I honestly do not know whether Senator Barack Obama agrees with the opinions on Race held by his long-time friend and “mentor”, Jeremiah Wright. On the one hand, he might not agree with the Reverend, in which case he played along for two decades while the pretense bought him street credibility. On the other, Obama may be playing down Wright’s hate speech while he chases votes from moderates and white voters. Neither possibility makes Barack Obama look all that mature or honorable, but for here I leave it at that.
Reverend Wright offends me not merely because he is a black racist, a man who sees all Caucasians as evil people. It does not seem to occur to him, that his sentiments mirror those of any slave trader of two centuries ago, the sort of people who figured that blacks were inferior and therefore did not deserve to be treated as humans. That’s what racism really comes down to, in the end – hating someone because of their race, and desiring evil on them solely because of their race. Reverend Wright is an obstacle, a parasite, and a blight on the reconciliation between blacks and other races in America.
I am not saying there is no racial tension, nor am I denying that the crimes against blacks in the past do not go away just because they are not perpetrated anymore. I even agree that there are people and places where the old bad days never seem to have ended. These are real problems that should not be ignored, but must be faced and resolved. But with that said, the progress over the years is real and substantial, and the good people far outnumber the bad. More, people like Reverend Wright are guilty of three kinds of sins which make race relations worse rather than better.
First, as I said many things have gotten much better, and while that does not mean that we should pretend the work is done it does mean that there needs to be recognition of the good. Even if people in general are as selfish and crass as Reverend Wright claims, it is understood that reward of a thing makes more of it. Ignoring progress is therefore the worst way to continue it, besides the dishonorable treatment of people whose work brought us where we are. For example, my family came to America as Anabaptists and determined abolitionists. The men in my family therefore considered Slavery a horrid abomination, and they fought in the Civil War specifically to abolish it and establish equal treatment of all men. Two sorts of fortunes came back to them for this; some died in the war while others merely lost their property, health and fortune. There was no Veterans Administration to care for them, no help from banks or churches to rebuild their farms or help their families. Yet even 140 years later, men like Jeremiah Wright can’t be bothered to respect their sacrifice, simply because they were white. I could also point out that the Civil Rights Act passed a Congress which was overwhelmingly white, because of overwhelming support among white voters. Wright focuses on the minority who resisted the reform, but will not commend those who fought to end that injustice, were they white.
The second sin is fomenting hate through false witness. Whites wanted to kill all the blacks? The United States is fighting in the Middle East because white people hate arabs? AIDs and crack cocaine were white strategies to hurt black people? As absurd as these charges are, when repeatedly over and over they begin to have the same effect as the Klan’s claims that blacks were conspiring to overthrow the United States. It’s the same sick strategy and way of thinking, a conspiracy mindet that locks out any chance of rational discussion and collaborative problem solving. People like Wright start with reasonable grievances, but instead of seeking solutions they use those initial causes as basis for clearly evil actions, killing discourse and civility and driving out solutions in favor of a chosen bloodfeud.
The third sin is what happens to real outrages. Blacks like Wright show rage at imagined offenses as quickly as real ones, blurring the distinction between true injustice and fodder for publicity. Real injustice should not be hidden in a pack of false allegations, which by the way racists can use to defend their rhetoric. Hysterical blacks like Wright undermine the effectiveness of valid protests, because Wright’s sort is too common and gets more media. An industry of fake rage has sprung up, dulling the public from seeing true wrongs when they happen. He will never admit it, but Jeremiah Wright has done as much to hurt blacks as any KKK Grand Dragon, and if he cares at all about his race at all, Senator Obama should be sorely ashamed for his association with Wright.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
I am not God - Neither are You
There are two points I want to make, and I have to begin by emphasizing that analogies are not perfect, but they can be valid without being perfect. When we humans discuss the affairs of God, it should not surprise us that we do not understand everything. Despite all the recent hype, we are NOT gods, much less God. Expecting a human being to not only comprehend the thoughts and will of God, but to be competent to judge Him on His work and behavior, is far more absurd than expecting a 1st-grader to correct Stephen Hawking’s calculations. Yet that human arrogance is quite common. How many times do we hear some snot-nosed slacker voice an opinion about his boss which comes from no experience, training, or relevent data, yet he feels his professional opinion is superior to the man who does have the data, training, and experience? Many students imagine they are smarter than their teachers and professors, again even though they have never collected the knowledge and experience their teacher possesses. And many children imagine they are wiser and smarter than their parents. And on and on and on.
When I was very young, I mentally criticized my parents for various things, but as I grew older and saw something of Life I began to realize that they were right, and in those cases where they were wrong in the facts, they were nonetheless right in the practice. The advantage I have in that perception, is that I was able to grow to a point where I reached where my parents had been before. It is, again, a very false presumption for any human to imagine he or she has learned and experienced enough, to speak as an equal to God. I know that moves against the popular philosophy these days, of doing as you please and blaming whatever happens on God, but there it is.
The second point involves the Bible. I don’t just mean the New Testament, though as you may expect I do believe it is true. I mean the Old Testament, which the Jews call the Tanakh. One thing which always impressed me about the ancient writings, is that they had no sugar-coating. Even the good people made mistakes, sometimes said and did bad things. And even the bad people often had some worthy traits. And many things happened, bad and good, when seemed to make no sense. Which brings me to the Book of ‘Job’. Job was decribed as a very good man, almost perfect, so good that when Satan came around God’s court for whatever reason he did that, God bragged on Job to Satan. Well, you know the rest. Scholars have been trying to answer ever since, why God would let Satan do what he did to Job. The answer, I think, whether or not you think Job was a real person or not, is because we know these things really do happen. Evil men prosper while the good and innocent suffer. A lot of petty and bitter people just unload on God and never ask why he might have done that. That is, if God is who we always heard He is, the source of all goodness and hope, then why would He let these sorts of things happen? Instead, they default to the small-minded assumption that God does not exist, or if he does exist then He’s either an incompetent liar who can’t do the job, or a cruel monster who tortures his kids. None of those descriptions, however, makes sense when you think them through, at least I don’t see it that way.
What I mean is, if everything has a source and I believe that is so, then Goodness and Evil have a source. SOMETHING brought goodness into being, and to do so that SOMETHING must have been perfect in its goodness, because otherwise perfection could not exist. If we accept that, then there must of right be some entity who is wholly good, and it makes sense that this source would be God. You see, everything has a source, and we know that good and evil oppose each other. We can also see by examination, that goodness matters more than evil, if only because we encourage goodness; it is in our nature to seek out goodness. That being so, our Creator must also be good, since good and evil oppose, and therefore our Lord is the Good Lord. The whole defense takes muchg longer but would convince no one anyway whose heart was evil and dark, so I simply put it there for this point; God of right is good and loves us. Therefore there must be a purpose to allowing evil and suffering, which is beyond our comprehension.
Going back to my analogy, there are many things we experience as children and young people, which makes little sense until we are grown enough. The first step to comprehension is acceptance of a fact we do not like, but recognize as a fact. And here the first step is accepting that while God does allow bad to happen, it is somehow because He is good that this is so, and in the end it will prove wise, even necessary so we will become full in our promise.
When I was very young, I mentally criticized my parents for various things, but as I grew older and saw something of Life I began to realize that they were right, and in those cases where they were wrong in the facts, they were nonetheless right in the practice. The advantage I have in that perception, is that I was able to grow to a point where I reached where my parents had been before. It is, again, a very false presumption for any human to imagine he or she has learned and experienced enough, to speak as an equal to God. I know that moves against the popular philosophy these days, of doing as you please and blaming whatever happens on God, but there it is.
The second point involves the Bible. I don’t just mean the New Testament, though as you may expect I do believe it is true. I mean the Old Testament, which the Jews call the Tanakh. One thing which always impressed me about the ancient writings, is that they had no sugar-coating. Even the good people made mistakes, sometimes said and did bad things. And even the bad people often had some worthy traits. And many things happened, bad and good, when seemed to make no sense. Which brings me to the Book of ‘Job’. Job was decribed as a very good man, almost perfect, so good that when Satan came around God’s court for whatever reason he did that, God bragged on Job to Satan. Well, you know the rest. Scholars have been trying to answer ever since, why God would let Satan do what he did to Job. The answer, I think, whether or not you think Job was a real person or not, is because we know these things really do happen. Evil men prosper while the good and innocent suffer. A lot of petty and bitter people just unload on God and never ask why he might have done that. That is, if God is who we always heard He is, the source of all goodness and hope, then why would He let these sorts of things happen? Instead, they default to the small-minded assumption that God does not exist, or if he does exist then He’s either an incompetent liar who can’t do the job, or a cruel monster who tortures his kids. None of those descriptions, however, makes sense when you think them through, at least I don’t see it that way.
What I mean is, if everything has a source and I believe that is so, then Goodness and Evil have a source. SOMETHING brought goodness into being, and to do so that SOMETHING must have been perfect in its goodness, because otherwise perfection could not exist. If we accept that, then there must of right be some entity who is wholly good, and it makes sense that this source would be God. You see, everything has a source, and we know that good and evil oppose each other. We can also see by examination, that goodness matters more than evil, if only because we encourage goodness; it is in our nature to seek out goodness. That being so, our Creator must also be good, since good and evil oppose, and therefore our Lord is the Good Lord. The whole defense takes muchg longer but would convince no one anyway whose heart was evil and dark, so I simply put it there for this point; God of right is good and loves us. Therefore there must be a purpose to allowing evil and suffering, which is beyond our comprehension.
Going back to my analogy, there are many things we experience as children and young people, which makes little sense until we are grown enough. The first step to comprehension is acceptance of a fact we do not like, but recognize as a fact. And here the first step is accepting that while God does allow bad to happen, it is somehow because He is good that this is so, and in the end it will prove wise, even necessary so we will become full in our promise.
Senescent Campaigns
There is much ado to be heard, about Senator Obama’s long-delayed and half-hearted admission yesterday that he had indeed heard “controversial” statements from his “mentor” and advisor Jeremiah Wright. Clinton supporters hoped the scandal would derail his nomination run, while McCain supporters hoped it would improve McCain’s chances in the fall. Obama and his team, once able to sell Barack as a man above the vulgar manipulation of race in his campaign, are now forced to deal with the revelation to the nation that Obama’s hands are as dirty as anyone else’s and quite possibly worse, and that his connection to Reverend Wright implies a crass racism in his own history which belies his oft-professed ideals. At best a hypocrite, Senator Obama is still exhibiting a clear stage of denial in the process, unaware that excuses and evasion will only make things worse.
With that said, however, no one should assume Wright’s racism, no matter how heinous, will permanently or seriously affect Obama’s candidacy. There was an immediate cost, and it will hurt Obama to some extent, but in the end it is a scandal about the words and behavior of one of Obama’s friends, not the Senator himself. True, Obama’s long friendship with Wright would devastate his career if Obama were white and a Republican, but as he is neither, History shows the cost will be transitory. As long as he does not make things worse, Obama can ride out this storm. Now he is proven no different from so many politicians before him, Barack Obama can relax and follow the script, dropping the pretense that he really represents anything innovative.
So whither Hillary? This time last year, Senator Clinton cast the image of the ‘inevitable’ next President of the United States. Since then, the ‘Smarter Clinton’ has been Clintanic in her campaign, as in a ship that aims for icebergs. The advantage for Clinton is that hitting nearly every possible obstacle during the primary run has helped her map them out for the fall campaign, should she gain the nomination. And no one should count Clinton out of the race, even should it seem impossible for her to come back. If Hillary share’s Bill’s penchant for saying and doing extremely unwise things as political strategy, she also shares his stamina and perseverence, even if those qualities are born of a voracious and ruthless lust for power. Hillary simply never gives up. While I can’t see how Hillary would be able to win the nomination in any normal fashion, I do not doubt she will contend all the way to the convention. Those Super-Delegates should expect a lot of pressure between now and the convention.
