama to somehow imply--against his former statements and memoirs--that he is an authority on positive race relations and that he will bring unity. You don't unite by calling your opponents racists.

A more accurate logo

2008-03-17T06:57:00.000-07:00

I made this image to put on a T-shirt. Comments?

Quick thoughts on Nader

2008-03-17T06:47:00.000-07:00

Most people agree that had Nader not run in 2000 Al Gore would have won the presidency. I suppose there are many "what-if's", but considering the narrow margin of victory in Florida, this seems pretty clear. Nader received almost 3% of the popular vote that year. Four years later, in 2004, he received less than half of 1%, pretty much not a factor.

Now that he has thrown his hat into the ring for the 2008 cycle, many are predicting that he will again not gain sufficient support and won't influence the general election, much like 2004. I have a different theory, that his running will more closely resemble 2000 than 2004.

In 2000, George W. Bush was not the divisive figure that he was in 2004. "Bush Derangement Syndrome" was an unknown term. Whether it was Bush or Gore, 2.74% were ambivalent and decided to cast their vote for Nader to make a statement. By 2004 the hatred for Bush took over, and people may have considered Kerry the lesser of two evils--they may not have liked him, but they hated Bush. I think Independents were more prone to vote for a third party in 2000.

Now, here we are in 2008. The Democratic party is doing whatever it can to disenfranchise it's electorate. As much as Howard Dean likes to say that McCain will just be a third Bush term, most Americans recognize that this is just Rhetoric. Thus, I don't think Bush hatred will keep people away from McCain. In short, we are in a situation more similar to 2000 than 2004, and I think Nader could receive a few percentage points in the popular vote...perhaps enough to determine the outcome again.

Long time no See

2008-03-16T09:05:00.000-07:00

I've been absent from the blogosphere for quite some time now. I started Medical school in July 2007 and have been, understandably busy. Anyhow, with the campaigns heating up it's time to get back in the game.

Feel free to leave me a comment.

Primary Cluster for the Democrats

2008-03-16T08:57:00.000-07:00

The Democrats are scrambling, trying to figure out a way to have "do-over" primaries in Michigan and Florida that are fair to each of the candidates and are as "delicate" and "diplomatic" as possible. Unfortunately for them, Howard Dean has painted the party into a corner, and the party will be hurt no matter their decision.

Dean and the DNC originally punished Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries up by stripping them of all of their delegates. In contrast, the Republicans stripped only half of the delegates. This was a much smarter decision, because it served it's purpose as a punishment, but both states still saw the Republican candidates campaign for votes in the states. On the other side of the ticket, the Democrats didn't bother to campaign in those states, which likely left a bitter taste in the mouths of many democrats.

Now Dean is trying to figure out a way to redo the primaries in these two states. The result of this decision, in light of an incredibly close democratic primary, will be to make these states even more important than they would have been! Talk about backfire. What's worse for the Dem's, is that by changing the rules, there is the very real possibility that the decisive results in these two "punished" states might upset voters in other states.

Way to go Dean.

Putting 2 and 2 together

2007-10-31T10:40:00.000-07:00

During the course of this week, Dennis Kucinich made two interesting comments:

1. Sen. Kucinich questioned President Bush' mental health (LINK).
2. During the Tuesday night debate, Sen. Kucinich agreed that he has seen a UFO, stating "It was an unidentified flying object, OK? It's, like, it's unidentified. I saw something." (LINK)

Regarding the UFO, he allegedly "felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind." I'm not surprised.

Does Giuliani stand the best chance in a general election?

2007-09-12T11:08:00.000-07:00

CNN is running a story about Fred Thompson running neck-and neck with Rudy Giuliani in a recent poll. What's interesting about this is the distinction in demographics of supporters between the two candidates.

Specifically, Thompson leads among men, southerners, voters age 50 and older and ideological conservatives. Conversely, Giuliani leads among women, voters in the Northeast and Midwest, voters under 50 and self-described GOP moderates

With this in mind, it would seem that Republicans should be supporting Giuliani.

It is unlikely that if Giuliani gets the GOP nomination, current Thompson supporters will vote Democrat. However, the demographics of Giuliani supporters are very similar to those of those who support the democratic candidates (particularly Clinton). It is conceivable that should Thompson get the GOP nomination that many current Giuliani supporters would vote democrat. Thus, does Giuliani have the best chance to win the General Election?

Healthy San Francisco: Poor Prognosis

2007-08-15T04:17:00.000-07:00

San Francisco recently instituted a beta version of a city-wide Universal Health Care plan aimed at covering the city's roughly 82,000 uninsured. The SF Chronicle is reporting on the "success" of the program on the basis that they enrolled their 1,000th member (the cap) earlier than anticipated. Personally, I don't find it surprising that people clammored to get something free. Anyone who's ever been to free bobble-head night at phone-company-stadium knows that.

The program is expected to cost $200 million annually, a figure which California Conservative has a few choice thoughts about.

Quick math: $200MM/82,000 = $2,440/per person/annually.

Now, let’s say we’re just talking about only needing a checkup, basic yearly physical. Throw in dentist and optometrist visit. What does that come to? $300/per visit = $900. Let’s round it up to $1000. That leaves $1,400+ being applied elsewhere. Where? More bureaucracy

Unfortunately it's not that simple. On average, health care spending in the US is on the order of $6,500 per person. Thus, to insure those 82,000 would cost over half a billion dollars. That doesn't include the inevitable expansion of the program, considering it doesn't exclude on the basis of immigration status.

And now we've reached the crux of the situation. San Francisco could not manage to impose such massive tax increases at once. So, the program has been initiated with very limited coverage. I anticipate that every year the city will add to the list of services, all at a cost to taxpayers.

On the Draft

2007-08-14T07:12:00.001-07:00

There has been a lot of talk of the reintroduction of the draft in the near future consequent to the "Iraq War Czar", Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, stating that it be "I think it makes sense to certainly consider it". President Bush has consistently stated--and has repeated as of late--that he opposes the institution a draft. Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton took the opportunity to send a letter to President Bush asking him to clarify his position. Barack Obama has jumped on board with this opportunistic questioning, as well.

I have always opposed the draft, because I feel that it is a stunningly inappropriate way to enlist people. Today, Steven Levitt of Freakonomics fame has a great explanation of why a military draft doesn't make sense from an ecocnomics standpoint.

The idea that a draft presents a reasonable solution is completely backwards. First, it puts the “wrong” people in the military — people who are either uninterested in a military life, not well equipped for one, or who put a very high value on doing something else. From an economic perspective, those are all decent reasons for not wanting to be in the military. (I understand that there are other perspectives — for example, a sense of debt or duty to one’s country — but if a person feels that way, it will be factored into his or her interest in military life.)
One thing markets are good at is allocating people to tasks. They accomplish this through wages. As such, we should pay U.S. soldiers a fair wage to compensate them for the risks they take! A draft is essentially a large, very concentrated tax on those who are drafted.

Obviously the draft is a bad idea, and fortunately it is one that President Bush has opposed. What's not clear is why Clinton and Obama didn't make such a fuss when Rep. Rangel proposed the reinstitution of the Draft

Cross Posted at 123Beta

MoveOn et. al. Attack FoxNews Advertisers

2007-08-12T09:28:00.000-07:00

From Foxnews.com,

MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.

...

The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.

"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said.

Funny, I thought it was the Bush Administration that was silencing critics (although I've never heard how exactly they are doing this). I don't particularly care for Fox News, so I don't watch it. However, these liberal groups are apparently not content to simply not watch Fox News, they feel the need to punish those small businesses that advertise on the network. Of course, Adam Green, the spokesman for Moveon.org says "We're not trying to silence anybody." That is, of course, completely bogus and transparent.

Romney Wins Ames

2007-08-12T05:08:00.001-07:00

Not a surprise, to be sure, but another accomplishment for the Presidential hopeful. I think it helps boost a campaign that has lost a lot of its earlier momentum, and I hope that this will show people around the country that Romney really has what it takes to be our next President.

I was also glad to see Mike Huckabee do so well, coming in second place. While I'm not convinced that he has what it takes to win a general election, I really like Mike. I think he should be on all of the top tier's radar as a potential running mate.

The Government can save Detroit by butting out

2007-08-08T09:13:00.000-07:00

Dick Morris has some criticism for Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority in congress, stating that they have failed to address the issues they criticised Republicans over. He specifically states their failure to address a mandatory increase in mileage standards for US automobiles.

The latest example is Pelosi’s refusal to bring up a bill with higher mileage per gallon standards for US autos. Detroit’s opposition to the proposal, and labor’s complicity, are a key reason why foreign cars outsold American made vehicles in the US market last month.

Pelosi is as much a slave to the special interests as Hastert was. And Dingell, the Michigan Congressman who blocks higher fuel efficiency standards (and therefore will not save Detroit from itself)...

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Morris, and typically find him very estute. However, I have difficulty believing that the government knows what US automakers should produce better than the US automakers do. While it is true that US automakers are struggling, it is not caused by their lack of understanding of what products to produce. Rather, a large part of their problem is the requirement of union labor. For example, GM pays nearly thrice the amount of health benefits for its employees than Toyota pays for it's American workers (not to mention the higher wages and other benefits). Such costs prevent the US automakers from producing competetively priced products. US tariffs on steel (and other commodities)
further increase costs, and further harm American automakers.

If the answer to US automakers' troubles was simply to produce more fuel-efficient cars, the free market would have steered them in that direction. Policy shouldn't dictate what needs to be produced, the market should. Ford, GM, Dodge, and others will be much more perceptive to demand than Pelosi and Kucinich.

It is naive to assume that the government has to "save Detroit from itself". The government--with policies supported by Democrats such as Pelosi--has set the stage for the US automakers troubles and inability to compete. Like so often, the answer is less government, not more.

