NeoModernism

Christmas 2011

2011-12-25T09:09:00.002-05:00

Run Sarah Run!

2011-12-19T19:14:00.002-05:00

Open Letter of Reconsideration to Governor Palin

After Palin, who i will support with sweat and money, comes
Anyone but Obama, who i will support with a vote.

BCS: Leaning from AQ and Toward +1

2011-12-09T09:59:00.006-05:00

From CBS' Murphy.

The items of note from the article for me are:

1. AQ automatically gets $22.3 million, non-AQ gets $13.2 million

2. If non-AQ gets to BCS, they get $26.4 million

What i get from this are

1. Non-BCS programs moving to BCS conference is probably more about TV contract money than BCS money. Tthe increased from about $1 million to $2 million doesn't seem to be enough to offset travel cost and conference exit fees.

2. The MWC and CUSA are unlikely to merge. As an independent conference each gets $13.2 million each, as one conference they might get only $13.2 million total. I am highly skeptical that the combined merged conference would get $22.3, same as an AQ conference, and definitely not $26.4 million, more than an AQ conference.

3. Alliance makes sense with revenue sharing if one team from the Alliance Championship makes it to the BCS, then both conference could win more money.

4. If TV money is the key, each conference will be at a minimum of 10 teams with 9 conference games per team (to get sufficient conference games for airing). 12 teams usually means 8 conference games per team so unless the conference championship game can offset this in tv negotiation, i do not see either conference going to 12. Especially with an Alliance championship format unless there is special NCAA disposition for the two conference to have an intra-conference championship and an inter-conference championship.

5. Even with the BCS as a +1 format, the money situation is unlikely to change. All conferences will continue unequal revenue sharing. And there will be additional money for making the BCS championship series (final 4) and the actual championship game itself.

My conclusion:

MWC + CUSA forms an alliance but not a merger. Both will go to 10, possibly 11 teams (which may result in less non-conference games, which means less tier 3 money for each school and less opportunity to increase strength of schedule against the dominant conferences)

MWC 2013: Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada-Las Vegas, Nevada-Reno, New Mexico, and Wyoming for a total of 8 teams. At risk for Big East poaching: Nevada or Hawaii.
MWC candidates: Utah State, San Jose State, UTEP, Idaho, New Mexico State. I suspect the first two.

CUSA 2013. Alabama-Birmingham, East Carolina, Marshal, Memphis, Rice, Southern Mississippi, Texas-El Paso, Tulane, and Tulsa for a total of 9 teams. At risk for Big East poaching: Tulsa, Memphis, East Carolina
CUSA candidates: Army, Navy, Florida International, Arkansas State, Louisiana Tech, North Texas

Happy Thanksgiving

2011-11-24T09:33:00.003-05:00

Big 12 Rivalries: New & Old

2011-11-13T01:36:00.002-05:00

The Big 12 should try to maintain three sort of rivalries and play them annually. Firstly are the annual cross division rivalries that will define the divisions.

Texas & Oklahoma (Red River Rivalry since 1900)
Kansas & Kansas State (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Texas & Kansas State (Chisholm Trail since 1913)
Iowa State & Kansas State (Farmageddon since 1917)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Baylor & Texas Tech (Texas Farm Bureau Shootout since 1929)

There are four intrastate rivalries within of the three core Big 12 States: Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Thus each division should have one Kansas program, one Oklahoma program, and at least one Texas program. The annual cross division rivalries should thus be Kansas & Kansas State, and Oklahoma & Oklahoma State. Since the Texas and Oklahoma Red river Rivalry is the oldest, if they are not set as annual cross division rivals, then they need to be in the same division. Then given the Chisholm Trail rivalry, Kansas State and Texas needs to be in the same division. Then Farmageddon puts Iowa State and Kansas State in the same division. So far we have:

Division A & Division B
Texas & ?
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & ?

Texas Tech and Baylor needs to be placed, as well as new addition to the Big 12 Texas Christian. Texas has played 100 games against Baylor, 82 against Texas Christian, and 60 against Texas Tech. This means Texas' annual cross division rival should be either Baylor or Texas Christian, and the other to be in the same division. This leaves Texas Tech in the opposite division from Texas. However, there appears to be a preference by both Texas and Texas Tech to maintain the Chancellor Spur's rivalry. Ultimately rivalry is not just how long the teams have been playing but how much emotions and desires the teams have in playing each other. Since it would be an imbalance to place both of the Texas public universities in one division and both Texas private universities in the other, it seems appropriate to place Texas and Texas Tech as the annual cross division rivals. Baylor with 100 games against Texas will be in the same division as Texas as Baylor only has an 82 games series with Texas Tech. For Texas Christian, the rivalry with Baylor spans 107 games versus 54 with Texas Tech, leaving these two as natural cross division rivals and Texas Christian and Texas Tech to be in the same division. This then leaves the arrangement as:

Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & ?