All this, we are told, delights the people at McCain 2008. The mental image of Obama having to address the public discovery that he is imperfect, while Hillary boils with the potential end of her rise to Oval Office Omnivoration, creates no end of amusement for the presumptive GOP nominee. But McCain has his own issues, not least the fracture in the Republican Party which McCain has done nothing to heal. Putting it bluntly, McCain has made it clear he neither respects Conservatives, nor intends to work for their support. McCain hopes to win the General Election with the same plan he used in the primaries, to attract self-proclaimed moderates and independent voters, as well as to depend on his reputation as a war hero. He is more than willing to forfeit Conservative support in that exchange, especially as he hopes – somewhat vainly – that they will vote for him anyway in the fall, for fear of Obama or Clinton taking office through their neglect. Which decision brings up an intriguing point which I have not seen addressed anywhere else, yet: The question of grass-roots infrastructure.
The 2004 Presidential Election was noteworthy for its high voter turnout. While this was attrbuted to many causes, one of the most important in my opinion was the intense effort made by Democrats and Republicans during the spring and summer, from building enthusiasm to registering new voters to making sure they got to the polls. The logic is obvious – Democrats heavily vote for the Democrat while Republicans heavily vote for the Republican. So if the candidate consolidates their base and gets a higher turnout from their party at the polls, they are more likely to win. 2004 bore that out, as both Bush and Kerry enjoyed tremendous vote tallies. Therefore, the present situation should concern both Democrats and Republicans. The energy in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns has been strong, but the emotion also threatens party unity when one of the two must give up the fight; there is a lot of bad feeling already present, and while it is a stretch to imagine Clinton or Obama supporters crossing over to actually vote for McCain, the question of how many will stay at home is a very real factor in the race. Not that McCain can relax on that count. Conservatives are traditionally some of the most energetic campaigners, and without their support McCain will find the fall much harder going than he seems to expect. And frankly, Senator McCain has burned too many bridges with Conservatives to think that he can win them over now with a few half-sincere gestures. But again, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are not at all likely to join forces after the nominee is selected; the bad blood is too deep now for that, especially as it has become quite clear that the Junior Senator from Illinois and the Junior Senator from New York do not like or respect each other.
This fall, then, will be turbulent and full of noise. Which, when you think on it, is always the case these days in Presidential Elections. The only chance of a real ‘October Surprise’, would be if this time we were treated to a pair of qualified, mature candidates who respected the voters enough to trust their intelligence and judgment. But since we know the potential candidates, we already know that possibility is not at all realistic. The senescent practice is once again the norm.
With that said, however, no one should assume Wright’s racism, no matter how heinous, will permanently or seriously affect Obama’s candidacy. There was an immediate cost, and it will hurt Obama to some extent, but in the end it is a scandal about the words and behavior of one of Obama’s friends, not the Senator himself. True, Obama’s long friendship with Wright would devastate his career if Obama were white and a Republican, but as he is neither, History shows the cost will be transitory. As long as he does not make things worse, Obama can ride out this storm. Now he is proven no different from so many politicians before him, Barack Obama can relax and follow the script, dropping the pretense that he really represents anything innovative.
So whither Hillary? This time last year, Senator Clinton cast the image of the ‘inevitable’ next President of the United States. Since then, the ‘Smarter Clinton’ has been Clintanic in her campaign, as in a ship that aims for icebergs. The advantage for Clinton is that hitting nearly every possible obstacle during the primary run has helped her map them out for the fall campaign, should she gain the nomination. And no one should count Clinton out of the race, even should it seem impossible for her to come back. If Hillary share’s Bill’s penchant for saying and doing extremely unwise things as political strategy, she also shares his stamina and perseverence, even if those qualities are born of a voracious and ruthless lust for power. Hillary simply never gives up. While I can’t see how Hillary would be able to win the nomination in any normal fashion, I do not doubt she will contend all the way to the convention. Those Super-Delegates should expect a lot of pressure between now and the convention.
All this, we are told, delights the people at McCain 2008. The mental image of Obama having to address the public discovery that he is imperfect, while Hillary boils with the potential end of her rise to Oval Office Omnivoration, creates no end of amusement for the presumptive GOP nominee. But McCain has his own issues, not least the fracture in the Republican Party which McCain has done nothing to heal. Putting it bluntly, McCain has made it clear he neither respects Conservatives, nor intends to work for their support. McCain hopes to win the General Election with the same plan he used in the primaries, to attract self-proclaimed moderates and independent voters, as well as to depend on his reputation as a war hero. He is more than willing to forfeit Conservative support in that exchange, especially as he hopes – somewhat vainly – that they will vote for him anyway in the fall, for fear of Obama or Clinton taking office through their neglect. Which decision brings up an intriguing point which I have not seen addressed anywhere else, yet: The question of grass-roots infrastructure.
The 2004 Presidential Election was noteworthy for its high voter turnout. While this was attrbuted to many causes, one of the most important in my opinion was the intense effort made by Democrats and Republicans during the spring and summer, from building enthusiasm to registering new voters to making sure they got to the polls. The logic is obvious – Democrats heavily vote for the Democrat while Republicans heavily vote for the Republican. So if the candidate consolidates their base and gets a higher turnout from their party at the polls, they are more likely to win. 2004 bore that out, as both Bush and Kerry enjoyed tremendous vote tallies. Therefore, the present situation should concern both Democrats and Republicans. The energy in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns has been strong, but the emotion also threatens party unity when one of the two must give up the fight; there is a lot of bad feeling already present, and while it is a stretch to imagine Clinton or Obama supporters crossing over to actually vote for McCain, the question of how many will stay at home is a very real factor in the race. Not that McCain can relax on that count. Conservatives are traditionally some of the most energetic campaigners, and without their support McCain will find the fall much harder going than he seems to expect. And frankly, Senator McCain has burned too many bridges with Conservatives to think that he can win them over now with a few half-sincere gestures. But again, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are not at all likely to join forces after the nominee is selected; the bad blood is too deep now for that, especially as it has become quite clear that the Junior Senator from Illinois and the Junior Senator from New York do not like or respect each other.
This fall, then, will be turbulent and full of noise. Which, when you think on it, is always the case these days in Presidential Elections. The only chance of a real ‘October Surprise’, would be if this time we were treated to a pair of qualified, mature candidates who respected the voters enough to trust their intelligence and judgment. But since we know the potential candidates, we already know that possibility is not at all realistic. The senescent practice is once again the norm.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Iraq
Today marks the 5th anniversary of the resumption of the Iraq War. While many folks find it convenient to try changing the facts, it should be remembered at the start that this war did not start with President George W. Bush, nor indeed any American, but by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, for which the cease-fire provisioned clear conditions. In short, Saddam broke those conditions seriously, deliberately, repeatedly and beyond any doubt, so that the war was joined again through his malfeasance and no other.
The United States has suffered almost four thousand combat deaths in the war. While painful and a sad cost which no nation wishes upon its soldiers, in any historical context this cost is light compared to the accomplishments. Indeed, it is the historical context which matters in judging the war. While connections to Al Qaeda were lacking, there is no question that Saddam’s Iraq was friendly to Middle East terrorists of many factions.
This means that a serious war against the infrastructure of Global Terrorism required military action against Iraq. This was indeed one of the conclusions made by the Congress when it approved the use of force against Saddam’s regime, and indeed the basis for the Clinton Administration’s 1998 signature of the act making regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States.
There are essentially only three paths to consider regarding Iraq’s relationship with the Middle East. If Saddam had not been removed from power and he was as capable as he claimed, Saddam’s support for terrorist groups would have insured another major attack upon Americans and the soil of the United States. If he was as weak as some suppose, not removing Saddam would have left Iraq open to invasion from Iran, who indeed was raising troops in apparent plan to do just that thing; the prospect of a Greater Persia in command of the territories of Iraq in addition to itself would have crippled the world economy in short order, and brought on untold horrors to the people of the Middle East as the vision of such men as Ahmadinejad would have been unrestrained, with bloody Jihad the pitiless assailant of every moderate Arab nation. Nuclear war with Israel would almost surely have occurred. The third road is the one we took, removing Saddam in hopes of creating a stable and more democratic form of government. When the shouting settles down and wiser heads speak, it turns out that while imperfect, the Iraq now in place is a better, safer alternative to what we faced half a decade ago.
The United States has suffered almost four thousand combat deaths in the war. While painful and a sad cost which no nation wishes upon its soldiers, in any historical context this cost is light compared to the accomplishments. Indeed, it is the historical context which matters in judging the war. While connections to Al Qaeda were lacking, there is no question that Saddam’s Iraq was friendly to Middle East terrorists of many factions.
This means that a serious war against the infrastructure of Global Terrorism required military action against Iraq. This was indeed one of the conclusions made by the Congress when it approved the use of force against Saddam’s regime, and indeed the basis for the Clinton Administration’s 1998 signature of the act making regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States.
There are essentially only three paths to consider regarding Iraq’s relationship with the Middle East. If Saddam had not been removed from power and he was as capable as he claimed, Saddam’s support for terrorist groups would have insured another major attack upon Americans and the soil of the United States. If he was as weak as some suppose, not removing Saddam would have left Iraq open to invasion from Iran, who indeed was raising troops in apparent plan to do just that thing; the prospect of a Greater Persia in command of the territories of Iraq in addition to itself would have crippled the world economy in short order, and brought on untold horrors to the people of the Middle East as the vision of such men as Ahmadinejad would have been unrestrained, with bloody Jihad the pitiless assailant of every moderate Arab nation. Nuclear war with Israel would almost surely have occurred. The third road is the one we took, removing Saddam in hopes of creating a stable and more democratic form of government. When the shouting settles down and wiser heads speak, it turns out that while imperfect, the Iraq now in place is a better, safer alternative to what we faced half a decade ago.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Recession Test for Leaders
It looks like we are headed for a recession, might already be in one. OK, so technically a recession is a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters, but all the media seems to be saying we are in a recession, so let’s say we are in one.
This election has many issues, but the Economy is the big one so far. That being the case, it seems reasonable to ask how Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain would suggest we address this recession. So, let’s see what a Google search with the candidate name and the word ‘recession’ brings up:
Barack Obama – Google News did not have much, except to say that Obama believes we are in a recession; no comment on what he would do as President to deal with that. So, on to Obama’s website, barackobama.com. Under his ‘Economy’ section, Barack tells us
“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world”.
Well, no one would argue with that, but it’s, well, kind of vague. I clicked on a promising tab, titled “Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief”. Obama plans to give a tax credit of $500 a person or $1,000 a family to about the lowest half of taxable income. Obama also likes the idea of having the IRS create “pre-filled” forms for us to sign and return. Of course, that ignores that most savings real people get from filing their taxes intelligently involves declaring deductions, and that small businesses would not benefit from this plan.
Not much there that addresses the macro economy, though. Looking through the rest of his economic proposals, Obama wants federal regulation of energy providers, internet service, and mortgage companies, preferential treatment of unions, indexing the minimum wage to inflation and to set collection limits on medical bills and mortgages. Heh, there goes that “free market” he said was so great, hmm?
In the end, I can’t say I saw much that would help end a recession. And several things that could precipitate or aggravate one.
On now to Hillary Clinton. Like Obama, Clinton does not say much about recessions, except that she is sure we are in one. At her site, hillaryclinton.com, I found even more vague platitudes than at Obama’s site. For example, Hillary wants us to know that
“Hillary has a plan to restore America's middle class”
Uh huh. I think the problem there, is that a lawyer who can turn $1,000 of someone else’s loaned money into a hundred thousand dollars in a few months, who can 'donate' book revenue to charity and yet somehow become a multi-millionaire on the salary of a public servant, probably lost sight of us in the middle class a long time ago, and is just assuming we disappeared. Anyway, Hillary promises to “lower taxes for the Middle Class”. Hey, waddaya know, she found us! So, clicking on that link to find out how she plans to lower taxes, I found 2,523 words to describe how unfair things are for Americans, but the only specific mentions of taxes were how Bush is about “tax cuts for the rich”, how the national debt amounts to a “birth tax” (not that Hillary voted against spending while she was a Senator, I note), tax credits for Gore-friendly energy practices, health tax credits for individuals to be funded by new taxes on employers, and higher taxes on “the rich”. Turns out Hillary has no real plans to lower taxes for regular people after all. Can’t say that sounds like a smart way to address a recession. Like Obama, Hillary sounds like she would make things worse, not better.