Out of the frying pan...

2007-08-02T13:28:00.000-07:00

As people who have read my blog know, I have been an avid opponent of measures within California to institute single-payer (aka socialized) medicine. Aside from the premise being unsustainable and deleterious to American health care, the bill that would impose this upon the Golden State, SB 840, is full of inconsistencies, misleading statements, and ambiguous language that would set the tone for massive tax increases.

I recently moved to Ohio to begin medical school and now find myself in the hornets nest of single-payer activists. So far I've managed to restrain myself, but I will likely be using this blog to vent.

Absent

2007-07-20T03:32:00.000-07:00

It's been awhile since I have last posted any of my thoughts or rants, but I have a good excuse. In early July I was accepted to Medical school. Great news, to be sure, but I was only given ~9 days to move across the country to start! I made it, classes are going well, but some aspects of my life had suffered, such as keeping up with current events and many of my favorite blogs. I think it's just a temporary hiatus.

Gov. Romney the steady Tortoise

2007-06-14T11:53:00.000-07:00

From The Pollster

I have to add that Mitt Romney is looking like the steady tortoise to the other hares. His trend has remained steadily up despite a number of mistakes earlier. He hasn't enjoyed even a moment of Thompson's "surge", but he's also escaped downturns. His current Iowa and New Hampshire polling also looks good. He has a very far ways to go to emerge in first place, but this far out you might like that long term positive trend.

I know that Romney has been advertising in these markets, but he has been the clear winner of the three debates, is consistently polled to be the most likable, and as more people see who he is and what he believes, I think his support will grow.

George Will on the Economy

2007-06-14T08:40:00.000-07:00

In High School I considered myself a Democrat, committed to compassionate pursuits. It wasn't until I began to understand the theory of tax cuts, and how it works to stimulate the economy--particularly the poor--that I began to become a Republican. In short order I was a free-marker Republican, and have been since. George F. Will's column from a few days ago reminds me of the stark contrast between the parties, and the primary reason why I chose to register as a Republican.

In 2002, when [the Bush] tax cuts kicked in and the economy began 65 months -- so far -- of uninterrupted growth, critics said: But it is a "jobless recovery." When the unemployment rate steadily declined -- today it is 4.5 percent; time was, 6 percent was considered full employment -- critics said: Well, all right, the economy is growing and creating jobs and wealth, but the wealth is not being distributed in accordance with the laws of God or Nature or liberalism or something.
...
Twenty-three months after the next president is inaugurated, the Bush tax cuts expire. The winner of the 2008 election and her or his congressional allies will determine what is done about the fact that, unless action is taken, in 2011 the economy will be walloped:

The five income tax brackets (10, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent) will be increased 50, 12, 10.7, 9.1 and 13.1 percent, respectively, to 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6 percent. The child tax credit reverts to $500 from $1,000. The estate tax rate, which falls to zero in 2009, will snap back to a 60 percent maximum, and exemptions that have increased will decrease. The capital gains rate will rise, and the marriage penalty will be revived, as will the double taxation of dividends.

What is most notable about this is that the lowest-income tax bracket will undergo the greatest tax increase, by percentage.

Democrats ... can send their tax agenda to the president and dare him to veto it. They can, but they won't. Do you wonder why?

Are Republicans Dissatisfied with Presidential Field?

2007-06-12T16:09:00.000-07:00

I've heard a lot about how Republicans are dissatisfied with the current field of GOP candidates, while Democrats are generally satisfied. This is based on polling data, and is often being presented as clear evidence that a Democrat will win the general election in 2008. A CBS News Poll found that 57% of Democrats are satisfied with their field, while only 40% of Republicans are satisfied. Newsweek found that77% of Democrats satisfied and only 52% of Republicans satisfied.

While I would agree that many Republicans are upset with their party as of late, I do not think that these are signs that this is necessarily the Democrats' election to lose. I am curious if the state of satisfaction has something to do with the diverse experiences that the Republican field has to offer.

At first glance at the two Presidential fields, I see a great deal of political diversity amongst the GOP field. The GOP field front-runners (Romney, Giuliani, McCain, F. Thompson) are comprised of a Governor, a Mayor, and two Senators. Outside of politics they are a successful businessman and Executive, a lawyer, a war-veteran, and an actor. The Democratic field (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) is comprised of lawyers turned Senator. Their stance on many big issues is very similar to one another(Nationalized health-care, out of Iraq, etc...). To this end, I see a wider range of choice in the GOP field, which may play some role in the dissatisfaction amongst Republicans.

In The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz makes a compelling argument why more choice is not necessarily better. With an increased number of choices, we perceive a greater opportunity cost by not choosing one of the other options. Furthermore, Schwartz offers several examples of how when faced with more choice people are less satisfied, less likely to make a decision, and typically less satisfied with their decision! With such diverse choice for a Republican candidate, we would expect based on Schwartz' evidence that it would lead to dissatisfaction.

Testament to this is the countless head-to-head match-ups between Democratic front-runners and Republican front-runners. While the Democrat wins most of these match-ups, it is not by the same margin that they lead when it comes to satisfaction.

Price Gouging is REAL

2007-06-12T08:51:00.000-07:00

...but it's not by big oil.

According to the USDA, 2007 tomato production was up from 2006 by 7.8%, from 35,854,000 cwt of tomato production in 2006 to 38,648,000 cwt in 2007. Yet, while production is up 7.7%, domestic per-capita use was essentially static. An increased supply without an increased demand typically serves to reduce costs, yet that is not what American tomato-eaters are seeing. In fact, tomato prices are up 8.6% from 2006, "Most of the state's packers have agreed to a $63 per ton price....The $63 price compares with the $58 base paid in 2006 and approximately $50 over the previous four years". The 2007 price is up 26% from the $50 per ton price from the previous four years.

It should also be noted that these crops are subsidized, up to $360,000 per farmer! Why is there no investigation into price-gouging and collusion among tomato farmers? Where is Chuck Schumer demanding a senate investigation?

Should there be NO Foreign Trade?

2007-06-10T14:11:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton apparently does not support a trade agreement with South Korea, saying it "would harm the U.S. automotive industry and put American jobs at risk." Strange. While American automakers that utilize union labor continue to be forced to layoff workers and are unable to compete with foreign companies, companies like Toyota are flourishing, despite doing a lot of their manufacturing in the US. Toyota continues to grow, to great benefit to the US economy. I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me that union restrictions and demands seem to do more harm to the automobile industry than foreign trade.

Embryonic Stem Cell Funding

2007-06-07T12:02:00.000-07:00

Today Congress has passed legislation easing restrictions posed on federal funding of Embryonic Stem Cell research, sure to bring about a Veto by President Bush who has opposed such funding since his Presidency began.

Spoiling for a veto fight, Congress cleared legislation Thursday easing restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The House vote to send the measure to President Bush was 247-176, short of the level needed to override a second veto in as many years on the issue....
...
The president made his position clear weeks ago when he said the legislation “crosses a moral line that I and many others find troubling.”

I have a great deal of difficulty taking a stand on one side or another of the moral issues involved with embryonic stem cell research, but that aside, I find it easy to take a strong position against any government funding for it.

There are many political issues with strong moral implications. These include embryonic stem cell funding, capital punishment, gay marriage, physician-assisted suicide, etc... While I often (not always) find my stance aligned with the Republican party's stance, I reach my conclusion on these issues from a different perspective. When moral issues are involved, it is my strong belief that the government should not involve itself, unless to impose restrictions. Funding for such programs implies that the government sanctions these potentially immoral acts. This is important because it implies that the government is speaking for those it represents, and that is a truly troubling scenario for those who hold a different moral opinion.

In the case of embryonic stem cell research, for example, I think it should be left to private industry to fund research. As soon as $1 of government money goes towards it, then every taxpaying American is complicit in funding this research, against the will of a great deal of people who may consider it highly immoral.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French Ronald Reagan?

2007-06-01T15:32:00.000-07:00

Not quite. However, it's becoming apparent that Nicolas Sarkozy, France's newly elected President, will be a strong leader for France. He is utilizing free-market ideals to reform a country in despair, and doing so with overwhelming public opinion. via National Business Review:

In addition to reforming the 35-hour policy, Mr Sarkozy has indicated that he wants to increase incentives for working overtime (via tax breaks), reduce income taxes across the board, and exempt much of the population from inheritance tax. He will also have to try to cut France’s fiscal deficit and lower the public debt-to-GDP ratio, which, at 66 per cent, exceeds the 60 per cent ceiling imposed by the European Union

Sarkozy plans on capping an individuals tax payments at 50%, and making mortgage payments tax deductible as well. Watch as France's productivity, tax revenue, and GDP all increase. Watch the unemployment rate--currently at 8.7%--plummet.

I don't know about you, but I feel like a croissant.

Shamnesty Bill

2007-06-01T11:01:00.000-07:00

Charles Krauthammer writes in the Washington Post about the shamnesty bill that is, unfortunately, working it's way through congress despite opposition by a majority of americans.

Until now we've had a special category for highly skilled, world-renowned and indispensable talent. Great musicians, athletes and high-tech managers come in today under the EB-1 visa.

This apparently is going to be abolished in the name of an idiotic egalitarianism.I suspect this provision is a kind of apology for one of the few very good ideas in the bill -- taking skill, education and English proficiency into account rather than just family ties, thus cutting back on a chain migration system in which a Yemeni laborer can bring over an entire clan while the engineers and teachers desperate to get here languish in the old country.

The price for this lurch into rationality appears to be the abolition of the VIP fast track, which constitutes less than 2 percent of total immigration and, from the point of view of the national interest, is the most valuable. This staggeringly stupid idea is reason alone to vote against the immigration bill

As if there weren't already reason enough.