Next to be placed is West Virginia. Given its geographical proximity and an empty cross division annual rival. West Virginia will become Iowa State's annual cross division rival. This will be a brand new rivalry as neither teams have played each other before.

Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & West Virginia

But this is only 10 teams and there would be no need for divisions. There is a general expectation that the Big 12 will go back to 12 with the addition of Louisville as 11th. Brigham Young has been mentioned but this seems to have fizzled for now. There has been hopes for Notre Dame but this remains just wishful thinking. Cincinnati have been discussed and would be a natural rival for Louisville. West Virginia list Louisville as a rival rather than Cincinnati so both should be in the same division. The Big 12 with 12 teams would thus be configured as:

Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian ("Holy War" since 1899)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & West Virginia (since 2012)
Cincinnati & Louisville (Keg of Nails since 1929)

These annual cross division rivalry games should be played early in the conference play if not at the beginning of conference play. These same two rival teams may end up in a rematch in the conference championship game as their respective division champions. The more game between the first meeting and the rematch the better. These annual cross division games should also be aligned such that all teams have equivalent exposure to the Big 12 geographically as well as to integrate new members with old members.

The remaining rivalries can be set up for rivalry weekend, the Thanksgiving weekend game.

Rivalries weekend games for division A:
Texas & Oklahoma (Red River Rivalry since 1900)
Kansas State & Iowa State (Farmageddon since 1917)
Baylor & Cincinnati (Battle of the Bears? since 2012 given that it is the Baylor Bear versus Cincinnati Bearcats)
Rivalries weekend games for division B:
Kansas & Louisville (The Birds Kansas Jayhawks versus Louisville Cardinals with both as basketball powerhouses)
Oklahoma State & Texas Christian
Texas Tech & West Virginia.

I went with Oklahoma State & Texas Christian with Texas Tech & West Virginia rather than Oklahoma State & West Virginia and Texas Tech & Texas Christian for a variety of reasons. Firstly Oklahoma State & Texas Christian and Texas Tech & West Virginia are more even matches. Secondly there appears a frontier commonality both present with Texas Tech and West Virginia. Thirdly it may be preferable not to have intrastate rivals for rivalry weekend. Fourthly it seems better not to pit the two new teams as rival for each other rather than integrate them into the conference by building rivalries with the original Big 12 teams. Naturally the four teams will play their three potential rivals (for Oklahoma State versus Texas Christian, Texas Tech or West Virginia; for Texas Christian versus Oklahoma State, Texas Tech or West Virginia; for Texas Tech versus Oklahoma State, Texas Christian or West Virginia; and for West Virginia versus Oklahoma State, Texas Christian or Texas Tech).

Naturally member teams should maintain rivalries in their non-conference schedule as well.
Baylor & ?
Cincinnati & Miami of Ohio (Victory Bell) and Pittsburgh (River City Rivalry)
Iowa State & Iowa (Cy-Hawk Trophy)
Louisville & Kentucky (Governor's Cup)
Kansas & Missouri (Border War)
Kansas State & Nebraska
Oklahoma & Nebraska
Oklahoma State & Tulsa
Texas & Texas A&M and Arkansas, possibly UCLA
Texas Christian & Southern Methodist (Battle for the Iron Skillet)
Texas Tech & Texas A&M
West Virginia & Pittsburgh (Backyard Brawl) and Syracuse (Ben Schwartzwalder Trophy)

Since Missouri and Texas A&M have both left the Big 12, neither Kansas nor Texas has expressed any interests to maintain the rivalries. This may apply to Nebraska as well. In these instances Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech should consider other regional programs such as Arkansas, Colorado State, Louisiana State, and New Mexico to build a non-conference regional rivalry series with.

Note
The divisions as listed above will have:
30 BCS points from 2008-2010 for Division A with Baylor (0 pts), Texas (12 pts),
Oklahoma (9 pts), Kansas State (0 pts), Iowa State (0 pts), and Cincinnati (9 pts).
26 BCS points from 2008-2010 for Division B with Texas Christian (15 pts), Texas Tech (3 pts), Oklahoma State (5 pts), Kansas (0 pts), and West Virginia (3 pts).

Big 12: Old vs New by BCS points

2011-11-12T20:11:00.002-05:00

BCS Points are described here. The next evaluation will look at the 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 season. The points are used as part 3 of a 3 parts evaluation to determine automatic qualification for the 2012-2013 season.

So lets look at how the old Big 12 compares to the new Big 12 with the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons.

0 for Baylor
0 for Colorado
0 for Iowa State
0 for Kansas
0 for Kansas State
4 for Missouri
3 for Nebraska
9 for Oklahoma
5 for Oklahoma St
12 for Texas
2 for Texas A&M
3 for Texas Tech
38 total points

So here is the Big 12 as it appears now for 2012, having lost Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas A&M but with Texas Christian and West Virginia over the same time period.