On to McCain. Well, McCain stubbed his toe this week, admitting the country is “very likely in a recession” after repeatedly saying he did not think one was on the way. Oops. Then again, we are not technically in a recession – yet – so perhaps Senator McCain was transiting between the formal definition and the subjective opinion. But it does not help for a leader to look confused about the situation. At his site, johnmccain.com, there is nothing specific about recessions, so I clicked on ‘taxes and economics”. Well, there is another plan for middle class tax cuts. Seems to be de riguer to promise to watch out for the middle class, hmm? Let’s see, McCain’s tax cut would come from eliminating the AMT. Ah, so it’s not really a tax cut, but something else. McCain wants to make it harder for Congress to raise taxes, but last I heard that was up to Congress, not the President. McCain does want to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, but again that would be something Congress does, and while President could propose it I don’t see John McCain getting that one to fly. I like McCain’s plans better than Obama’s or Clinton’s, but then I would say that as a Republican. I have to say that I don’t see any specific plan to addressing a recession. Seems as though McCain, just like Obama and Clinton, has not given that question a lot of thought, which bothers me considering how important everyone says the Economy is to this election.
It’s not as though fighting a recession is all that complicated. The Economy basically runs on one prime fuel: Confidence. If folks have faith in the Economy, they buy things and that drives production and revenue, which gets companies to hire folks and spend money on materials and investment, which in turn gives folks the money to buy things. All a recession really is, is confidence stumbling for a bit of time. No surprise these things happen a lot around election seasons. And no surprise that every President in a recession talks up confidence, tries to get folks to feel good about the Economy. And when you get into it, most of the time the President can’t really prevent a recession, unless he’s Jimmy Carter. All he can do is react when it hits and try to lessen its duration and depth. It’s not easy, not at all easy for a President to admit something that important could be out of his hands. I’m not sure a President ever really does admit that, even to himself. Then again, I want a President who knows what he means to do about the situation, and so it’s a problem that we’re not hearing it from the three people closest to the office.
This election has many issues, but the Economy is the big one so far. That being the case, it seems reasonable to ask how Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain would suggest we address this recession. So, let’s see what a Google search with the candidate name and the word ‘recession’ brings up:
Barack Obama – Google News did not have much, except to say that Obama believes we are in a recession; no comment on what he would do as President to deal with that. So, on to Obama’s website, barackobama.com. Under his ‘Economy’ section, Barack tells us
“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world”.
Well, no one would argue with that, but it’s, well, kind of vague. I clicked on a promising tab, titled “Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief”. Obama plans to give a tax credit of $500 a person or $1,000 a family to about the lowest half of taxable income. Obama also likes the idea of having the IRS create “pre-filled” forms for us to sign and return. Of course, that ignores that most savings real people get from filing their taxes intelligently involves declaring deductions, and that small businesses would not benefit from this plan.
Not much there that addresses the macro economy, though. Looking through the rest of his economic proposals, Obama wants federal regulation of energy providers, internet service, and mortgage companies, preferential treatment of unions, indexing the minimum wage to inflation and to set collection limits on medical bills and mortgages. Heh, there goes that “free market” he said was so great, hmm?
In the end, I can’t say I saw much that would help end a recession. And several things that could precipitate or aggravate one.
On now to Hillary Clinton. Like Obama, Clinton does not say much about recessions, except that she is sure we are in one. At her site, hillaryclinton.com, I found even more vague platitudes than at Obama’s site. For example, Hillary wants us to know that
“Hillary has a plan to restore America's middle class”
Uh huh. I think the problem there, is that a lawyer who can turn $1,000 of someone else’s loaned money into a hundred thousand dollars in a few months, who can 'donate' book revenue to charity and yet somehow become a multi-millionaire on the salary of a public servant, probably lost sight of us in the middle class a long time ago, and is just assuming we disappeared. Anyway, Hillary promises to “lower taxes for the Middle Class”. Hey, waddaya know, she found us! So, clicking on that link to find out how she plans to lower taxes, I found 2,523 words to describe how unfair things are for Americans, but the only specific mentions of taxes were how Bush is about “tax cuts for the rich”, how the national debt amounts to a “birth tax” (not that Hillary voted against spending while she was a Senator, I note), tax credits for Gore-friendly energy practices, health tax credits for individuals to be funded by new taxes on employers, and higher taxes on “the rich”. Turns out Hillary has no real plans to lower taxes for regular people after all. Can’t say that sounds like a smart way to address a recession. Like Obama, Hillary sounds like she would make things worse, not better.
On to McCain. Well, McCain stubbed his toe this week, admitting the country is “very likely in a recession” after repeatedly saying he did not think one was on the way. Oops. Then again, we are not technically in a recession – yet – so perhaps Senator McCain was transiting between the formal definition and the subjective opinion. But it does not help for a leader to look confused about the situation. At his site, johnmccain.com, there is nothing specific about recessions, so I clicked on ‘taxes and economics”. Well, there is another plan for middle class tax cuts. Seems to be de riguer to promise to watch out for the middle class, hmm? Let’s see, McCain’s tax cut would come from eliminating the AMT. Ah, so it’s not really a tax cut, but something else. McCain wants to make it harder for Congress to raise taxes, but last I heard that was up to Congress, not the President. McCain does want to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, but again that would be something Congress does, and while President could propose it I don’t see John McCain getting that one to fly. I like McCain’s plans better than Obama’s or Clinton’s, but then I would say that as a Republican. I have to say that I don’t see any specific plan to addressing a recession. Seems as though McCain, just like Obama and Clinton, has not given that question a lot of thought, which bothers me considering how important everyone says the Economy is to this election.
It’s not as though fighting a recession is all that complicated. The Economy basically runs on one prime fuel: Confidence. If folks have faith in the Economy, they buy things and that drives production and revenue, which gets companies to hire folks and spend money on materials and investment, which in turn gives folks the money to buy things. All a recession really is, is confidence stumbling for a bit of time. No surprise these things happen a lot around election seasons. And no surprise that every President in a recession talks up confidence, tries to get folks to feel good about the Economy. And when you get into it, most of the time the President can’t really prevent a recession, unless he’s Jimmy Carter. All he can do is react when it hits and try to lessen its duration and depth. It’s not easy, not at all easy for a President to admit something that important could be out of his hands. I’m not sure a President ever really does admit that, even to himself. Then again, I want a President who knows what he means to do about the situation, and so it’s a problem that we’re not hearing it from the three people closest to the office.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Holy, Holy, Holy
When I take a break from my regular job and my schoolwork, I have been reading up on the saga of the Holy Grail. While that’s interesting, what struck me about it was how different we are today from Medeival times. In some ways that is good, but not in all things. No more quests, no belief in the numinous, no confidence in Chivalry or Honor, no sense of the Holy. You may smile to hear that people took comfort in the physical presence of relics, that they believed such things were signals of the will and pleasure of God, that people considered Man’s place below God’s will and that we pursue the holy not as a duty or a choice but because it changes us in ways that no other force could, but the man who lives without such beliefs is the poorer for that choice. The reality and presence of the holy is of an order of Reality beyond our comprehension, and is the essence of both fear and hope.
Non-Christians frequently charge that if Christianity were all it claims, there should be clear evidence of a different way of life among Christians. They’re right, it’s the fruit of our faith that we should live in love and hope, not acting as we did when our souls were dead in sin. Yet it must also be remembered that we still live in the carnal world, that our journey to the Kingdom of Heaven is through the wasteland of human hubris, and we are not truly home until we are perfected through Christ’s holiness. And so it is true not merely that we are granted visions of holiness as beacons to guide us in our lives, but also as spiritual sustenance; just as we partake of Communion in remembrance of Christ, so God sends us images of the holy to remind us of our identity and sustain our soul in spiritual communication.
I fear sometimes that we lose sight of the holy. As the Church finds more and more enemies, it has a harder time pointing out the holy to those who seek it, and as the world focuses more on more with personal pleasures and immediate gratification, the things of the next world are far too easily missed. We see the surface effect, not the cause, and we discard greatness because it is inconvenient. We see suffering as something to avoid, and miss the character of bearing hardship. We do no penance, because we assume we are in no need of rebuilding in our soul. We trust our own clever wit, and forget the deeper wisdom of our Maker. We call the Humane the highest ideal, and so pass by the road which leads to something greater than the human condition.
We should remember to seek that which is holy, and to be humble in our place.
Non-Christians frequently charge that if Christianity were all it claims, there should be clear evidence of a different way of life among Christians. They’re right, it’s the fruit of our faith that we should live in love and hope, not acting as we did when our souls were dead in sin. Yet it must also be remembered that we still live in the carnal world, that our journey to the Kingdom of Heaven is through the wasteland of human hubris, and we are not truly home until we are perfected through Christ’s holiness. And so it is true not merely that we are granted visions of holiness as beacons to guide us in our lives, but also as spiritual sustenance; just as we partake of Communion in remembrance of Christ, so God sends us images of the holy to remind us of our identity and sustain our soul in spiritual communication.
I fear sometimes that we lose sight of the holy. As the Church finds more and more enemies, it has a harder time pointing out the holy to those who seek it, and as the world focuses more on more with personal pleasures and immediate gratification, the things of the next world are far too easily missed. We see the surface effect, not the cause, and we discard greatness because it is inconvenient. We see suffering as something to avoid, and miss the character of bearing hardship. We do no penance, because we assume we are in no need of rebuilding in our soul. We trust our own clever wit, and forget the deeper wisdom of our Maker. We call the Humane the highest ideal, and so pass by the road which leads to something greater than the human condition.
We should remember to seek that which is holy, and to be humble in our place.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Privileged Class
One of the mostly untouched subjects in debates between Conservatives and Liberals, is a direct discussion about Class Warfare. On the one hand, it is patently obvious that Liberals believe that Society is divided into various cultural and economic strata, which they blame for a number of perceived injustices. On the other hand, Liberals refuse to test many of their assumptions, as indeed is a problem for Conservatives as well. Today, I would like to explore the hypothesis of the privileged class.
The basic assumption among Liberals is that there are certain Americans who, to put it simply, have things too good. They are rich and powerful and are never called upon to “sacrifice”, which in the Liberal Lexicon means to voluntarily suffer in order to advance some ideal. Thus, tax cuts are demonized as being solely or mostly for “the rich”, even though in actual fact the income tax cuts of the past generation have more often helped lower-income Americans as a percentage effect of their income. Corporations are evil by simple definition of having power to accomplish anything, and anyone who supports the War in Iraq without having personally served in that conflict or suffered the loss of a loved one is somehow disqualified from being able to voice an opinion. The list is by definition never complete, as any targeted enemy can and will be designated as rich or elite, or otherwise marginalized to discredit their position or identity. Conservatives do the same thing, but not to the same degree. Leading Liberals can expect to be stereotyped by their opponents, although Conservatives tend to focus on the argument more than the person.
What’s odd about the Liberal perspective, is what happens when a prominent Liberal happens to have money or power. In their case, some sort of exemption is granted by the Left. John Kerry is the epitome of the empty-suit aristocrat, yet he was tapped to be the Democrats’ candidate for President in 2004. Kerry followed Al Gore, who made millions for himself shilling snakeoil remedies for the ficticitious but trendy Global Warming scare. And no one familiar with Liberal politics can forget the influence and long-time control by the Kennedy empire.
I think the Liberal notion actually started with good intentions. That is, that people who find themselves blessed with financial or positional advantage should be mindful that they have a duty to those less fortunate, a moral obligation to consider the general welfare in addition to their own well-being. Any experienced businessman can tell you that’s smart economics too, as goodwill by a corporation goes a long way and tends to be reciprocated. Besides, who doesn’t enjoy having a reputation as a good citizen?
Where the Liberals went wrong, though, was when they decided that selective morality should be coerced at times, that it was appropriate to deny rights to certain people because of their politics or personal choices. The Liberals also went wrong in deciding to apply charity through government. In addition to the horrid inefficiencies in having government disburse assistance, there is the moral offense of punishing success in business through “progressive” taxation, and the effective elimination of virtue in the assistance; the good comes from the compassion and the voluntary decision to help – it is quite a false claim to tell someone that money they lost against their will was well used, simply because the people who took it by force like what they did with it. By my lights it’s also well outside the boundaries of government authority granted by the United States Constitution, the idea that government should compel you to give money to someone else simply because they have less than you do.