I agree with Mr. Krauthammer, that it is in our national interest to promote, invite, and fast-track the immigration of highly skilled immigrants. That's not to say we should deny immigration to the downtrodden who are seeking to come here for prosperity, freedom, and everything else that America has to offer. Too many in the debate discuss immigration as one-or-the-other, and that seems to be apparent in the decision to abolish the EB-1 visa that would put Albert Einstein right to the back of the line (thus the title of Krauthammer's op-ed).

Morris on State Vs. Federal Polls

2007-06-01T09:30:00.000-07:00

Dick Morris has a great talent of predicting the future landscape of politics, and has an interesting take on interpreting the myriad of polls regarding the 2008 presidential race.

National surveys of the presidential races in each party have remained relatively consistent since early in the year. As soon as Giuliani announced his candidacy, he jumped out to a big lead in the Republican primary, an advantage he still enjoys, although recent signs indicate a possible tightening of the contest. John McCain continues to run second, with Mitt Romney mired in a distant third place
...
But the state-by-state surveys show a very different picture. Romney, buried in the national polls, not only shows the expected lead in his neighboring state of New Hampshire, but also leads the pack in Iowa, while John McCain shows unusual strength in South Carolina. On the Democratic side, Edwards runs ahead in Iowa and Hillary often polls a distant third.

So which set of polls is predictive — the national surveys or the polling in the early-primary states?
...
My bet is that the national will trump the local.

I have a lot of respect for Dick Morris, but I am not in full agreement. I see the disparate poll results on the GOP side as little more than an indication of name recognition. Rudy likely took the early lead predominantly because of name recognition, which is precisely the reason that Gov. Romney has lagged. However, Romney was able to take the lead in raising funds. When one is ready to donate money to a political campaign, they do so after reviewing all of the choices--the other candidates. Thus, those willing to donate money to any campaign are more informed than the average American. Romney's massive fund-raising is a sign that those who have done their research have come to the conclusion that Mitt has the best message and is most worthy of their money. At least, this is the conclusion I came to.

Venezuelan News on YouTube

2007-05-31T19:23:00.000-07:00

RCTV, the Venezuelan TV station shut down by ~~Dictator~~ President Hugo Chavez is now being broadcast on YouTube.

Although the station is officially off the air, CNN's Harris Whitbeck said its news department continues to operate on reduced staffing, and the three daily hour-long installments of the newscast "El Observador" are uploaded onto YouTube by RCTV's Web department.

In addition, RCTV's Colombia-based affiliate, Caracol, has agreed to transmit the evening installment of "El Observador" over its international signal. The program, which will run at midnight, could reach about 800,000 people in Venezuela.

Although this is drastically reduced from RCTV's previous audience, its continued presence is a sign of hope for the staff.

So, how long will it take for Chavez to block YouTube from his country, and how long will it take for Colombia to shut down Caracol?

Netanyahu on the Iranian Threat

2007-05-29T12:06:00.000-07:00

Shortly after 9/11 I read a book by Benjamin Netanyahu titled "Fighting Terrorism". Despite being copyrighted 6 years prior to the attacks of 9/11, Netanyahu made several stunningly accurate predictions about terrorism coming to the shores of America. Ever sine reading this book I have come to value his opinion very highly.

Netanyahu was recently interviewed in the Wall Street Journal regarding the growing threat of Iran. Personally, I do not envision Iran ever attacking the US. However, it is clear that they have worked against US interests and against our allies by supplying groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and by funding the insurgency in Iraq. Furthermore, Ahmedinejad's incendiary rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map is very concerning, and I imagine that Mr. Netanyahu takes this threat very seriously.

What Netanyahu has proposed, and is currently lobbying for, is economic sanctions against Iran. Admittedly, in the past I thought that this would be a futile effort. However, Mr. Netanyahu makes a strong case for this proposal, that further economic strife could lead to decreased support for Ahmedinejad.

Mr. Netanyahu proposes a third way. The Iranian regime, he argues, is economically vulnerable. He is in America to urge state and local pension funds to divest from foreign companies that do business in Iran (U.S. law already keeps American firms out).

"This could be very effective... because Iran is in desperate need of new investments for its sagging oil industry. It's curtailed its oil production by 7%, I think, in each of the last three years. It's running unemployment to a rate of close to 20%, and Ahmadinejad is continuously being criticized from rivals within the regime and outside the regime for failing to deliver on economic problems."

Divestment "could stop Iran dead in its tracks," Mr. Netanyahu argues.

This is a very intriguing possibility, as it has the potential to avoid any military confrontation with Iran--either by the US or Israel. Several states have already passed legislation to divest, and California may join the ranks. "The big prize, of course, is California, whose $247 billion pension fund is the nation's biggest."

California State Assemblyman Joel Anderson (R - San Diego) has proposed legislation (AB 221) which would divest from Iran. So far it has been received with bipartisan support, and I hope this continues as it leaves committee and reaches the Assembly floor.

Cross Posted at

Fred Thompson: Did I Miss Something?

2007-05-27T14:46:00.000-07:00

There is so much buzz about Fred Thompson and his possible 2008 run. Prior to a few months ago, I had never really heard anyone talk about him as a political figure, and knew virtually no one who was passionate about him. So, I'm curious about where all the buzz has come from. What is it about this man that has so many people so motivated?

You connect the dots

2007-05-26T23:27:00.000-07:00

This week, ABC news reported that President Bush had authorized covert intelligence operation in Iran.

Today, they are reporting that Iran has uncovered US spy networks. You connect the dots

unFair to Innovation

2007-05-26T22:08:00.000-07:00

Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) has introduced legislation that would require that online and catalog purchases be subject to a sales tax. Called the "Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act", the legislation would create a uniform tax rate that online and catalog retailers would be required to collect and dispense to the government. Personally, I'm disappointed that a Republican would support such legislation, and with Democrats in control of the Congress it's very likely that this will become law.

From my reading, the bill will serve two primary purposes. The first generally is to promote "fairness". The second is, in my opinion, for the sole purpose of increasing goverment revenue.

Regarding the so-called "fairness", I would hardly consider this legislation "fair". In fact, I would consider this proposition somewhat unfair to those who have invested in technology and have used innovation to create success--the very principals that have made America the economic leader of the world. The internet brought about great wealth and prosperity for America in the 90s as many people utilized new technology to fill new markets. I think the government should maintain policies that encourage these types of pursuits rather than stifling them. In effect, this legislation would harm those who have innovated, all in the name of government income.

In support of his legislation, Sen. Enzi states, on his website, that if "electronic commerce continues to grow as predicted, other taxes, such as income or property taxes, will have to be increased to offset the lost revenue to state and local governments." I have difficulty believing this statement, considering last month the IRS realized record tax income concomitant with decreased taxation!

So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record

Time and time again we see decreased taxation leading to economic prosperity. As a Republican I would expect Sen. Enzi to understand this.

Cross Posted at

22 Members of California State Senate Haven't Read the Constitution

2007-05-23T13:38:00.000-07:00

This would appear to be the case after hearing that 22 Senators Voted to approve SB 37, an interstate compact that would allocate all of California's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular Vote. Voting was strictly along party lines, with Democrats supporting the legislation.

I have written about this several times before, expressing my concerns over this type of legislation. First and foremost is the fact that this is expressly unconstitutional. Article I, section 10 of the constitution states that no State shall enter into a compact with any other State without Congressional consent. I know of no such congressional consent, to date.

Yet, constitutionality aside, this is a bad direction for the country, and represents the willingness of California's Democrats to sacrifice State powers in favor of federalization. The Electoral College provides a crucial balance between the popular vote and the interests of each State. The electors reflect the popular vote, but also provides a means to take the interests of individual States into account--much the same way the Congress combines popular will (the House) and State will (the Senate).

Senator Migden, who authored the bill, stated in a press release that

It is astounding to me that the world’s greatest democracy does not directly elect the President by a vote of the people. A national popular vote for President will, for the first time, make every vote equal. A vote in California will be as sought after as a vote in Ohio or Florida. That is not currently the case.

Of course, we are not a democracy, rather a constitutional republic. We do not directly vote on every bill, we elect people to vote for us. Thus, a popular vote would be inconsistent with the rest of our government. Furthermore, our votes are never equal. Wyoming has about 1/70th the population of California, yet has the same number of Senators. According to the logic of Democrats in the California Senate, we should also do away with the United States Senate (and the California Senate, for that matter).

I will admit that many people do not understand why we have an electoral college, so the prospect of a popular vote may be appealing. I would, however, expect a better understanding from a State Senator. It is my opinion that each State maintain a certain level of sovereignty and autonomy. The trend to federalize every issue has eroded this view from people's minds. People now consider States little more than regions within the country. Yet, each State represents a unique entity, responsible for self-government. These 50 States are bound together to form the United States.

From the most fundamental levels, this is bad legislation. Unfortunately, virtually every Senate Democrat is willing to support this, against the constitution, against the interests of the States, and against common sense.

Cross Posted at

Sen. Migden's Road Rage

2007-05-23T08:35:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the SF Chronicle reported on the California Highway Patrol's investigation into a recent traffic accident involving Senator Carol Migden (D-San Francisco). The Senator was involved in a rear-end collision on Friday, when she allegedly reached for her ringing cell-phone and did not see the car slowing ahead of her. However, there appears to be more to the story. Though the accident took place in Fairfield, several motorists over 30 miles phoned in to report her erratic driving, including running one man off the road, and hitting a median on Interstate 80.