I would also suggest that both parties have a real disconnect with regular Americans. Sure, there has always been a part of the public who would allow themselves to be outraged that a few people enjoyed great success from their own hard work and ingenuity. But more and more, people come to respect that a lot of the rich earn their money and take risks to do it, while members of the House and Senate seem to enjoy a lot of perks, privileges, and money from nowhere that smells an awful lot like graft. The legality of how they got their hoards is frankly beside the point, when the people grabbing the money are in position to make the laws to protect their self-interest. The question about whether or not Roger Clemens used HGH or whether oil companies make “too much money” is a rank hypocritical pose, when the Senators hide how they line their own pockets and fund their futures for when they are out of office. Fewer and fewer Americans see their Congressmen or Senators as defenders of their interests, when so many Senators and Congressmen have biographies that reveal almost no real-world experience. They don’t worry about Social Security, for example. They don’t have to pay for health insurance. They usually send their kids to private schools, and in many cases they don’t know what rush hour traffic is like, or what it means to buy their own groceries or school supplies, or mail their own letters or even do their own taxes. For the most significant routine activities of life, the people who make our laws have no effective understanding of our world. If there is a privileged class in America, it’s the politicians in Washington D.C.
The basic assumption among Liberals is that there are certain Americans who, to put it simply, have things too good. They are rich and powerful and are never called upon to “sacrifice”, which in the Liberal Lexicon means to voluntarily suffer in order to advance some ideal. Thus, tax cuts are demonized as being solely or mostly for “the rich”, even though in actual fact the income tax cuts of the past generation have more often helped lower-income Americans as a percentage effect of their income. Corporations are evil by simple definition of having power to accomplish anything, and anyone who supports the War in Iraq without having personally served in that conflict or suffered the loss of a loved one is somehow disqualified from being able to voice an opinion. The list is by definition never complete, as any targeted enemy can and will be designated as rich or elite, or otherwise marginalized to discredit their position or identity. Conservatives do the same thing, but not to the same degree. Leading Liberals can expect to be stereotyped by their opponents, although Conservatives tend to focus on the argument more than the person.
What’s odd about the Liberal perspective, is what happens when a prominent Liberal happens to have money or power. In their case, some sort of exemption is granted by the Left. John Kerry is the epitome of the empty-suit aristocrat, yet he was tapped to be the Democrats’ candidate for President in 2004. Kerry followed Al Gore, who made millions for himself shilling snakeoil remedies for the ficticitious but trendy Global Warming scare. And no one familiar with Liberal politics can forget the influence and long-time control by the Kennedy empire.
I think the Liberal notion actually started with good intentions. That is, that people who find themselves blessed with financial or positional advantage should be mindful that they have a duty to those less fortunate, a moral obligation to consider the general welfare in addition to their own well-being. Any experienced businessman can tell you that’s smart economics too, as goodwill by a corporation goes a long way and tends to be reciprocated. Besides, who doesn’t enjoy having a reputation as a good citizen?
Where the Liberals went wrong, though, was when they decided that selective morality should be coerced at times, that it was appropriate to deny rights to certain people because of their politics or personal choices. The Liberals also went wrong in deciding to apply charity through government. In addition to the horrid inefficiencies in having government disburse assistance, there is the moral offense of punishing success in business through “progressive” taxation, and the effective elimination of virtue in the assistance; the good comes from the compassion and the voluntary decision to help – it is quite a false claim to tell someone that money they lost against their will was well used, simply because the people who took it by force like what they did with it. By my lights it’s also well outside the boundaries of government authority granted by the United States Constitution, the idea that government should compel you to give money to someone else simply because they have less than you do.
I would also suggest that both parties have a real disconnect with regular Americans. Sure, there has always been a part of the public who would allow themselves to be outraged that a few people enjoyed great success from their own hard work and ingenuity. But more and more, people come to respect that a lot of the rich earn their money and take risks to do it, while members of the House and Senate seem to enjoy a lot of perks, privileges, and money from nowhere that smells an awful lot like graft. The legality of how they got their hoards is frankly beside the point, when the people grabbing the money are in position to make the laws to protect their self-interest. The question about whether or not Roger Clemens used HGH or whether oil companies make “too much money” is a rank hypocritical pose, when the Senators hide how they line their own pockets and fund their futures for when they are out of office. Fewer and fewer Americans see their Congressmen or Senators as defenders of their interests, when so many Senators and Congressmen have biographies that reveal almost no real-world experience. They don’t worry about Social Security, for example. They don’t have to pay for health insurance. They usually send their kids to private schools, and in many cases they don’t know what rush hour traffic is like, or what it means to buy their own groceries or school supplies, or mail their own letters or even do their own taxes. For the most significant routine activities of life, the people who make our laws have no effective understanding of our world. If there is a privileged class in America, it’s the politicians in Washington D.C.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Vatican and God
Here we go again. This week, the Vatican released a list of “new sins” for us to worry about. OK sure, being greedy and not caring about the harm you do to the environment is something I think should be criticized, but the schtick falls flat when you try to sell it as a “new” kind of sin. For one thing, it implies that it was – what – alright I guess to be greedy and dirty in the past? I don’t think so. Greed has always been out of bounds, remember Jesus’ admonition about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter Heaven? And He also covered pollution in that ‘what you do to the least of these, you also do to Me’ warning. What’s wrong now, has always been wrong.
But it also runs into a question of just why the Vatican thinks it has the mojo to be telling us what is and is not a sin. The Bible already lays it out pretty well, and I am one of those people who believes the Bible is how God laid down the Law. So the Vatican seems to be saying that God “missed” some sins? Or worse, that the Pope and his Posse are in a position to, what “correct” God? That kind of arrogance makes me even more of a Protestant. Sure, there are a bunch of Protestant ‘ministers’ whose egos are swollen bigger than counties, and there are a whole lot of people in all faiths and denominations who wrongly believe they have the right to order folks around like they own them, but even the worst Protestant minister stops short of presuming that he outranks God. I have to say that hearing the Vatican tossing out new standards of morality makes me wonder if the Roman Catholic Church is still just a bit tiffed by its loss of Temporal power a while back?
Well, to be fair the whole world of Religion seems to be pushing to grab power and influence. We had the whole Moral Majority thing back in the Reagan years, which lost of lot of its appeal when it began to look less like an appeal to reform government and more a ploy to pass laws which gave that group an advantage. The Muslims and the Mormons have done a lot over the years to gain political advantage as well, seeing no conflict of interest in using faith resources for material gain. Countless politicians make it a point to be seen on TV going into church, making nice with ministers and occasionally standing behind a pulpit. And even the quasi-religious types play that game, as Buddhists and Scientologists work hard to spin public opinion to their gain. It’s not as if the Catholics are the only group who have become rather obsessed with earthly power and influence.
But the Roman Catholic Church, fair or not, has the burden of a higher standard. The RCC has enjoyed power and influence for so long, that in most minds the Vatican speaks as the representative of Christ, and as such it should be, hmm, immaculate in its contemplation. This week’s bluster falls well short.
But it also runs into a question of just why the Vatican thinks it has the mojo to be telling us what is and is not a sin. The Bible already lays it out pretty well, and I am one of those people who believes the Bible is how God laid down the Law. So the Vatican seems to be saying that God “missed” some sins? Or worse, that the Pope and his Posse are in a position to, what “correct” God? That kind of arrogance makes me even more of a Protestant. Sure, there are a bunch of Protestant ‘ministers’ whose egos are swollen bigger than counties, and there are a whole lot of people in all faiths and denominations who wrongly believe they have the right to order folks around like they own them, but even the worst Protestant minister stops short of presuming that he outranks God. I have to say that hearing the Vatican tossing out new standards of morality makes me wonder if the Roman Catholic Church is still just a bit tiffed by its loss of Temporal power a while back?
Well, to be fair the whole world of Religion seems to be pushing to grab power and influence. We had the whole Moral Majority thing back in the Reagan years, which lost of lot of its appeal when it began to look less like an appeal to reform government and more a ploy to pass laws which gave that group an advantage. The Muslims and the Mormons have done a lot over the years to gain political advantage as well, seeing no conflict of interest in using faith resources for material gain. Countless politicians make it a point to be seen on TV going into church, making nice with ministers and occasionally standing behind a pulpit. And even the quasi-religious types play that game, as Buddhists and Scientologists work hard to spin public opinion to their gain. It’s not as if the Catholics are the only group who have become rather obsessed with earthly power and influence.
But the Roman Catholic Church, fair or not, has the burden of a higher standard. The RCC has enjoyed power and influence for so long, that in most minds the Vatican speaks as the representative of Christ, and as such it should be, hmm, immaculate in its contemplation. This week’s bluster falls well short.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Bloggers As a Demographic
John Hawkins re-ran an article on why Bloggers do not succeed. Like his other work, it was an interesting article and thought-provoking.
I do not, however, completely agree with it.
Here’s the thing. I write on two blogs, as part of a team at Wizbang!, which opportunity I greatly appreciate, and I also write on my personal blog, Stolen Thunder.
I also have a ‘real world’ life, which involves my family, my full-time job, my pursuit of my MBA and CPA, my cancer treatment, and repairing the damage done by my well-meaning but rowdy canines, pretty much in that order. As much as I’d like to become some internationally famous luminary with a huge expense account and the adoration of Right-leaning blogophiles everywhere, it’s not a big blip on my radar, largely because of something I heard years ago.
I remembered a story about a young man who was frustrated as a musician, because he really wanted to be famous and rich, yet he knew that was somehow off the mark. His father asked him if he loved music, and the young man said he did.
“So do what you love”, suggested his dad, “and don’t try to be famous or rich. Be a musician.”
It’s sort of the same thing with blogging. I like feeling appreciated as much as anyone, but I blog because I think I can add to the conversation, and sometimes just to say my peace. I blog when and how I see fit, and yes that means I don’t often pull in a huge crowd, but – eh – I never wanted to be a star, not really. I like conversation better than trying to make folks think I’m the next Christopher Hitchens or quote me from every post. And the people I read, they tend to be normal folks who have good arguments, an interesting way of writing, or whose work is important to me. Of course, I read the big guns, Michael Yon and Bill Roggio, and I have never posted anything near as significant as their work. But I flatter myself that I can tell a good story every so often, that my insights about various things are worth the time it takes to read ‘em. Nobody makes you do that, after all – if my stuff is dreck, just pass me by the way I do the NYT or the LAT. But I think a lot of us bloggers are not worried about punching up big numbers, or trying to impress anyone. We’re bloggers because we’re bloggers.
I do not, however, completely agree with it.
Here’s the thing. I write on two blogs, as part of a team at Wizbang!, which opportunity I greatly appreciate, and I also write on my personal blog, Stolen Thunder.
I also have a ‘real world’ life, which involves my family, my full-time job, my pursuit of my MBA and CPA, my cancer treatment, and repairing the damage done by my well-meaning but rowdy canines, pretty much in that order. As much as I’d like to become some internationally famous luminary with a huge expense account and the adoration of Right-leaning blogophiles everywhere, it’s not a big blip on my radar, largely because of something I heard years ago.
I remembered a story about a young man who was frustrated as a musician, because he really wanted to be famous and rich, yet he knew that was somehow off the mark. His father asked him if he loved music, and the young man said he did.
“So do what you love”, suggested his dad, “and don’t try to be famous or rich. Be a musician.”
It’s sort of the same thing with blogging. I like feeling appreciated as much as anyone, but I blog because I think I can add to the conversation, and sometimes just to say my peace. I blog when and how I see fit, and yes that means I don’t often pull in a huge crowd, but – eh – I never wanted to be a star, not really. I like conversation better than trying to make folks think I’m the next Christopher Hitchens or quote me from every post. And the people I read, they tend to be normal folks who have good arguments, an interesting way of writing, or whose work is important to me. Of course, I read the big guns, Michael Yon and Bill Roggio, and I have never posted anything near as significant as their work. But I flatter myself that I can tell a good story every so often, that my insights about various things are worth the time it takes to read ‘em. Nobody makes you do that, after all – if my stuff is dreck, just pass me by the way I do the NYT or the LAT. But I think a lot of us bloggers are not worried about punching up big numbers, or trying to impress anyone. We’re bloggers because we’re bloggers.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Which Carbon Do They Mean, Anyway?