More than half a dozen motorists made emergency calls about Migden's erratic driving before the Friday accident, the CHP said. The rear-end collision in Fairfield, midway between San Francisco and Sacramento, injured a woman and her 3-year-old daughter, who were sent to the emergency room.
...
In her statement to police, Migden said "she did feel she brushed up against something," Williford said, although there is no mention of that in the public statement released Friday by the senator's office

Why did Sen. Migden choose not to include this information in the statement to the public? If she did run into something, not only does she have a responsibility to inform the public of it, why didn't she act like a responsible citizen and stop to see what she hit?

In a statement released by her office last week, the San Francisco Democrat said the accident happened after she took her eyes off the road while reaching for a ringing cell phone.
...
Last year, Migden voted for a law that takes effect in July 2008 requiring drivers to use a headset or other hands-free device when talking on a cell phone while driving.

This is a disgrace. This is just another case of a politician saying one thing, and doing the complete opposite. What is worse is that the San Francisco Democrat is going to have taxpayers pay the bill for her dangerous and destructive driving.

Because Migden said she was on state business at the time, insurance paid for by California's taxpayers will cover damages and any other costs, said Senate spokeswoman Alicia Trost. Had Migden been on her own time, her personal insurance would apply, Trost said.

If you think this is an abuse of taxpayer dollars, I urge you to contact her, as I have done.
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 5114
Sacramento, CA 95814
Marin/San Rafael District Office
Marin Civic Center
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 425
San Rafael, CA 94903
San Francisco District Office
455 Golden Gate Ave
Suite 14800
San Francisco, CA 94102

Romney on Amnesty

2007-05-21T15:50:00.000-07:00

One of the issues upon which my support for Governor Mitt Romney's presidential bid is his stance on immigration. Like myself, Romney has proposed an increase in the allowance of legal immigration, coupled with a strong stance against illegal immigration. He had this to say on the recent amnesty legislation:

Boston, MA - Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on today's U.S. Senate agreement on immigration reform:

"I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S.

"Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority."

Is the GOP Fed Up?

2007-05-16T08:56:00.000-07:00

That's the question Jim Gereghty is asking today.

Michael Moore ought to be a national punchline, and the Democrats ought to be still paying for having him in Carter's box at the convention. Rosie O'Donnell's talking 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the networks are falling all over themselves to sign her up long-term. Nancy Pelosi's refusing to meet with President Bush after practically snuggling Bashir Assad. The Daily Kos moonbat crap has infected the culture at large, and the Democrats' ambition vastly outweighs their sense of decenc

I think he's right. The general mood amongst Democrats is that America, Republicans, and apparently Mormons are evil. These are attitudes that fly directly in the face of what built this great country, and Republicans are tired of it.

I've long wondered why Republicans don't stand up and be fight for some respect--or at least decency. Mitt Romney was asked by Mike Wallace when he and his wife first had sex! This is ridiculous, and if I were in his shoes I would say "That's none of your damn business, Mike," and the interview would be over then and there. Instead, he laughed it off.

The GOP base is a bit like the Dem base in 2003; we want a fighter. “Michael Moore, go **** yourself” isn't exactly the inspiring rhetoric we'd like to leave in the history books, but I think it accurately represents the attitudes of the GOP base right now. I mean, really, Al Sharpton is bellowing that Mormons [or Republicans] don’t believe in God? Sharpton’s demagoguery got somebody burned to death! Why is this man taken seriously?

Amen.

We go into Kosovo to save Muslims, and nobody remembers. We go into Afghanistan and free a people from the Taliban’s barbarism, and nobody gives America credit. We go into Iraq to topple a dictator, and the world thinks we’re worse than he was. We’re the first one on the scene when a tsunami levels the other half of the world and everybody still thinks we’re the bad guys. There might have been a time when the Republican base was willing to hear out someone’s thoughtful criticism of American policy, but right now, they’re sick of it

This is spot on. The vast majority of Republicans are fed up with the bile we are being fed by the media and by people like Rosie and Michael Moore. That's why when we see someone like Mitt Romney take on Al Sharpton, or Fred Thompson take on Michael Moore, it warms our hearts. We want to see a candidate who will demand some respect and decency from a party that seems to have lost both.

Do Obama and Clinton Have no Convictions?

2007-05-16T08:26:00.000-07:00

A year ago today I thought that the worst possible thing that could happen in 2008 was to see Hillary Clinton elected. Her support of socialized medicine, her seeming tendency to engage in unscrupulous acts (whitewater, stealing from the white house, etc..), her opportunistic nature, they way her opinion is base on political expedience not moral conviction. These factors formed the basis of my opposition to her, recognizing that she was not capable of leading the country, and not capable of providing any useful ideas to help America. Unfortunately now I recognize that the election of Barack Obama would be just as bad, if not worse.

Today, Senator, and Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama chose to vote in support of cutting off funds for our troops in harms way, not because he thought it was the right thing to do, but rather to send a message. In a statement issued yesterday, the opportunistic candidate said he would vote for a bill to cut off funding,

not because I believe either is the best answer, but because I want to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course.

Fortunately, the bill did not pass, falling with a vote of 67-29 against, though Senators Obama and Clinton were amongst it's supporters.

I think it is disgraceful that anyone, let alone a man who wants to be our chief executive and commander in chief, would choose to dishonor our military, and issue such a vote only for political gain. If Mr. Obama does not support this bill, he should not vote for it. If they do not support this bill, then they should stop playing political games, stop speaking ill of the situation, and step up to help us win this war.

The actions of these two "honorable" Senators only demonstrate a willingness to exploit our troops for personal political gain--a trait I certainly hope never makes it to the oval office.

Cross-Posted at

Stephanopoulos: Racists are Republicans

2007-05-14T14:00:00.000-07:00

On Sunday's episode of This Week, George Stephanopoulos stated that "anyone who's not going to vote for Barack Obama because he is black isn't going to vote for a Democrat anyway". These are strong words, implying that no democrats are racists, and that only Republicans would deny votes based upon race. This echoes a very similar statement made by Obama himself, who said "Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics". As I discussed before, this implies that all racists are Republicans, and in turn that Republicans are racist in nature. While it is true that there are racist Republicans, there are also racist Democrats (one is a Senator), racist Independents, racist Green party members.

Suffice it to say that I have plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama, and none of them are the color of his skin. Rather, it is his stance on many issues: abortion on demand, minimum wage increases, Socialized health care, increased taxes, and abandoning Iraq, among others.

Furthermore, as I mentioned last week, "white-flight" is more pronounced amongst Democrats than Republicans.

White Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black
...
But racially motivated crossover voting is not just a Republican phenomenon. Democrats also desert their party when its candidate is black, Washington found. In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black

While it may score some political points for Obama and Stephanopoulos to make such assertions about Republicans being racists, the facts tell a different story. From my perspective, race and religion are only issues insofar as people allow them to be, and it's a shame that so many people - Obama included - choose to make this an issue.

Cross Posted at

Bartlett's Misguided support of Hillary

2007-05-10T13:03:00.000-07:00

In two recent articles for the National Review, Bruce Bartlett recommended that conservatives pledge their support for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primaries. His rationale is that the Republicans do not stand a chance in the 2008 election, and conservatives should thus focus on ensuring that the most conservative Democrat receive the Democratic nomination. "To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative", he says. Saying that "Hillary Clinton is the most conservative" is like saying that Cindy Sheehan is the most attractive amongst herself, Helen Thomas, and Madeleine Albright.

In principle I would not necessarily disagree with his stance. It may be wiser to promote the most liberal democrat, in hopes that this would dissuade moderates towards the Republican candidate in the general election. However, such tactics are only relevant if you believe that the election has already been won by the Democrats. I do not believe this is the case.

While Democrats do have a great deal of momentum, and while the Republicans are "on the ropes", to a certain degree, the two primary Democratic candidates have severe disadvantages: Hillary is a woman and Obama is black. Traditionally women do not vote for women, and "white flight" is a very major factor for black Democrat candidates.

Democrats...desert their party when its candidate is black... In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black

If Obama were to get the Democratic nod, it could mean a great flight of white Democrats towards a white Republican candidate.

Bartlett goes on to state,

Republicans should remember that they just barely won the White House in 2000 and 2004 against very poor Democratic candidates and with the party strongly united behind George W. Bush. I just don’t see that happening again next year.

The Republicans are not going to be as united, and it is almost a certainty that the Democrats will run a better campaign in 2008. I think all three of the Democrats within striking distance of the nomination will be better candidates than Al Gore or John Kerry

. In 2000 Republicans were hardly united behind George Bush. John McCain had a great deal of support in the primaries. Nonetheless, Bush managed to beat the incumbent Vice President. In 2004 Bush beat Kerry despite a fairly weak approval rating. There is no reason to conclude that the 2008 Republican nominee will experience less support than Bush has had in either 2000 or 2004. The nominee will likely experience greater support.

Frankly, Bartlett is wrong on throwing in the towel. With well over a year before the election it is simply too soon to make any predictions, and certainly too soon to give up on those candidates who will continue to fight the war on terror.

Cross Posted at California Conservative

Best Answer of the night: Guiliani

2007-05-04T09:27:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately I was unable to watch the GOP debate last night. I was really interested in learning more about the second tier candidates (Huckabee, Hunter, Thompson), as well as seeing Romney, McCain, and Giuliani go head-to-head-to-head. However, there has been extensive radio/television/print coverage of the event for me to peruse.

What seems to be the major highlight of the night is that Giuliani broke from the pack when it came to abortion. While the other nine candidates said they would like the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade, Giuliani did not. Most media outlets are saying that he simply supported the right-to-choose, but this is not the whole story. While it is somewhat disappointing that he does not have strong political convictions (despite his apparent personal convictions) against abortion, what I find to be more important is what he said about states' rights.

I believe that the Hyde amendment should remain the law. States should make their decision. Some states decide to do it, most states decide not to do it. And I think that's the appropriate way to have this decided.

The importance of states' rights seems to be lost amongst modern conservatives, though it remains very important to me. It represents the decision to maintain control at local levels rather than a big national behemoth government.

Blame the Republicans

2007-05-02T12:07:00.000-07:00

I'm flabbergasted. Not long ago I posted about Senator Feinstein's Ethics Scandal over at California Conservative. Texas Rainmaker is blogging about it, too.

In short, Feinstein was the head of the Military Construction appropriations committee. In that position she received information that told her what contracts her husbands company was pursuing. Over the course of her tenure she voted to send billions of dollars to her husband's company, greatly enriching herself in the process.

In following up on the story, I came across this message board, linking to my original California Conservative post. Take a look at the screen shot below, and take special note of the first comment.

You need to remember just one tiny little thing - regardless of whether or not Feinstein has done anything wrong -
The REPUBLICANS were in control of Congress for twelve years - that would be 1994 to 2006.
That means that if ANYONE was allowing Feinstein to "maneuver, act with impunity", it was the Republicans because they had the majority and they had 10 years to do something about any improper activity on her part.
But they didn't, did they? Maybe she was doing some "pilfering" WITH some Republicans. That might explain why the Republicans never did anything about it.

So, according to bubba2, Feinstein using insider information to steer billions of dollars in military appropriations towards her husband's company is the fault of Republicans? At all costs, no matter the circumstances, blame the republicans. I suppose it is this type of blind support from her constituents that has allowed her to do this.

Oakland Immigration Rally

2007-05-01T12:44:00.000-07:00

Working in Downtown Oakland today, I had a front row seat to the "immigration" rally that took place at the Federal building. Much like last year's rallies, it was predominantly a pro-illegal demonstration, with demonstrators carrying mexican flags, and signs decreeing such things as "Amnesty NOW", "Stop the ICE raids", and "Today we walk, tomorrow we vote". About half the signs were in spanish, and most of the chants were too.

Mexican flags were abundant during the rally

I only had my Sony Clie to snap photos, so I will have to upload them later.

**UPDATE** New pictures uploaded

This speaks for itself

This sign reads "Amnistia Ahora" in large print. In small print at the bottom (difficult to read) is "International Socialist Org". Happy May Day

More Mexican Flags....they were everywhere.

Biden Doublespeak

2007-04-30T13:37:00.000-07:00

Yesterday on Meet the Press Senator Joe Biden had some choice comments that deserve attention.

MR. RUSSERT: But make no mistake about it, the bill that you voted for authorized the president to go to war.

SEN. BIDEN: It allowed the president to go to war. It did not authorize him to go to it. You make it sound like it said, “Mr. President, go to war.” It said, “Mr. President, don’t go to war.” It said “go to the United Nations. Mr. President, don’t go to war, try to get a deal here. Mr. President, get the inspectors back in. Mr. President, tell us that that’s what you’re about to do. And, Mr. President, if all else fails, you have authority to use force.” That’s what it said.

These are interesting statements. He says to "go to the United Nations"...the same UN that unanimously issued Resolution 1441, threatening Iraq to disarm? Biden says "get the inspectors back in". The same inspectors that Saddam hadn't complied with? The same inspectors that President Clinton and others said Iraq had failed to comply with and had interfered with?

In fact, reviewing Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq shows nothing of the sort. It states nothing about inspectors, except to say "Whereas Iraq...attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities", and "Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council" and "Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660". This all seems to indicate the willingness to proceed with military efforts.

Furthermore, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002states the same. This resolution provided authorization as follows:

AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

This sounds pretty clear to me, and it should to Senator Biden to...after all, he voted for it.

Mr. Biden, in the early stages of his presidential bid, is doing his best to distance himself from his earlier statements and his vote.

Cross Posted at

Tenet's Tenuously Tall Tale

2007-04-30T12:41:00.000-07:00

Today, George Tenet's book, At the Center of the Storm, hits bookshelves throughout the country. Within the pages of the book, Tenet seeks to exonerate himself of any culpability to any intelligence failures in the lead-up to the Iraq war. As readers will recall, Tenet - appointed by President Clinton - is best known for his "Slam Dunk" statement, informing President Bush that intelligence about WMD in Iraq was “a slam dunk case!” Now, Tenet is claiming that he never said those words. Or, if he said them, he didn't mean them in this context. Yeah, something like that.

Unfortunately for Tenet, the memories of most of us is somewhat better, and the details of events is not so easily forgotten. Mr. Tenet seems to be forgetting that he has already confirmed that he said these words, and has already, seemingly, claimed responsibility for the error:

George J. Tenet, former director of central intelligence, said he regretted assuring President Bush in 2002 that he had ''slam dunk'' evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons. ''Those were the two dumbest words I ever said,'' Mr. Tenet told 1,300 people at a Kutztown University forum Wednesday in Kutztown, Pa. The theory was a leading justification for the war in Iraq. Such weapons were not found.

While Mr. Tenet may wish he never said those words, his own statements indicate otherwise.

Yet, this is not the only inconsistency in his book. In order to further shift the blame, Tenet indicates that the decision to go to war with Iraq had already been made only hours after 9/11.

On the day after 9/11, he [Tenet] adds, he ran into Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative and the head of the Defense Policy Board, coming out of the White House. He says Mr. Perle turned to him and said: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility."

He confirmed this encounter on 60 minutes last night. Yet, according to Richard Perle, this conversation never happened. In fact, it couldn't have happened, because Perle was stranded in France on 9/12, and unable to return until 9/15!

Did Tenet perhaps merely get the date of this encounter wrong? Well, the quote Tenet ascribes to Perle hinges on the encounter taking place September 12: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday."

Perle denies the encounter. The facts discredit the claim. If Tenet merely got the date wrong, it contradicts his quote. If he made up the encounter and manufactured the quote, it explains everything.

While President Bush has been charged with misleading us and making up his own facts, it would appear that these charges are somewhat misdirected. George Tenet clearly has difficulty with the truth.

Cross Posted at

"Quality of Life Court" coming to SF?

2007-04-29T12:49:00.000-07:00

It's fairly well known that as mayor of New York, one means by which Rudy Giuliani fought crime was by addressing the small issues...squeegee men, public urination, etc... The theory was that by knocking out the small issues, it sent a message that crime would not be tolerated, no matter how big or small. In 1993 a special court was set-up in Manhattan that addressed such "quality of life" crimes as urinating in public, aggressive panhandling, and prostitution. The Midtown Community Court hears cases and typically issues some sort of community service in lieu of a fine.

Gavin Newsom has stated his plans to develop a similar court here in San Francisco, and I am all for it. Though San Francisco certainly has major problems with felony crimes--such as a rising homicide rate--the prevalence of petty crimes is quite high, too. Throughout the city you will see aggressive panhandlers, people drunk in public, urinating or defecating on the street, and performing other acts that make San Francisco a fairly disgusting place to live.

To continue, the defendants must plead guilty. If they decline, their case moves to the traditional downtown court. If they do plead guilty, they're most often assigned community service to repay the neighborhood for their offenses -- and social services to address underlying problems. Fines are never part of the sentence, but jail time can be.

By enrolling them in community service punishments in lieu of a fine, violators will be making the city a cleaner place. Furthermore, "taking ownership" in this way may make them less prone to committing such acts in the future.

I think Newsom is making a great decision by doing so, despite the criticism that he is getting. Now, if only he would start respecting immigration laws.

Newsom vows to ignore immigration laws

2007-04-23T19:30:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, declared that he would continue to keep San Francisco a sanctuary for illegal aliens. This includes preventing any city employees from participating in immigration raids, saying "I will not allow any of my department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way shape or form with these raids. We are a sanctuary city, make no mistake about it." Presumably, this includes city police, whose job it is to enforce the law. Yet, looking at his comment closer, he states that he will not allow any city employees to even cooperate with those who are conducting the raids.

It should be noted that ICE raids are frequently performed in order to catch those illegal immigrants who are already wanted for other charges. Perhaps Mayor Newsom isn't concerned with these other charges. The following represent only a fraction of the results of ICE raids over the past year:

In addition to these local raids, ICE has had great successes throughout the country. For example, this month in Willmar, Minnesota ICE agents arrested 49 illegal immigrants in a raid, 18 of which had criminal convictions for crimes including sexual misconduct on a minor, DUI, domestic abuse, assault, and drug possession. Similar raids nabbing criminal aliens with similar convictions have occurred in this month alone in places like Atlanta, Michigan, Raleigh, Pennsylvania, San Diego, and elsewhere.

ICE is clearly keeping the streets safer in these areas. If only Gavin Newsom would do his job and help to do the same here in San Francisco.

Cross Posted at

Sarkozy 2008

2007-04-22T20:30:00.000-07:00

Well, I am officially endorsing Nicolas Sarkozy for US President in 2008. Of course, he is not eligible to be the US president, but I ask...why can't we find a candidate like he for the US? He's adamantly against high taxes, against promotion of the welfare state, against excessively open borders, and against a huge deficit. And unlike American politicians, his platform is not just lip-service; he acts on these ideals.

Project (RED): Capitalism meets charity

2007-03-10T08:28:00.000-08:00

If you haven't heard about Project (RED), it is a very unique program that allows several of the nation's largest companies to raise money for AIDS assistance in Africa through the Global Fund. Companies like Gap, Motorola, Apple, and American Express are participating, among others. The companies involved are selling products, with a portion of the procedes benefiting the global fund. Companies have to make a profit on their merchandise to be involved. Thus, they have an incentive to sell more and thus there is incentive for growth of the money contributed. In my opinion, this is a very clever way to raise money. That's why I was somewhat surprised to read this site, criticizing Gap and the other participating companies. "Join us in rejecting the ti(red) notion that shopping is a reasonable response to human suffering", their website clearly states.