I have to say, at the start of this piece, that I am extremely skeptical of the claims made by those who so warn us of ‘Global Warming’. Part of it is their manner – I do not take kindly to being threatened or bullied, and I see a lot of that among the ‘Climate Change’ thugs, no matter how popular they may be in Hollywood or how well-funded their activists may be. I also do not think it is an effective manner to address the question, by declaring the debate to be over just when it really begins. If your case is solid, it can withstand questions, challenges, and doubts – telling me not to test your claim is really telling me you are a con artist.
There has been a lot of Science claimed in this debate, with a lot built on speculative projections by computers. You know, those same computers that year in and year out miss the number and scope and location of hurricanes we will see each summer, yet we’re supposed to buy a century-ahead projection based on the assumptions I just noted never get tested in the first place. I could go into the technobabble, but really that does not get us anywhere since it all comes down to chroming up a Yugo to make folks forget it’s a Yugo. Let’s get down to simple cases, I suggest.
Pollution is a very real problem, and like a certain other problem it’s obvious when you see it. If trees and grass die in the vicinity of a factory, it’s pretty reasonable to wonder what sort of effect that factory is having on the kids in that neighborhood. If the water turns funny colors and gets lumpy, you could reasonably question its safety. If the air turns funny colors and gets hard to breathe, it’s even more an obvious problem. There was a time when getting rid of particulates in the air, carcinogens in the water, and filtering out known poisons from the trash and by-products of a machine or building was right and needed. The advocates for the environment stood for us all then, but as I recall their chief method was to inform and debate, to encourage folks to ask questions and be skeptical. Funny how different the next generation of ‘environmentalists’ are about their method.
I say that because we hear a much different cry today. The air, the water, and the land are all much much cleaner in the United States and most “industrialized” nations. It sort of puts the environmentalists out of business, the way things have gone, but they found a new Bogeyman, nice and even scarier because they can – and do – claim that the whole planet is in peril, and there’s no time to do anything but what they tell us. It comes down to carbon.
Carbon is an element, no more harmful than Hydrogen or Iron or Oxygen in itself. A diamond is simply compressed carbon, coal is carbon that is burned for energy use, and other types of carbon find their way into food and clothing and all sorts of uses. It’s not harmful, judging by the history of the past few thousand years. There’s even a nice little symbiosis between animals and plants; we inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and plants consume carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Again, that way of things has been around for thousands of years, probably longer but unlike the ecologists I try not to claim something where we cannot really verify it.
But all of a sudden, carbon emissions are supposed to be threatening the planet. The way this is supposed to happen is kind of like cross-genus evolution, there’s carbon emissions at the start, then somehow it all turns into earth-ending catastrophe. Horrible storms, droughts, floods, bad hair days, failed marriages and TV writers going on strike, it’s – well- every bad dream all rolled up neatly into a packaged crisis which can only be solved by, well, mindlessly agreeing to the dictates of a few “experts” who are so smart and important that we’re not even allowed to check their credentials. Sorry, but I’m one of those gotta-see-the-proof kind of guys, and from where I sit, a factory that emits carbon dioxide pretty much the same way my piehole does, is really a good thing, not a bad one.
Now, having said that, I also want to say that I try hard to be open-minded, and I am aware that Carbon can be dangerous in certain forms. Carbonic acid, Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Tetrachloride, it’s certainly possible for Carbon to take a form which is dangerous to folks, but I don’t see Carbon Dioxide that way, again because there’s really no hard evidence to show causality.
So here’s the thing, you Global Warming, Climate Change, or Gore Is God types or whatever you call yourselves this month: Present your evidence, support your position against challenges and questions, and demonstrate that your hypothesis is superior to any of the alternatives – and yes there are certainly alternative suggestions – and you could win us over. But if all you can do is make demands and refuse to support your claim, then please just go away and let the adults get back to work.
There has been a lot of Science claimed in this debate, with a lot built on speculative projections by computers. You know, those same computers that year in and year out miss the number and scope and location of hurricanes we will see each summer, yet we’re supposed to buy a century-ahead projection based on the assumptions I just noted never get tested in the first place. I could go into the technobabble, but really that does not get us anywhere since it all comes down to chroming up a Yugo to make folks forget it’s a Yugo. Let’s get down to simple cases, I suggest.
Pollution is a very real problem, and like a certain other problem it’s obvious when you see it. If trees and grass die in the vicinity of a factory, it’s pretty reasonable to wonder what sort of effect that factory is having on the kids in that neighborhood. If the water turns funny colors and gets lumpy, you could reasonably question its safety. If the air turns funny colors and gets hard to breathe, it’s even more an obvious problem. There was a time when getting rid of particulates in the air, carcinogens in the water, and filtering out known poisons from the trash and by-products of a machine or building was right and needed. The advocates for the environment stood for us all then, but as I recall their chief method was to inform and debate, to encourage folks to ask questions and be skeptical. Funny how different the next generation of ‘environmentalists’ are about their method.
I say that because we hear a much different cry today. The air, the water, and the land are all much much cleaner in the United States and most “industrialized” nations. It sort of puts the environmentalists out of business, the way things have gone, but they found a new Bogeyman, nice and even scarier because they can – and do – claim that the whole planet is in peril, and there’s no time to do anything but what they tell us. It comes down to carbon.
Carbon is an element, no more harmful than Hydrogen or Iron or Oxygen in itself. A diamond is simply compressed carbon, coal is carbon that is burned for energy use, and other types of carbon find their way into food and clothing and all sorts of uses. It’s not harmful, judging by the history of the past few thousand years. There’s even a nice little symbiosis between animals and plants; we inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and plants consume carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Again, that way of things has been around for thousands of years, probably longer but unlike the ecologists I try not to claim something where we cannot really verify it.
But all of a sudden, carbon emissions are supposed to be threatening the planet. The way this is supposed to happen is kind of like cross-genus evolution, there’s carbon emissions at the start, then somehow it all turns into earth-ending catastrophe. Horrible storms, droughts, floods, bad hair days, failed marriages and TV writers going on strike, it’s – well- every bad dream all rolled up neatly into a packaged crisis which can only be solved by, well, mindlessly agreeing to the dictates of a few “experts” who are so smart and important that we’re not even allowed to check their credentials. Sorry, but I’m one of those gotta-see-the-proof kind of guys, and from where I sit, a factory that emits carbon dioxide pretty much the same way my piehole does, is really a good thing, not a bad one.
Now, having said that, I also want to say that I try hard to be open-minded, and I am aware that Carbon can be dangerous in certain forms. Carbonic acid, Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Tetrachloride, it’s certainly possible for Carbon to take a form which is dangerous to folks, but I don’t see Carbon Dioxide that way, again because there’s really no hard evidence to show causality.
So here’s the thing, you Global Warming, Climate Change, or Gore Is God types or whatever you call yourselves this month: Present your evidence, support your position against challenges and questions, and demonstrate that your hypothesis is superior to any of the alternatives – and yes there are certainly alternative suggestions – and you could win us over. But if all you can do is make demands and refuse to support your claim, then please just go away and let the adults get back to work.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
The Republican Primaries 2008: What Went Wrong?
Congratulations to Senator John McCain, who clinched the 2008 Republican Party Nominee for President of the United States last night, yet who is also a man disliked by a significant portion of the party and a man who generates enthusiasm less often than a year-old box of corn flakes. McCain’s advocates fall into three broad categories; those who emphasize his war credentials and ignore his record on other issues, those who are afraid of the Democrats’ nominee and want a Republican in the White House, any Republican, and so are willing to settle for McCain, and those who actually like censorship of political speech during an election, for a minority of the Senate to decide the fate of judicial nominees, and for the Global Warming Ponzi Scheme to be allowed to constrain business and rob taxpayers. How on earth did the Party of Ronald Reagan come to this?
I think a lot of this started early. Back in 2005, Patrick Ruffini ran a straw poll about GOP candidates, and I called him on a number of wrong claims and false statements. It was, in short, an informal shoot-the-bull poll with no value beyond a very local barometer of the moment, just as my occasional polls here should not be taken to represent the nation. But I called Ruffini on his attempt to play his poll into something it was not. The reason I bring up that dead cat carcass again, is because even there, I warned that Ruffini was pushing a false image, in his case the viability of Giuliani. It’s not that Rudy was a horrible choice, but that pushing him so early in a poll which closed off some far more conservative possibilities displayed the problem we saw this spring, a set of choices created by non-Conservatives, yet forced on Conservatives. Do you want the really liberal RINO, or perhaps the only-sometimes-RINO? Ruffini has inconsiderately moved or deleted his 2005 poll from his archives, so I cannot recite his list of options, but I can safely advise the public that Senator Fred Thompson, Secretary of State Condi Rice, Governor Jeb Bush, and other leading Conservative voices were – oh so conveniently – left off the poll. Not to belabor Mr. Ruffini too much, as he has every right to speak for the milktoast Republicans when he feels so inclined, but even from the start, Republicans were shown polls and surveys with no meat on the menu. There was, I will say bluntly, no seat at the table for a Reagan Republican.
There were, of course, a few plays for the Conservatives. There are so many Conservatives, that some GOP candidates would surely try for their support. Fred Thompson said the right things, but sadly he missed the crest of support in mid-2007, and by the time he started moving, he was too far behind, in media attention, campaign funds, and in developing his grassroots network. Mitt Romney also played up his newfound Conservatism, but he failed to convince enough Conservatives that he was the real deal. Same problem with Huckabee; the rhetoric just did not square with his record. McCain took the contrary path. Seeing that Conservatives were split, unable to find anyone who really reflected their ideals and priorities, he decided not to chase their support in the primaries, and instead made them his target, successfully drawing support from outside the party even as he chased the party’s mantle. The hypocrisy of such a strategy does not appear to bother Senator McCain.
So here we are; the Democrats are enemies of Conservatism, and now so is the Republican Party’s nominee. Fortunately, we are not bereft of hope. In a statement sure to be sneered at by non-Conservatives, I believe most devoutly that God Almighty favors most Conservative Ideals, and just as Ronald Reagan arrived to bring back America’s greatness after Carter’s disastrous term, I believe that our movement will yet again regain its support and strength. But Reagan had to wait for his moment, and before him Barry Goldwater was a true Conservative who never got to set foot in the promised land of a Conservative America. With McCain, Clinton, or Obama in the White House for at least four years, this nation will suffer for at least that long. The sole mitigation will be those Conservatives in the House and Senate, whose backbones and nerve will sorely be tested by the new reigning coalition of Liberals, Quislings, and McCainiacs. This crucible, though, may be the testing ground for the next Reagan.
I think a lot of this started early. Back in 2005, Patrick Ruffini ran a straw poll about GOP candidates, and I called him on a number of wrong claims and false statements. It was, in short, an informal shoot-the-bull poll with no value beyond a very local barometer of the moment, just as my occasional polls here should not be taken to represent the nation. But I called Ruffini on his attempt to play his poll into something it was not. The reason I bring up that dead cat carcass again, is because even there, I warned that Ruffini was pushing a false image, in his case the viability of Giuliani. It’s not that Rudy was a horrible choice, but that pushing him so early in a poll which closed off some far more conservative possibilities displayed the problem we saw this spring, a set of choices created by non-Conservatives, yet forced on Conservatives. Do you want the really liberal RINO, or perhaps the only-sometimes-RINO? Ruffini has inconsiderately moved or deleted his 2005 poll from his archives, so I cannot recite his list of options, but I can safely advise the public that Senator Fred Thompson, Secretary of State Condi Rice, Governor Jeb Bush, and other leading Conservative voices were – oh so conveniently – left off the poll. Not to belabor Mr. Ruffini too much, as he has every right to speak for the milktoast Republicans when he feels so inclined, but even from the start, Republicans were shown polls and surveys with no meat on the menu. There was, I will say bluntly, no seat at the table for a Reagan Republican.