This holier than thou attitude is undeserved and, frankly, offensive. Gap and the other participating companies have been able to produce a great deal of funds for those who genuinely need it. Praise, complements, admiration may be in order...but disdain certainly is not.

Project (RED) is not intended to be a direct donation charity. This is by designe. It has distinct characteristics from a direct-donation charity that make it an ideal and unique complement to the Global Fund. While you can, of course, donate directly to the Global Fund, Project (RED) fills in a different niche. Trendy suburbanites can buy trendy clothes, jewelry, and phonese and Africans benefit! In this sense, many people who otherwise would never think to donate to the Global Fund are helping to fight AIDS.

Yet, partnership between retailers and charities is not new. It has been highly successful in the recent past following the Tsunami that devastated Indonesia et. al. Amazon.com and others produced copious tsunami relief simply by allowing people to donate during 'checkout'.

The tsunami that devastated millions of people living on the coasts of southern Asia and eastern Africa caused a philanthropic outpouring from people around the world who gave generously to help the survivors of the tragic disaster. It also brought to light a new trend in charitable giving, with Red Cross experiencing record breaking donations through online partners and retailers that raised more than $23 million. Leading the way on this new trend, Amazon.com collected more than $15.7 million

Do those who criticize Project (RED) think this is also useless? I laud Gap and the other participating companies. I will continue to buy their products, and I would encourage others to do so as well.

Newt-ered

2007-03-09T21:28:00.000-08:00

I have very little respect for those who are unfaithful during marriage, a philosophy that applies to those who I have supported for public office. As I have previously said, Newt Gingrich has been my candidate of choice for the 2008 presidential bid. Unlike so many candidates, his approach is to provide fresh ideas and unique perspectives to the issues--always within a free-market, conservative framework. Yet, while his political savvy is noteworthy, his personal credentials will make preclude him from pursuing the presidency.

Gingrich was an avid proponent of the impeachment of President Clinton. His stance was not that the President was an adulterer, but rather, that he lied to investigators and lied to the american people. Nonetheless, he is already being referred to as a hypocrite by liberals, moderates, and even some conservatives in the blogosphere. I do not agree with this sentiment.

I can no longer support his as the candidate of choice, since his pursuit would only revisit the impeachment hearings, and would inevitably portray him as a hypocrite. Nonetheless, I think his presence and insight into the race will be of benefit to conservatives. With a man like Newt, clear-thinking and always conservative, in the picture, it will force others in the race to take their conservative constituents seriously, and won't be as willing to represent moderate or liberal positions (Guiliani).

A New Enemy in the War on Terror

2007-03-07T21:46:00.000-08:00

In light of this post over at 'but that's just my opinion', I've decided to repost the following, Originally Posted 3/25/06

The United States has another enemy in the war on terror. It's not Iran, Syria, or even France. It is Russia. A few weeks ago I wrote about some of the evidence about what happened to the WMD's in Iraq (It has more recently become a favorite topic for bloggers), evidence mysteriously missing from the MSM.

What startles me more, however, is the accusations that Russia was implicit in the transportation of WMD's from Iraq to both Syria and Lebanon...Why would Russia be involved in the movement of Iraqi WMD's? These were weapons that were prohibited under 17 UN Resolutions, so why would Russia be involved in hiding them? Because most of the weapons are of Russian origin.

These accusations were made by John A. Shaw, the former undersecretary of defense. However, his accusations went mostly unnoticed or ignored by the MSM.

While moonbats all too often seem to claim that this is a war all about oil, it should be remembered that Russia had lucrative oil contracts with Iraq prior to the war. While this may be one the reasons why they disputed UN Security council 1441, I think protecting the secret that they had illegally supplied Iraq with contraband weapons would be a stronger motive for Russia to lobby against passing the resolution.

Yesterday, new accusations came out from the pentagon that Russia fed US war plans to Iraq. This is a very disturbing accusation. While Russia not only ignored the UN security council in order to arm Iraq and may have been integral in moving these weapons from Iraq into Lebanon and Syria, supplying US war plans to Iraq is a much more serious offense. If true, it would mean that Russia is not an ally of the United States, or the war on terror.

Rightwinged.com chimes in with regard to the recently released Iraqi documents, saying

Many have wondered if the administration's reluctance to release the documents might be over concern of embarassing and alienating our Russian "allies", because we think we're going to need their help with the current Iran situation...Personally I say "screw Russia"

Rightwinged is right. In light of Russia's recent actions regarding Iraq, both before and after the beginning of the war, I do not feel that Russia can be trusted. The US should not allow the plan to allow Russia to supply Iran with fissionable material for use in nuclear power plants. Considering Russia's actions, allowing such a close relationship between the two countries makes me as nervous as allowing North Korea to supply Iran with the same material. The security of Israel, the US, and the entire world may very well rest upon how the current Iran situation can be resolved. I would not feel comfortable knowing that Russia is keeping me safe.

Romney on Immigration

2007-03-06T18:33:00.000-08:00

I have not yet come to any final conclusion on whom I shall support in the GOP primaries next year. Gingrich is very high on my list, as I have mentioned before. I recently visited the website of Mitt Romney and was pleasantly surprised to read his stance on immigration. As I have previously posted,

I believe that we do not allow enough legal immigration. The number currently stands around 1 million a year. Sure, a million is a big number, but in a country of nearly 300 million, it's one-third of one percent. Certainly, this number could easily be increased to, say, 3 million. Coupled with a prevention of illegal border crossing, I think this would represent a fair and compassionate program.

Romney seems to take a similar stance--which I have not seen in any other candidate, congressman, or pundit--that our country would benefit by increasing the number of immigrants we allow to enter.

We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants -- for citizens -- and less attractive for illegal immigrants. I want to see more immigration in our country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration.

I have to say, Romney is becoming more and more appealing to me.

Maher Response

2007-03-06T17:43:00.000-08:00

Bill Maher was on O'Reilly tonight. I tend not to watch Fox news often, but happened to switch over when I got bored with CNN. In defense of his recent incindiary comments regarding the failed assassination attempt on Veep Cheney, he said (paraphrased)

Now Bill, you're a pro-life guy. Now, if an abortion doctor was killed, you'd probably say "Good, he's dead, that will save the lives of so many unborn". It's the same thing, people should be allowed to express their lament that Cheney was not killed

I consider Maher's original statement absurd and irresponsible. To that end, I would also consider anyone feeling good about the murder of an abortion doctor, despite my pro-life stance. Such support would like spur assassination attempts on other abortion doctors. Likewise, expressing support for the death of the vice president lends credibility to the assasination attempt, and supports any future attempts.

Much like the Dixie Chicks, Maher seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. Free speech does not come without resopnsibility, and without response. His statement was irresponsible, and it is unfortunate that he does not take responsibility for it and apologize.

And, for the sake of it, I would add that Ann Coulter's recent statement concerning Sen. Edwards were almost equally egregious. Untrue, useless, and distracting come to mind.

Five Reasons Why I Oppose the Governor's Health Care Reform

2007-03-04T10:51:00.000-08:00

There are many reasons to oppose Gov. Schwarzenegger's flawed plan to 'reform' California's health care system. Below are my top 5. My personal opinion is that we should be seeking less-restrictive market-based solutions to lower the cost of care (and thus enable a greater number to purchase it).

1. "Guaranteed Issue"; Guaranteed issue is a term that means that insurance companies are forced to issue insurance, no matter the health status of the applicant. Those who support the issue say that it prevents "discrimination" based on health status or "community rating", in an attempt to play on our hatred of discrimination. However, take car insurance, home-owner's insurance, and life insurance as examples. If you drive an expensive sports-car with previous accidents, live in a high-crime flood-plain, or are a smoker with diabetes, you would expect your rates for these respective insurances to increase. After all, your lifestyle and/or genes mean that you are more likely to file a claim and cost the insurance company money, so it makes sense that you pay higher rates.

Guaranteed issue does nothing more than spread the blame. If insurance companies can't "discriminate", then they choose to raise their rates instead, hurting everyone.

2. Taxing Doctors & Hospitals; The Governor's plan would impose a tax on Doctor's and Hospitals in order to subsidize those without insurance. This Socialist-mentality makes no sense. Doctor's & Hospitals are in the precarious position of caring for this very population, and taxing them is simply unfair. Should we tax landlords and tenants to subsidize homeless shelters? Tax Restaurants to feed the hungry?

Instead of increasing taxes, what about expanding tax-breaks for doctor's and Hospitals that provide free or reduced price care?

3. Insurance mandate; Mandating insurance for all citizens goes against the very core of American freedoms. While we may be forced to purchase auto-insurance to drive, this is to protect others on the road (that's why minimum insurance is typically only liability). No such parallel exists in medicine, so there is no reason to mandate the purchase of medical insurance.

Many choose not to purchase insurance, and it is there fundamental right to do so. However, they should be held accountable for that decision. Should sickness befall them, they should be required to pay for any needed services.

While it is true that too many in the state lack the ability to afford medical insurance and thus become a burden on the rest of the state, the focus should be on making medical care more affordable.

4. Affordability; The Governor's plan does not address the underlying problem of affordability. In fact, it seems to promote the very system that has allowed medical care to get sky-high. Third party payors (i.e. insurance companies) separate rational choice from medical care. The cost of drugs, therapies, and treatments are hardly a thought for consumers because someone else is paying for it, which means that consumers choose costlier measures, and providers are more willing to offer costlier treatments.