There were, of course, a few plays for the Conservatives. There are so many Conservatives, that some GOP candidates would surely try for their support. Fred Thompson said the right things, but sadly he missed the crest of support in mid-2007, and by the time he started moving, he was too far behind, in media attention, campaign funds, and in developing his grassroots network. Mitt Romney also played up his newfound Conservatism, but he failed to convince enough Conservatives that he was the real deal. Same problem with Huckabee; the rhetoric just did not square with his record. McCain took the contrary path. Seeing that Conservatives were split, unable to find anyone who really reflected their ideals and priorities, he decided not to chase their support in the primaries, and instead made them his target, successfully drawing support from outside the party even as he chased the party’s mantle. The hypocrisy of such a strategy does not appear to bother Senator McCain.
So here we are; the Democrats are enemies of Conservatism, and now so is the Republican Party’s nominee. Fortunately, we are not bereft of hope. In a statement sure to be sneered at by non-Conservatives, I believe most devoutly that God Almighty favors most Conservative Ideals, and just as Ronald Reagan arrived to bring back America’s greatness after Carter’s disastrous term, I believe that our movement will yet again regain its support and strength. But Reagan had to wait for his moment, and before him Barry Goldwater was a true Conservative who never got to set foot in the promised land of a Conservative America. With McCain, Clinton, or Obama in the White House for at least four years, this nation will suffer for at least that long. The sole mitigation will be those Conservatives in the House and Senate, whose backbones and nerve will sorely be tested by the new reigning coalition of Liberals, Quislings, and McCainiacs. This crucible, though, may be the testing ground for the next Reagan.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The Virtue of Debt
The news has been pretty fear-based, lately. We’re in danger of economic collapse, nobody loves America, there’s no hope unless we elect Obama right now, and so on. Really, if panic were a commodity, it would be the hot ticket, wouldn’t it? Anyway, a lot of this comes down to the idea that people do not like being debt. That could be healthy, except of course for the modern pervasive belief that we are somehow entitled to whatever we want. And here we are.
I grew up believing in personal responsibility. We owe for what we use and have, and we owe both our parents for what we got from them, and to our children for the promise we make by having children. We owe our spouses the lifelong commitment we accepted at the alter, we owe our employers our best effort, and we owe our nation our loyalty and constant efforts to reach the ideals set so long ago, and which grow each generation as our ability grows. All this responsibility is difficult sometimes, but it’s a good thing. We need it.
This is what gets lost, when the media leads cries for someone to make all our troubles go away. That’s a lie in the first place, but even if it could be, Utopia is only another kind of prison. It’s in paying our own debts, that we find real freedom.
I grew up believing in personal responsibility. We owe for what we use and have, and we owe both our parents for what we got from them, and to our children for the promise we make by having children. We owe our spouses the lifelong commitment we accepted at the alter, we owe our employers our best effort, and we owe our nation our loyalty and constant efforts to reach the ideals set so long ago, and which grow each generation as our ability grows. All this responsibility is difficult sometimes, but it’s a good thing. We need it.
This is what gets lost, when the media leads cries for someone to make all our troubles go away. That’s a lie in the first place, but even if it could be, Utopia is only another kind of prison. It’s in paying our own debts, that we find real freedom.
Monday, March 03, 2008
The Party and the President
I am still not at all happy with the idea that John McCain is likely to win the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States. The man's hypocrisy regarding Free Speech is unacceptable, his fatuous buy-in to the Global Warming lie is disturbing, and his regular habit of attacking Conservatives in his policies and statements is insulting. The problem is, if McCain gets the Republican nomination and I do not vote for him in the fall, then I am effectively supporting the Democrats' nominee, either the criminal Hillary Clinton or the vacuous and completely unqualified Barack Obama. Not at all a good situation.
But with that said, there is a bigger problem. George W. Bush has his faults, but he was a good President, and he could have been great if the Republican Party had backed him more often, instead of stabbing him in the back on so many key votes. The reason they did this is simple enough; a mix of territorial greed and personal hubris. More than a couple leading Republicans got it into their head that they mattered more than the President of the United States, and they did all the could to punish President Bush for putting the nation first.
The Democrats do this too, of course. One reason the 2006 mid-term elections turned out not to be so earth-shaking, is the non-stop feuding between Pelosi and Reid and Dean and Schumer and so on. And it's not a new thing; the Congress under Clinton started out under control of the Democrats, who nonetheless saw no reason to respect President Clinton's role as the nation's leader.
Most Presidents, actually, have found Congress much more often an obstacle to their plans and policies than an ally. Reagan stands out because of his ability to go over the heads of Congress to the American people, but frankly no one today demonstrates such skill. No, Obama does not have that skill, because he lacks the moral weight and rhetorical wit to carry the day past the first wave of resistance. No, Hillary Clinton's shrill and cackling delivery will not achieve success with the people. McCain's angry bark will reflect a bitter, narcissistic man, not a leader.
The one thing I am sure of, for the 2009-12 term of our next President, is that the years will be rancorous and ineffective in the main, except where exceptional need or duplicitioous greed compels or sways some new venture. That, and that we the people will get the bill for it.
But with that said, there is a bigger problem. George W. Bush has his faults, but he was a good President, and he could have been great if the Republican Party had backed him more often, instead of stabbing him in the back on so many key votes. The reason they did this is simple enough; a mix of territorial greed and personal hubris. More than a couple leading Republicans got it into their head that they mattered more than the President of the United States, and they did all the could to punish President Bush for putting the nation first.
The Democrats do this too, of course. One reason the 2006 mid-term elections turned out not to be so earth-shaking, is the non-stop feuding between Pelosi and Reid and Dean and Schumer and so on. And it's not a new thing; the Congress under Clinton started out under control of the Democrats, who nonetheless saw no reason to respect President Clinton's role as the nation's leader.
Most Presidents, actually, have found Congress much more often an obstacle to their plans and policies than an ally. Reagan stands out because of his ability to go over the heads of Congress to the American people, but frankly no one today demonstrates such skill. No, Obama does not have that skill, because he lacks the moral weight and rhetorical wit to carry the day past the first wave of resistance. No, Hillary Clinton's shrill and cackling delivery will not achieve success with the people. McCain's angry bark will reflect a bitter, narcissistic man, not a leader.
The one thing I am sure of, for the 2009-12 term of our next President, is that the years will be rancorous and ineffective in the main, except where exceptional need or duplicitioous greed compels or sways some new venture. That, and that we the people will get the bill for it.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
McCain Blows It – Again
During an appearance in Cincinnati, Senator John McCain discovered that the talk radio host who was warming up the crowd referenced Senator Barack Hussein Obama by his full name, sharply criticized Obama’s connections to Chicago political sharks, and mocked Obama’s empty rhetoric in the face of the threat from Terrorism.
In response, McCain immediately apologized to the Democrats and repudiated the talk show host.
“I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them," he said. "My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator (Hillary Rodham) Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign."
McCain called both Democrats "honorable Americans" and said, "I want to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them."
This is much kinder than what Democrats have been doing, trashing President Bush with lies and character smears. One wonders why Senator McCain never rose to call the Democrats on their conduct, yet is so quick to apologize to them. One wonders, as well, why McCain’s determination to show respect to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, was never mirrored by respect for fellow Republicans Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
At best, McCain blew yet another test of his ideals and character. At worst, he showed colors wholly unsuited to the GOP’s nominee for President. Either way McCain has once again damaged his prospects by attacking Conservatives instead of the real enemy.
In response, McCain immediately apologized to the Democrats and repudiated the talk show host.
“I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them," he said. "My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator (Hillary Rodham) Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign."
McCain called both Democrats "honorable Americans" and said, "I want to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them."
This is much kinder than what Democrats have been doing, trashing President Bush with lies and character smears. One wonders why Senator McCain never rose to call the Democrats on their conduct, yet is so quick to apologize to them. One wonders, as well, why McCain’s determination to show respect to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, was never mirrored by respect for fellow Republicans Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
At best, McCain blew yet another test of his ideals and character. At worst, he showed colors wholly unsuited to the GOP’s nominee for President. Either way McCain has once again damaged his prospects by attacking Conservatives instead of the real enemy.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
My Primary Vote
I am a firm believer in citizens’ duty to vote, so I went out today and early-voted in the Republican Primary. Partly because there are a lot of races at the state and local and county level which need attention, but also because even with the current weasel-fest, a vote matters.
So, besides the other races, platform decisions and issues, I cast my vote for Mitt Romney to be the Republican Party nominee for President. It occurred to me that it might be worth discussion, that decision.
I am still undecided, frankly, about whether I will vote for John McCain this fall if he – as expected – wins the GOP nomination. I fully understand the ramifications of not supporting the Republican in a race, where the Democrat would clearly be far worse. But for now, in the primary, the decision was easy – even out of the race, Romney did more to convince me he was fit and suited for the job, while McCain did not even make the effort to earn my vote.
When the votes are tallied, I fully expect McCain to have ‘won’ Texas. That makes my vote more important, than less. If enough people vote as I did, maybe McCain will ‘win’ by something less than a convincing margin, and it would send an appropriate message, for McCain to find that voters prefer some of the guys already out of the race, to the fake conservative from Arizona. John McCain might get my vote this fall, but he will have to earn it. I think there are many of us who feel that way, and it’s up to John to show he has learned that he needs conservatives to win and direct his campaign accordingly, not for us to knuckle under to threats or scare tactics.
So, besides the other races, platform decisions and issues, I cast my vote for Mitt Romney to be the Republican Party nominee for President. It occurred to me that it might be worth discussion, that decision.
I am still undecided, frankly, about whether I will vote for John McCain this fall if he – as expected – wins the GOP nomination. I fully understand the ramifications of not supporting the Republican in a race, where the Democrat would clearly be far worse. But for now, in the primary, the decision was easy – even out of the race, Romney did more to convince me he was fit and suited for the job, while McCain did not even make the effort to earn my vote.
When the votes are tallied, I fully expect McCain to have ‘won’ Texas. That makes my vote more important, than less. If enough people vote as I did, maybe McCain will ‘win’ by something less than a convincing margin, and it would send an appropriate message, for McCain to find that voters prefer some of the guys already out of the race, to the fake conservative from Arizona. John McCain might get my vote this fall, but he will have to earn it. I think there are many of us who feel that way, and it’s up to John to show he has learned that he needs conservatives to win and direct his campaign accordingly, not for us to knuckle under to threats or scare tactics.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Tragedy and a Worthy Gesture
A police officer in Dallas died this morning while escorting Senator Hillary Clinton's motorcade to a campaign rally. The officer's name has not yet been released.
In response to the tragedy, Senator Clinton said "We are just heartsick at this loss of life in the line of duty," and cancelled her next rally, saying such an event would be inappropriate under the circumstances. Senator Clinton said she plans to speak to the officer's family, adding "It is important that we respect and appreciate their service ... I certainly am grateful for all they do for me."
This is a tragic event, but also a suitable and worthy response from Senator Clinton.
In response to the tragedy, Senator Clinton said "We are just heartsick at this loss of life in the line of duty," and cancelled her next rally, saying such an event would be inappropriate under the circumstances. Senator Clinton said she plans to speak to the officer's family, adding "It is important that we respect and appreciate their service ... I certainly am grateful for all they do for me."
This is a tragic event, but also a suitable and worthy response from Senator Clinton.
Can Americans Respect a President They Don’t Like?
BDS: Bush Derangement Syndrome. The increasingly serious diagnosis of people who blame President George W. Bush for all manner of disappointments. The venomous hatred of President Bush goes all the way back to his Inauguration, and has included such notable milestones as a movie celebrating his possible assassination. Before Bush, President Clinton experienced a similarly odious treatment, accused of everything from complicity in rape and murder to deliberate treason against America. For at least half a generation, the President of the United States has been smeared by a substantial portion of the population, regardless of political affiliation or his actual conduct. To some degree, this is almost an American tradition – Abraham Lincoln was denounced in newspaper editorials as a buffoon and as a stupid man who did not understand the office he held. Grover Cleveland was the target of smear campaigns by corrupt politicians whose plans he opposed. Teddy Roosevelt was commonly regarded as incompetent and reckless, as was Andrew Jackson by his enemies (although Jackson’s enemies were a bit more anonymous, since Jackson held a formidable reputation as an accomplished duelist). Even so, the modern disparagement of the President seems well out of balance and fueled by a most unhealthy and irrational spite.