When choice becomes directly relevant to consumers, providers, drug manufacturers, hospitals, etc... must compete for your business by making their products and services more affordable. Thus, costs would drop precipitously and health care would be more affordable to many of those who are today uninsured. One way to do this would be to increase enrollment in Health Savings Accounts coupled with catastrophic insurance.

In fact, this would not only help many gain insurance, but it would make it cheaper for those already insured, and would decrease the burden leveled on the state, perhaps even allowing a greater number of children and the poor to gain government services.

5. Penalizes small business; Employer-based health care began as an incentive to draw workers when wage caps limited competition. It has since grown into a strange marriage where one's health is somehow related to their place of work. In todays world, let's face it...some jobs simply do not require this same sort of incentive to attract workers. Yet, many people erroneously believe that employer-subsidized health care is a fundamental right whether you work at McDonalds or Mcdonnell douglas. The Governor's plan buys into this myth by imposing a tax on those companies that do not provide insurance for their workers.

Who leaked what now?

2007-02-18T21:19:00.000-08:00

The Valerie Plame leak story has been, in my opinion, the most boring, useless, deplorable story of the year. Despite the numerous lies that Joseph Wilson told, despite the twists and turns of the trial, despite the fact that no apparent laws were broken, it continues to get mainstream news coverage (though mostly from MSNBC...is that still considered "mainstream"?). Yet, despite my utter boredom of the case, Victoria Toensing's article in the Post today was very interesting, and very insightful, summarizing the many flaws in the prosecution, and many of those involved, including Joseph Wilson himself.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.

From FBI interviews conducted after Oct. 1, 2003, Fitzgerald also knew that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage had identified Plame as a CIA officer to columnist Robert D. Novak, who first published Plame's name on July 14, 2003.

From my examination of the situation, the only thing that this Kangaroo court has determined is that Wilson is a bit of a liar (though many take his lies as proof that Bush lied), and that Patrick Fitzgerald needs a hobby other than attacking conservatives.

5 Things people don't know about me

2007-02-18T08:45:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I gotted tagged by The Only Republican in San Francisco to do this awhile back, and just haven't gotten around to thinking of 5 things yet. Here goes.

1. I love Star Wars. Episode 5 is my favorite, but I love them all. I waited in line for ~15 hours to see the midnight showing of each of the new ones, read comics, and collect Boba Fett junk.
2. I have a beautiful 5 month old baby girl.
3. I'm a vegetarian, though I am an incredibly picky eater (no mushrooms, no tomatoes, no lots of other things)
4. Though politics is my passion, Science and Medicine are my real interests, having won an American Chemical Society award in college (I majored in Chemistry and Biology, with a minor in Math), as well as being a recipient of a Research Fellowship from Pfizer.
5. I'm incredibly neurotic.

Now, like some chain mail I have to pass this on...So, to 123Beta, JimmieK, Debbie @ Right Truth, Prying1, and Marooned in Marin, if you don't complete this within 5 days, some starving child in Africa with an elbow on his forehead won't get the extremely expensive anti-elbow-on-forehead medicine from Bill Gates that he so desperately needs.

Obama and Racial Politics

2007-02-11T22:13:00.000-08:00

I typically try to avoid race politics, but some occassions require comment. It angers me when people assume I am a racist simply because I am a Republican. Unfortunately, Republicans have been stereotyped as bigots. It's nothing new, but many Democrats abuse the stereotype, pandering to minorities for votes (despite supporting policies that hinder minorities). Thus, I was very upset to hear Senator, and Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's comments on race and voting while in New Hampshire. According to The Telegraph, Sen. Obama is quoted as saying:

Later, he downplayed votes could be cast against him due to the color of his skin.

“Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics,” he said.

The undertone is that those who disagree with his politics are typically racists. It is a subtle hint that he believes Republicans to be racist. Suffice it to say that I have plenty of reasons not to vote for him, and none of them are the color of his skin. Rather, it is the quality of his politics (highly pro-aborition, supports a minimum wage increase, will push for Socialized health care, cut-and-run in Iraq, etc...).

Putting aside the facts that the Republicans freed the slaves, passed the Civil Rights act (over a democratic filibuster), and more recently gave us both the first two African-American Secretaries of state and the first Hispanic Attorney General, The youthful Senator is somewhat confused. It's far more likely that Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Robert Byrd, and Joseph Biden would support his politics than would George Bush, John McCain, or the typical Republican, yet recall the many racially insensitive comments made by Dean, Clinton and Biden...and consider that Senator Byrd was a high-ranking Klansmen!

Furthermore, consider the case of so-called "white-flight", the phenomenon of whites voting for the opposing party when their candidate is black. Contradictory to what Sen. Obama may want you to think, Democrats are more likely to not vote for a candidate because he or she is black. The stereotype of the racist Republican is not only inaccurate, if anything it is Democrats that tend to be racist.

Lastly, consider the following. Before entering politcs Obama stated

he and a black friend would sometimes speak disparagingly “about white folks this or white folks that, and I would suddenly remember my mother's smile, and the words that I spoke would seem awkward and false.”
As a result, he concluded that “certain whites could be excluded from the general category of our distrust."

Yet, in his second memoir (after entering politics), his feelings seemed to have changed, stating that “I’ve never had the option of restricting my loyalties on the basis of race, or measuring my worth on the basis of tribe," contradicting much of his original memoir.

If Senator Obama doesn't want race to influence his race, I would suggest he not make it such a large part of his identity, his politics, and his rhetoric.

Cross Posted at and 123Beta

Murdoch Endorses (?) Gingrich

2007-02-11T15:37:00.000-08:00

According to this article out of Australia, Rupert Murdoch wants Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the house, to run for the 2008 presidency. As I've said before, I would support Newt, as well. In my opinion, he would bring a unique, fresh, and truly conservative viewpoint to the mix. And, while he may not have the political momentum to garner the needed support, his ideas may well influence his republican counterparts in positive ways.

Newt has some interesting ideas on issues such as Health Care, and the minimum wage. He is a general believer in the free-market, and supports free-market approaches to solving many social issues. Furthermore, he knows how to win an election, and how to get things done, which he has shown in years past. I think he would make a great president, and it will be interesting to see if he chooses to pursue it.

Who Cares about Gavin Newsom?

2007-02-04T16:05:00.000-08:00

Within the Bay Area the recent scandal involving Gavin Newsom has been receiving a lot of attention from the media. For those of you who don't know, Newsom - the mayor of San Francisco - had been having an affair with his campaign manager's wife for over a year. It was the headline story on many daily papers, has been on the evening news, and provided fodder for local conservative talk radio. Quite frankly, I was bored with it before it began.

As an elected official, I disagree with most of what Newsom proposes (though not all). I would not be likely to vote for him anyway when he is up for re-election in November. However, his personal ethics (or lack thereof) don't necessarily influence his professional ethics. If this had been a situation of the mayor laundering funds, things would be different. How, then, could we trust him with our money? Yet, it's not. Furthermore, there a probably many doctors, grocers, bankers, etc... out there who have done immoral things, but we still give them our business. Why? Because most of their personal choices don't affect their professional decisions.

I may not like Gavin Newsom's politics, but I don't care at all about his personal flings.

Corn, Alcohol, and Hillary

2007-01-29T23:00:00.000-08:00

Two thoughts for the evening. First comes from this article, discussing Senator Clinton's doublespeak about Ethanol. It's not surprising that Hillary is singing a new tune in order to appeal to Iowans. I've never considered her a person of strong convictions (moral convictions, that is), and I don't think there's much she wouldn't do to get a vote. I anticipate that until November 2008 there will be a lot of pandering like this. But it does raise an interesting issue, that of Ethanol. As a chemistry major, I know that the combustion of Ethanol produces more carbon dioxide--the primary accused culprit of global warming--than gasoline, per unit of energy output. Thus, an Ethanol economy would have a more detrimental effect. However, I do support Ethanol development. That is because ethanol, like Hydrogen, can be used in fuel cells, and could thus provide a bridge from a Gasoline economy to a more sustainable Hydrogen economy.

Obama and Universal Health Care

2007-01-25T18:45:00.000-08:00

One of the primary complaints leveled agains Barack Obama is that his stance on the issues is somewhat unknown. Today he announced that he supports Universal Health Care, an issue I adamantly oppose (as does much of the country). Likely he will make this issue the core of his 2008 presidential bid, providing me a sure reason to oppose him.

Obama said while plans are offered in every campaign season with "much fanfare and promise," they collapse under the weight of Washington politics, leaving citizens to struggle with the skyrocketing costs.

As opposed to leaving the government with the skyrocketing costs. Bear in mind that under goverment control, administration expenses would almost certainly increase, meaning taxation would be greater than current health care expenditures.

It boggles my mind that while Universal Health Coverage has and continues to fail so miserably in Canada and elsewhere, Democrats continue to push it with such fervor.

Minimum wage opposition

2007-01-24T15:36:00.000-08:00

The recent House of Representatives blunder of increasing the minimum wage has fortunately hit an obstacle in the Senate. I'm happy to say that the opposition is not only from Republicans, but significantly from Democrats such as Harry Reid (D-NV). Despite passing easily in the house, as one of the "first 100 hours" initiatives that Democrats promised, Senate Democrats are refusing to pass it without an accompanying tax break for those who employ low-wage workers.

While I'm glad that this bill is currently in trouble, I think it is for the wrong reason. The minimum wage is the worst thing for the poor, according to Milton Friedman. It promotes inflation, which negates itself and hurts those earning more than the minimum wage. I think other initiatives would provide a more sound benefit, such as employer credits for each new employee over the next 5 years (which would promote the creation of new jobs), or simply instituting a tax break without meddling with the minimum wage...Allow the free-market and the invisible hand to set the wage, not bureaucrats in Washinton.