And this coming election may promise no better climate. Democrats have to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with indications that supporters of the losing candidate may find it difficult to support the party nominee. The Republicans also face a schism, as John McCain’s vindictive and foolish rejection of Conservative Republicans (even as he pretends to be a Conservative himself) is increasingly likely to bring about their rejection of McCain in the Fall. All of the three significant candidates for President, therefore, have alienated and antagonized significant portions of the populace, generating sizable negatives. It would seem that a most unlikeable President is about to take office. What then?
Speaking for myself, I never liked President Clinton, but he was not wholly incompetent. Faint praise, I admit, but what I mean is that even where I disagreed with his decisions and policies, I never lost sight of the context, nor took to blaming him for obscene lies. I will not grace them here with specific mention, but many readers will recall the sorts of things which, on no evidence, President Clinton was accused. And as with Bush, more than a few people claimed Clinton was the worst of all the Presidents, forgetting Woodrow Wilson’s belief that the Constitution should be replaced, Andrew Johnson’s drunken binges, James Buchanan doing nothing to prevent the Civil War, or James Madison’s invasion of Canada. Clinton’s enemies ignored his successes, just as Bush’s do now. As much as I dislike any of the three main contenders to become the next President, I still make the effort to note their ability and skills, and to respect the office, and in time, hopefully the President. It is important to the Nation that we all make that effort.
And this coming election may promise no better climate. Democrats have to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with indications that supporters of the losing candidate may find it difficult to support the party nominee. The Republicans also face a schism, as John McCain’s vindictive and foolish rejection of Conservative Republicans (even as he pretends to be a Conservative himself) is increasingly likely to bring about their rejection of McCain in the Fall. All of the three significant candidates for President, therefore, have alienated and antagonized significant portions of the populace, generating sizable negatives. It would seem that a most unlikeable President is about to take office. What then?
Speaking for myself, I never liked President Clinton, but he was not wholly incompetent. Faint praise, I admit, but what I mean is that even where I disagreed with his decisions and policies, I never lost sight of the context, nor took to blaming him for obscene lies. I will not grace them here with specific mention, but many readers will recall the sorts of things which, on no evidence, President Clinton was accused. And as with Bush, more than a few people claimed Clinton was the worst of all the Presidents, forgetting Woodrow Wilson’s belief that the Constitution should be replaced, Andrew Johnson’s drunken binges, James Buchanan doing nothing to prevent the Civil War, or James Madison’s invasion of Canada. Clinton’s enemies ignored his successes, just as Bush’s do now. As much as I dislike any of the three main contenders to become the next President, I still make the effort to note their ability and skills, and to respect the office, and in time, hopefully the President. It is important to the Nation that we all make that effort.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
2008 Battlefield States
Unless something very, very strange happens in the next few weeks, we know the contest for the fall election; Barack Obama versus John McCain, Vapid Hope matched against Angry Moderation. While both campaigns will guard against premature assumptions, both will also have begun planning strategy for the fall’s General Election.
I have said before that the Presidential election is not a single national contest, but a set of 51 regional contests, which produce the Electoral Vote tallies which determine the winner of the office. Even with the enormous amounts of money spent on the election, a candidate must still plan carefully where to allocate resources, especially since time and personal appearances remain limited. Some states are regarded as “safe”, states which will support the candidate in every forseeable condition, while others are considered too unlikely to be worth much effort. The states in between, the states which “belong” to the candidate but which may be lost, or the states which “belong” to the opponent but which may be won, and the states which seem undecided, these are targeted for varying degrees of attention, promises, and displays of appreciation, and are called the battleground states. The question early on for candidates, is knowing which states will fall into this category, because that varies from election to election. More than a few candidates have lost elections because they did not correctly identify their weak spots and opportunities. And it is not as easy as some people might think to work out the territory which matters.
Take California, for example. With 55 Electoral Votes, California is the biggest of all prizes, and so would seem to be a smart place to invest time and money. But is it? After all, the last four elections saw California choose the Democrat, and by 10 or more points of the popular vote each time. That would seem to suggest that California is locked up for the Democrats, but then again, maybe not. Kerry took California by 10 points in 2004, but that was 4 points closer than Clinton’s margin of victory in 1996. And for comparison, Reagan took California by a 17 point margin in both 1980 and 1984. Even GHW Bush won California in 1988, so there is historical evidence to suggest that the right conditions could put it into play. How does someone properly weigh the benefits and costs of spending resources in a state? One way is to examine the historical behavior of a state, and from that determine the probability of a positive or negative reaction to unusual focus on that state. This essay examines that historical structure. It does not project a winner, nor does it weigh the specific positions of any particular candidate, because its purpose is to suggest areas of interest to each of the two major political parties.
I started by noting the popular vote results per state for every Presidential election from 1948 to 2004. I chose that range for two reasons; the world has changed significantly over time, and it is not reasonable to assume that election conditions in, say, 1880, are really comparable to the modern condition. World War 2 was the Rubicon in many ways to American election development, and so the 15 Presidential elections after that war stand as the best relative indicators as to the political identity of each state. Also, the 60-year time frame covers the majority of voter demographics, and so is a reasonable representative of how voters as a whole have behaved. I took the popular vote collected by each party and rounded it up or down, then compared votes for a whole integer margin. This means that ‘0’ margins exist, which are treated as statistical ties for this purpose. That information provided averages, largest and smallest margins of victory and defeat, and of course the streak of victories by a party. But that is just the start. The margin from one election could also be compared to the margin for the next, and the change in results represents variance. Delaware, for example, supported Reagan by 2% in 1980, but 20% in 1984, which is an 18% gain for the Republicans. Bush won Delaware in 1988, but only by 12%, which was an 8% gain for Democrats, and so on. Taking each variance and squaring it, summing up those squared-variance tallies and then finding the square root give the Standard Deviation of each state’s Popular Vote margin. The smallest SD was 6.254 for the District of Columbia, and the largest SD was 42.838 for Mississippi. This is because D.C.’s margin of victory has never changed by more than 9 points, while Mississippi’s margin of victory changed by 60 points or more on four occasions. The ten most volatile SD’s are as follows:
1. Mississippi – 42.838
2. Alabama – 33.388
3. Georgia – 30.988
4. Hawaii – 29.281
5. Arkansas – 27.575
6. Oklahoma – 24.751
7. Louisiana – 24.648
8. Maine – 24.150
9. Rhode Island – 23.469
10. South Carolina – 23.266
The SD is an important indicator of historical volatility, but it may not be a valid indicator of current trends. Of the top 10 states for volatility, five are from the Deep South which rebelled at one time against both the Democrats and Republicans; Mississippi’s volatility, for example, ranged between 60 and 85 points between 1964 and 1976, but the SD for 1980-2004 is only 11.661. Reweighting the SDs to increase proportionately as the time frame approaches the present, then dividing that result by the consecutive victories by the party which last won the state produced the following revised 10 most and least volatile SD’s:
MOST VOLATILE
1. Florida, 18.745
2. New Hampshire, 18.045
3. Arkansas, 13.622
4. New Mexico, 13.368
5. Iowa, 12.819
6. Oregon, 12.065
7. Wisconsin, 10.971
8. Louisiana, 10.473
9. West Virginia, 9.744
10. Tennessee, 9.744
LEAST VOLATILE
1. District of Columbia, 1.200
2. Indiana, 1.295
3. Delaware, 1.344
4. Nebraska, 1.405
5. South Dakota, 1.432
6. Virginia, 1.500
7. Idaho, 1.544
8. Kansas, 1.566
9. Utah, 1.639
10. North Dakota, 1.712
It’s hardly a surprise to see Florida at the top, but it may surprise some folks to see Oregon, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Tennessee in play. It is also interesting, to me at least, to see that the numbers indicate that states like Virginia and Indiana are not budging.
But there is also another indicator, a simpler one, about which states are likely to switch. I took the SD and the weighted SD, and divided each by the margin from the 2004 election. If the margin was greater than the SD or weighted SD, it is very unlikely that the state would switch in 2008. That produced these top 10 lists:
STATES MOST LIKELY TO SWITCH IN 2008
SD
1. New Hampshire, 21.092
2. Alaska, 21.047
3. Iowa, 18.787
4. New Mexico, 16.404
5. Wisconsin, 15.672
6. Arizona, 13.06
7. Nevada, 9.474
8. Ohio, 8.676
9. Michigan, 5.235
10. Pennsylvania, 5.157
Weighted SD
1. New Hampshire, 18.045
2. Alaska, 17.901
3. New Mexico, 13.368
4. Iowa, 12.819
5. Wisconsin, 10.971
6. Nevada, 8.182
7. Ohio, 7.083
8. Michigan, 4.323
9. Pennsylvania, 3.885
10. Florida, 3.749
STATES LEAST LIKELY TO SWITCH IN 2008
SD
1. District of Columbia, 0.301
2. Utah, 0.406
3. Idaho, 0.461
4. Wyoming, 0.501
5. Nebraska, 0.569
6. North Dakota, 0.757
7. Indiana, 0.760
8. Oklahoma, 0.773
9. Kansas, 0.780
10. Massachusetts, 0.782
Weighted SD
1. District of Columbia, 0.059
2. Utah, 0.356
3. Idaho, 0.406
4. Nebraska, 0.426
5. Wyoming, 0.473
6. Massachusetts, 0.568
7. North Dakota, 0.612
8. Kansas, 0.626
9. Oklahoma, 0.642
10. Indiana, 0.648
Twelve states have a less than 1% chance of switching in 2008, by the SD calculation, and by the weighted SD eighteen states have less than a 1% chance of switching in 2008.
But that still leaves the question of where candidates should focus their resources. The final answer I found, took the average of the Standard Deviation of popular vote margins and the Weighted Standard Deviation, and multiplied that number by the portion each state has of the total 538 Electoral Votes. That produced the following target list:
1 Ohio 29.292
2 Wisconsin 24.761
3 Iowa 20.562
4 Florida 19.916
5 Pennsylvania 17.647
6 Michigan 15.101
7 New Hampshire 14.549
8 New Mexico 13.835
9 Arizona 13.219
10 California 11.981
11 Alaska 10.859
12 Nevada 8.204
13 Minnesota 8.091
14 New Jersey 7.202
15 Texas 5.587
16 Colorado 5.473
17 New York 5.333
18 Georgia 5.145
19 Illinois 4.922
20 Missouri 4.769
21 Oregon 4.603
22 North Carolina 4.578
23 Virginia 4.318
24 Washington 3.821
25 Arkansas 3.056
26 Tennessee 2.860
27 Louisiana 2.542
28 Maryland 2.329
29 Connecticut 2.235
30 Mississippi 2.126
31 Hawaii 2.003
32 South Carolina 1.914
33 Alabama 1.851
34 Massachusetts 1.506
35 West Virginia 1.493
36 Indiana 1.439
37 Kentucky 1.432
38 Maine 1.251
39 Oklahoma 0.921
40 Kansas 0.784
41 Rhode Island 0.758
42 District Columbia 0.599
43 Delaware 0.559
44 Vermont 0.559
45 Nebraska 0.462
46 Montana 0.436
47 South Dakota 0.416
48 North Dakota 0.382
49 Utah 0.354
50 Idaho 0.322
51 Wyoming 0.272
Both parties, therefore, should be expected to focus primarily on Ohio, followed by Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
I have said before that the Presidential election is not a single national contest, but a set of 51 regional contests, which produce the Electoral Vote tallies which determine the winner of the office. Even with the enormous amounts of money spent on the election, a candidate must still plan carefully where to allocate resources, especially since time and personal appearances remain limited. Some states are regarded as “safe”, states which will support the candidate in every forseeable condition, while others are considered too unlikely to be worth much effort. The states in between, the states which “belong” to the candidate but which may be lost, or the states which “belong” to the opponent but which may be won, and the states which seem undecided, these are targeted for varying degrees of attention, promises, and displays of appreciation, and are called the battleground states. The question early on for candidates, is knowing which states will fall into this category, because that varies from election to election. More than a few candidates have lost elections because they did not correctly identify their weak spots and opportunities. And it is not as easy as some people might think to work out the territory which matters.
Take California, for example. With 55 Electoral Votes, California is the biggest of all prizes, and so would seem to be a smart place to invest time and money. But is it? After all, the last four elections saw California choose the Democrat, and by 10 or more points of the popular vote each time. That would seem to suggest that California is locked up for the Democrats, but then again, maybe not. Kerry took California by 10 points in 2004, but that was 4 points closer than Clinton’s margin of victory in 1996. And for comparison, Reagan took California by a 17 point margin in both 1980 and 1984. Even GHW Bush won California in 1988, so there is historical evidence to suggest that the right conditions could put it into play. How does someone properly weigh the benefits and costs of spending resources in a state? One way is to examine the historical behavior of a state, and from that determine the probability of a positive or negative reaction to unusual focus on that state. This essay examines that historical structure. It does not project a winner, nor does it weigh the specific positions of any particular candidate, because its purpose is to suggest areas of interest to each of the two major political parties.
I started by noting the popular vote results per state for every Presidential election from 1948 to 2004. I chose that range for two reasons; the world has changed significantly over time, and it is not reasonable to assume that election conditions in, say, 1880, are really comparable to the modern condition. World War 2 was the Rubicon in many ways to American election development, and so the 15 Presidential elections after that war stand as the best relative indicators as to the political identity of each state. Also, the 60-year time frame covers the majority of voter demographics, and so is a reasonable representative of how voters as a whole have behaved. I took the popular vote collected by each party and rounded it up or down, then compared votes for a whole integer margin. This means that ‘0’ margins exist, which are treated as statistical ties for this purpose. That information provided averages, largest and smallest margins of victory and defeat, and of course the streak of victories by a party. But that is just the start. The margin from one election could also be compared to the margin for the next, and the change in results represents variance. Delaware, for example, supported Reagan by 2% in 1980, but 20% in 1984, which is an 18% gain for the Republicans. Bush won Delaware in 1988, but only by 12%, which was an 8% gain for Democrats, and so on. Taking each variance and squaring it, summing up those squared-variance tallies and then finding the square root give the Standard Deviation of each state’s Popular Vote margin. The smallest SD was 6.254 for the District of Columbia, and the largest SD was 42.838 for Mississippi. This is because D.C.’s margin of victory has never changed by more than 9 points, while Mississippi’s margin of victory changed by 60 points or more on four occasions. The ten most volatile SD’s are as follows:
1. Mississippi – 42.838
2. Alabama – 33.388
3. Georgia – 30.988
4. Hawaii – 29.281
5. Arkansas – 27.575
6. Oklahoma – 24.751
7. Louisiana – 24.648
8. Maine – 24.150
9. Rhode Island – 23.469
10. South Carolina – 23.266
The SD is an important indicator of historical volatility, but it may not be a valid indicator of current trends. Of the top 10 states for volatility, five are from the Deep South which rebelled at one time against both the Democrats and Republicans; Mississippi’s volatility, for example, ranged between 60 and 85 points between 1964 and 1976, but the SD for 1980-2004 is only 11.661. Reweighting the SDs to increase proportionately as the time frame approaches the present, then dividing that result by the consecutive victories by the party which last won the state produced the following revised 10 most and least volatile SD’s:
MOST VOLATILE
1. Florida, 18.745
2. New Hampshire, 18.045
3. Arkansas, 13.622
4. New Mexico, 13.368
5. Iowa, 12.819
6. Oregon, 12.065
7. Wisconsin, 10.971
8. Louisiana, 10.473
9. West Virginia, 9.744
10. Tennessee, 9.744
LEAST VOLATILE
1. District of Columbia, 1.200
2. Indiana, 1.295
3. Delaware, 1.344
4. Nebraska, 1.405
5. South Dakota, 1.432
6. Virginia, 1.500
7. Idaho, 1.544
8. Kansas, 1.566
9. Utah, 1.639
10. North Dakota, 1.712
It’s hardly a surprise to see Florida at the top, but it may surprise some folks to see Oregon, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Tennessee in play. It is also interesting, to me at least, to see that the numbers indicate that states like Virginia and Indiana are not budging.
But there is also another indicator, a simpler one, about which states are likely to switch. I took the SD and the weighted SD, and divided each by the margin from the 2004 election. If the margin was greater than the SD or weighted SD, it is very unlikely that the state would switch in 2008. That produced these top 10 lists:
STATES MOST LIKELY TO SWITCH IN 2008
SD
1. New Hampshire, 21.092
2. Alaska, 21.047
3. Iowa, 18.787
4. New Mexico, 16.404
5. Wisconsin, 15.672
6. Arizona, 13.06
7. Nevada, 9.474
8. Ohio, 8.676
9. Michigan, 5.235
10. Pennsylvania, 5.157
Weighted SD
1. New Hampshire, 18.045
2. Alaska, 17.901
3. New Mexico, 13.368
4. Iowa, 12.819
5. Wisconsin, 10.971
6. Nevada, 8.182
7. Ohio, 7.083
8. Michigan, 4.323
9. Pennsylvania, 3.885
10. Florida, 3.749
STATES LEAST LIKELY TO SWITCH IN 2008
SD
1. District of Columbia, 0.301
2. Utah, 0.406
3. Idaho, 0.461
4. Wyoming, 0.501
5. Nebraska, 0.569
6. North Dakota, 0.757
7. Indiana, 0.760
8. Oklahoma, 0.773
9. Kansas, 0.780
10. Massachusetts, 0.782
Weighted SD
1. District of Columbia, 0.059
2. Utah, 0.356
3. Idaho, 0.406
4. Nebraska, 0.426
5. Wyoming, 0.473
6. Massachusetts, 0.568
7. North Dakota, 0.612
8. Kansas, 0.626
9. Oklahoma, 0.642
10. Indiana, 0.648
Twelve states have a less than 1% chance of switching in 2008, by the SD calculation, and by the weighted SD eighteen states have less than a 1% chance of switching in 2008.
But that still leaves the question of where candidates should focus their resources. The final answer I found, took the average of the Standard Deviation of popular vote margins and the Weighted Standard Deviation, and multiplied that number by the portion each state has of the total 538 Electoral Votes. That produced the following target list:
1 Ohio 29.292
2 Wisconsin 24.761
3 Iowa 20.562
4 Florida 19.916
5 Pennsylvania 17.647
6 Michigan 15.101
7 New Hampshire 14.549
8 New Mexico 13.835
9 Arizona 13.219
10 California 11.981
11 Alaska 10.859
12 Nevada 8.204
13 Minnesota 8.091
14 New Jersey 7.202
15 Texas 5.587
16 Colorado 5.473
17 New York 5.333
18 Georgia 5.145
19 Illinois 4.922
20 Missouri 4.769
21 Oregon 4.603
22 North Carolina 4.578
23 Virginia 4.318
24 Washington 3.821
25 Arkansas 3.056
26 Tennessee 2.860
27 Louisiana 2.542
28 Maryland 2.329
29 Connecticut 2.235
30 Mississippi 2.126
31 Hawaii 2.003
32 South Carolina 1.914
33 Alabama 1.851
34 Massachusetts 1.506
35 West Virginia 1.493
36 Indiana 1.439
37 Kentucky 1.432
38 Maine 1.251
39 Oklahoma 0.921
40 Kansas 0.784
41 Rhode Island 0.758
42 District Columbia 0.599
43 Delaware 0.559
44 Vermont 0.559
45 Nebraska 0.462
46 Montana 0.436
47 South Dakota 0.416
48 North Dakota 0.382
49 Utah 0.354
50 Idaho 0.322
51 Wyoming 0.272
Both parties, therefore, should be expected to focus primarily on Ohio, followed by Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Politics of American War
One aspect of American Politics which deserves discussion this election cycle, is the way that wars are treated as leading issues. The United States has been at war in various forms for most of its history, and so it is hardly surprising that the course of a given war will be a factor in elections, especially of the President. This article is necessarily only a brief overview, with consideration of the record focused on the 2008 Presidential election.
From the political perspective, wars with regard to American politics fall into one of three broad categories; minor successful wars with little perceived risk, major wars of consequence, or costly wars which should have been avoided, in the sense of the common opinion. Examples of the first type include the Spanish-American War, Grenada, and Desert Storm. Examples of the second type include the War for Independence, the Civil War, and World War 2. Examples of the third type include World War 1, Korea, and Vietnam. I am not saying that one of these wars is more just or worthwhile than the others, but noting the political spin on the war.
For the first group, it is worth noting that the Spanish-American, Grenda, and Desert Storm actions did not significantly hurt or improve the political fortunes of the President in office at the time. The quick decision of each conflict led to the perceived message that the conflict was insignificant, and quickly faded from public interest. For the second group, the wars were controversial at the time they were fought, but in later generations the conflict elevated the image of the President in office, although it must be emphasized that the President does not appear to have gained immediate political advantage. In the third case, the war’s unpopularity took its toll on the President’s support. World War 1 effectively convinced Americans to put Republicans back in the White House, as did Korea, and Vietnam led to deep mistrust of both parties. Consequently, while no political party should expect to make gains from a military conflict in the short-term, the danger of political cost from a war must be considered.
In this context, the constant effort by the Democrats to cast the War in Iraq as the same as Vietnam is understood. The Democrats claimed that their 2006 midterm election gains were the result of a ‘referendum’ on Iraq. It must noted, however, that before the 2002 and 2004 elections, Democrats made the same claim, so the claim may properly be regarded with a large degree of skepticism. It is valid, however, to note the effort to tie the Iraq war with Vietnam, well into its sixth year (the propaganda by the Left actually began several months before the resumption of hostilities) has undoubtedly swayed opinion in various places, and fractured national unity along party lines. For this discussion, it is not necessary to reach a specific degree of influence by such rhetorical efforts, but it is relevant to the present election to consider how this spin is likely to influence future military decisions by the next Administration.
From the political perspective, wars with regard to American politics fall into one of three broad categories; minor successful wars with little perceived risk, major wars of consequence, or costly wars which should have been avoided, in the sense of the common opinion. Examples of the first type include the Spanish-American War, Grenada, and Desert Storm. Examples of the second type include the War for Independence, the Civil War, and World War 2. Examples of the third type include World War 1, Korea, and Vietnam. I am not saying that one of these wars is more just or worthwhile than the others, but noting the political spin on the war.
For the first group, it is worth noting that the Spanish-American, Grenda, and Desert Storm actions did not significantly hurt or improve the political fortunes of the President in office at the time. The quick decision of each conflict led to the perceived message that the conflict was insignificant, and quickly faded from public interest. For the second group, the wars were controversial at the time they were fought, but in later generations the conflict elevated the image of the President in office, although it must be emphasized that the President does not appear to have gained immediate political advantage. In the third case, the war’s unpopularity took its toll on the President’s support. World War 1 effectively convinced Americans to put Republicans back in the White House, as did Korea, and Vietnam led to deep mistrust of both parties. Consequently, while no political party should expect to make gains from a military conflict in the short-term, the danger of political cost from a war must be considered.
In this context, the constant effort by the Democrats to cast the War in Iraq as the same as Vietnam is understood. The Democrats claimed that their 2006 midterm election gains were the result of a ‘referendum’ on Iraq. It must noted, however, that before the 2002 and 2004 elections, Democrats made the same claim, so the claim may properly be regarded with a large degree of skepticism. It is valid, however, to note the effort to tie the Iraq war with Vietnam, well into its sixth year (the propaganda by the Left actually began several months before the resumption of hostilities) has undoubtedly swayed opinion in various places, and fractured national unity along party lines. For this discussion, it is not necessary to reach a specific degree of influence by such rhetorical efforts, but it is relevant to the present election to consider how this spin is likely to influence future military decisions by the next Administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