Recent Readings

2007-01-21T17:33:00.000-08:00

I've had a lot to talk about recently, but not a lot of time to do so. But, right now I am making time to write about two books I recently read, and would strongly recommend to anyone else interested.

The Cure: How Capitalism can save American Health Care was a great read for anyone interested in the American Health care crisis. I am an avid opponent of socialized or single-payer health care for numerous reasons. I am often called stingy, greedy, selfish, or uncompassionate about my stance. However, I feel that strides should be made to empower the uninsured, rather than entitle them. The Cure takes a similar stance, and demonstrates through careful analyses how Health Savings Accounts would be one of the solutions to making health care more affordable. In summary, a free-market system would reduce costs, enabling those who currently can't afford to purchase insurance. In addition, the book debunks several myths about health care. These myths include facts and figures about the number of uninsured, the quality of care in socialized systems, and worries about Health Savings Accounts.

I also read Who Really Cares by Arthur Brooks. It is a breakdown of the factors that seem to contribute towards who is charitable and who is not. I was skeptical that it would be written with a heavily partisan attitude, but it was nothing of the sort. In fact, the author admits that he was surprised by his own results, but their consistency made him change his opinion. So, what were those results? That conservatives are more charitable than liberals, the religious more charitable than the non religious, and most surprisingly, those who favor a forced income distribution are far stingier than those who believe in the free market! Brooks presents his conclusions with data, and controls for differences in other factors (such as age, income, race, gender, etc...). What I found most interesting is the discussion of causality. Brooks' analysis concludes that not only does an increasing income also increase charitable giving, but charitable giving leads to an increased income! Perhaps its Karma at work.

Is this really charity?

2007-01-01T10:59:00.000-08:00

My wife recently made an interesting comment about the television show "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition". She said that it bothered her that they made such lavish homes, when they could have built several regular homes, thus helping more people. Anyone who has seen the show would agree, though I suppose building standard homes wouldn't pull in the ratings.

I have the same sentiment after reading this article about Oprah's new school. It is a $40 Million dollar school for girls in South Africa, designed to help those from "deprived backgrounds". So, how much education does $40,000,000 buy? Well, it boasts 28 buildings, lying on 52 acres, and has the finest equipment, a laboratory, theatre, and 'is said to resemble a luxury hotel.' However, it will apparently be used to educate only 152 girls!

For those of you without a calculator handy, that $40 million works out to over $260,000 per student! The class was selected from 3,500 applicants; $40,000,000 spread amongst that number would be over $11,000, which is comparable to US education costs, and thus, should be enough to provide a solid education for all of the applicants. According to the article, "Oprah said she decided to build her own school because she was tired of charity from a distance." Thus, the decision to only help a small number of lottery winners is, apparently, due to Oprah's close involvement. Anyone without an ego or image to worry about likely would have chosen to help a greater number of people. Yet, Oprah chose to be grandiose.

Mandela was invited to be among the dignitaries at the opening of the lavish Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in the small town of Henley-on-Klip, south of Johannesburg, as well as a string of international celebrities -- though the guest list was kept secret.

With a grand opening that boasts a celebrity guest list, I would hardly consider this charity. It would appear that will serve more to enhance Oprah's image and ego than it will to educate the children of South Africa.

Senate Democrat Returns to Socialized Medicine

2006-12-12T18:20:00.000-08:00

After SB 840, the bill within the California State Legislature that would socialize medical coverage within the state, was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, Senate Pro Tem Don Perata (D) is proposing a plan that would tax businesses and individuals in order to pay for health care for the poor. The plan is different from SB 840, in that it only provides the free-ride health care to the poor. All employees and employers (even those who already pay for their own care) would be required to pay into (read: "be taxed into") a system that would provide the care for the uninsured.

When presenting his proposal, Sen. Perata stated

There would be an employer contribution and an employee contribution. If you want to call that mandates, yes. There's no free ride

For clarification purposes, he means no free ride for businesses and individual tax payers. By definition, it is a free ride for those receiving the free medical care.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has already stated his dedication to tackling the Health Care issue in 2007 and in his next term. Though he has not issued any details of his plans, he has expressed his opposition to socialized medicine, as well as any plans that would increase taxes.

I will be watching this legislation closely.

Cross Posted at California Conservative

New Format

2006-12-10T18:53:00.000-08:00

As you can tell, I have adjusted the format of my blog. Comments welcome.

"The Gingrich-ization of Health Care"

2006-12-10T09:35:00.000-08:00

As someone who works in the medical field, and a (hopeful) future physician, Health Care is an important issue to me. Regular readers of my humble blog will recall several posts about socialized medicine in Canada and potentially California. I adamantly oppose a universal (socialized) health care system on numerous grounds. In short, I feel such a system would be costly, of poor quality, unfair to physicians, overburdened, unconstitutional, easily corruptible, etc.... I am, however, a proponent of Health Savings accounts as an option aside from traditional insurance, and was thus pleased to read the article "The Gingrich-ization of Health Care" , discussing Newt Gingrich' support for a HSA system in Georgia, despite the fact that the article is biased against the proposal.

Georgia's Republican leaders are considering a Newt Gingrich-inspired "solution" to the state's health insurance crisis that critics say will come at the expense of those who most need relief -- the middle class and the poor.

Gingrich's plan, the result of work by a think tank he founded that is paid for partly by health insurance companies, would set up tax breaks for businesses that offer employees a choice of personal, untaxed health savings accounts.
...
Others say it's a potential health care fiasco that will discourage the working class from seeking medical care because of the costs, and drive up the premiums of those who stick with traditional health insurance.

I disagree that HSA would hurt the middle class and poor. In fact, I think they would help them by providing a force to lower the cost of health care. When people's decisions are intimately tied to their finances (such as in a HSA), they tend to make more rational decisions. When you no longer have just a $10 copay to consider, generic drugs and excessive tests no longer seem desirable. When generic drugs get this edge, the price of name brand drugs drops, too. This is just one example, but you can see how this type of logic can be applied to much of health care.

The fact that insurance companies-seemingly demonized in the above quote-support the proposal should tell you something about the potential effects of this system. Insurance companies' primary interest is profit, not your health. Thus, any proposal which will make them more profitable is a good proposal. Rising health care costs will not benefit insurance companies; rather, as costs fall, insurance companies will pay less for services, increasing their profit. Thus, the presumption that premiums would increase is false. Increasing premiums would represent chump-change compared to a decrease in the cost of health care.

Health Savings accounts are certainly not for everybody, but they do represent an option that should exist for consumers. I think it is one piece of the solution to making health care more affordable for everyone, and I welcome any legislation that will make such accounts more accessible. Cheers, Newt!
Cross Posted at California Conservative and 123Beta

Newt on Free Elections

2006-12-06T20:43:00.000-08:00

I'm on a bit of a Newt Gingrich kick lately, but yesterday I came across this article via The Only Republican in San Francisco, which piqued my interest in the former Speaker of the House. Gingrich criticizes the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, arguing instead, that contributions should not be limited, provided they are transparent (he specifically suggests a 24 hour limit for making the records public).

Just as tax lawyers always succeed in out-thinking the (Internal Revenue Service) because they stay after five and the IRS goes home, the private-sector lawyers will always out-think the (Federal Election Commission) because they stay after five and the FEC goes home

I agree with Newt, but this is only one of the reasons why I disagree with McCain-Feingold. As I have discussed before, Campaign contributions represent a form of free expression, the ability to express your support through financial means, and limits on contributions are a limit on that freedom.

Furthermore, restricting donations gives disproportionate support to non-mainstream candidates, those with unpopular platforms. "Candidates with a more appealing message are able to obtain proportionally greater levels of financial support", thus, a "free-market" system is only fair.

Bolton: Accomplishments Forgotten

2006-12-04T20:39:00.000-08:00

As I discussed early this morning, I'm upset that John Bolton was essentially forced out of his seat as UN Ambassador. Throughout the day I've been reading numerous stories about his resignation, many of which provided a discussion of his brief tenure. However, I noticed that many of his accomplishments are not being mentioned. None of the numerous CNN.com iterations of the story discuss the fact that Bolton was nominated for a Nobel peace prize for his tough work exposing Iran's nuclear ambitions. In fact, CNN.com had trouble getting his name right! Also forgotten were Bolton's strong words condemning the UN for not acting on the Darfur crisis. These aspects were also missing from MSNBC/Newsweek, Reuters, and The New York Times. CBSnews.com doesn't mention the Nobel nomination, but Darfur is at least mentioned in their story, within a quote by President Bush:

"Ambassador Bolton led the successful negotiations that resulted in unanimous Security Council resolutions regarding North Korea's military and nuclear activities. He built consensus among our allies on the need for Iran to suspend the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium," Mr. Bush added. "His efforts to promote the cause of peace in Darfur resulted in a peacekeeping commitment by the United Nations. He made the case for United Nations reform because he cares about the institution, and wants it to become more credible and effective."

This latter point, his tough stance on providing reform to an organization mired by corruption, scandal, and poor leadership, is also mysteriosly absent from the vast majority of these stories.

Yet, while his noteworthy and commendable accomplishments are not discussed, his personality seems to be unavoidable. It seems as though his hot-headed personality trumps his actions. To demonstrate this, many of the articles I've read discussed an incident between Bolton and U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown. That his personality should overshadow his actions is unfortunate, though that appeared to be the sticking point amongst Senate Democrats who vowed not to reaffirm Bolton. The most common criticism of Bolton is based not on his actions, which speak for themselves, but rather his brash personality.

However brief his time was, I feel as though his actions demonstrated the potential to provide real change within the UN, and to promote peace and security throughout the world. Like the ambassadors from Japan, China and others, I appreciate his hard work, and am sad to see him go.

Cross-Posted at