0 for Baylor
0 for Iowa State
0 for Kansas
0 for Kansas State
9 for Oklahoma
5 for Oklahoma St
12 for Texas
15 for Texas Christian
3 for Texas Tech
3 for West Virginia
47 total points

The new Big 12 even with just 10 teams is nearly 24% better than the old in raw points. Since the BCS formula then modify this for conferences less than 12 teams, the 10 teams Big 12 will gain a 12.5% bonus to yield a modified points of 52.875 points.

Should the Big 12 decides to go to 12 with Louisville and Cincinnati, the new points would be:

0 for Baylor
9 for Cincinnati
0 for Iowa State
0 for Kansas
0 for Kansas State
0 for Louisville
9 for Oklahoma
5 for Oklahoma St
12 for Texas
15 for Texas Christian
3 for Texas Tech
3 for West Virginia
56 total points

Going to 12 teams with both Louisville and Cincinnati will make the Big 12 even stronger by BCS points, not just to mention more markets for viewers and fans, and the Ohio river valley to recruit.

Veteran's Day

2011-11-11T15:26:00.002-05:00

To all current and past Veterans, I thank you for your service and sacrifices.

Alliance: C-USA and MWC

2011-11-07T06:00:00.000-05:00

Alot still depends on what happens to the Big East despite rumored invitations to Air Force, Boise State, Central Florida, Houston, Navy, and Southern Methodist. Any teams joining the Big East must realize that realignment of current Big East teams is not over. Per the West Virginia suit against the Big East state what we all know, that Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Rutgers and South Florida are all leaving. In fact, there may not be a Big East football conference if the Big 12 takes Cincinnati, Louisville, and South Florida while the ACC (or less likely the B1G) takes Connecticut and Rutgers for 2014.

The demise of the Big East, will best position the Alliance of C-USA and MWC to gain an automatic bid to the BCS. Whether each conference should have its own championship game is open for discussion due to NCAA rules. The Alliance championship game must be played in time for the BCS selection, as well as for the loser to be directed to its own bowl. Most likely this will be the first weekend in December, same time as the other conferences championship games. If there is a conference championship game then it will occur during "rivalry weekend" of Thanksgiving. The differentiation during both weekends might favor more for the C-USA and MWC conferences: Alliance championship rather than conference championship and conference championship rather than conference rivalries. But since the schedule is moved forward one week, and since the season cannot be moved forward one week (NCAA rules) then the Alliance teams may lose its bye week.

For each conference lets look at what the membership would be like, with and without losses.

C-USA.
Losing Central Florida, Houston and Southern Methodist the conference could stay at 9, add one to go to 10 (Louisiana Tech from the WAC) or add three (Louisiana Tech, upcoming UT San Antonio, and Texas State, all from the WAC). The two new Texas teams could replace Houston and Southern Methodists in the division line up, while Louisiana Tech could be in the East to replace Central Florida or in the West with Tulane moving East. If the three teams lost were Central Florida, Southern Mississippi and Tulane, then the 6 Texas teams would be West, and Tulsa and Louisiana Tech would be in the East.

Losing just one team like Central Florida the conference could stay at 11 or take Louisiana Tech (WAC) to go back to 12. Of the one team lost was Tulane, then Louisiana Tech would slide right in Tulane's spot.

MWC
Losing 2 teams (Boise State and Air Force) the conference will need two replacements and again it will be the WAC that will be raided: Utah State fills a geographic deficit, leaving Idaho, New Mexico State, and San Jose State. All four teams could take the conference to 12. Its division could be split East (Colorado State, Idaho, New Mexico, New Mexico State, Utah State and Wyoming) and West (Fresno State, Hawaii, San Diego State, San Jose State, Nevada, and Nevada Las Vegas).

It is quite possible that like the Big East, the WAC could be eliminated as a football conference. I think conference consolidations from 11 to 9 could be a good thing and one step further to equalizing the conferences with a playoff or BCS.

Big 12 Realignment.

2011-11-06T11:25:00.012-05:00

Missouri is officially going to the SEC for 2012.

That leaves the Big XII with:
Baylor
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Christian
Texas Tech
and West Virginia.

When West Virginia can start Big XII play remains unclear as they are suing, and being counter sued, by the Big East, to start Bug XII play in 2012. A big question still as a drag out legal contest in itself, regardless of who wins, may prevent a working schedule for the Big XII play. I have no question they can play by 2013 because that is when the Big East will be reconstituted with new members, who themselves have a year hold obligation with their own current conferences.

Thus if there is only 9 teams in the Big XII then television contracts might have to be renegotiated (from the TV carriers) as I believe the threshold for this is 10 teams. The only one of the independent team is likely to be able to start conference play by 2012. Of the four, Army is not interested in any conference, Navy is being courted by the Big East, Notre Dame won't give up its independence to help out any conference, and so that leaves BYU. BYU was previously courted by the Big XII but nothing became of it for uncertain and unpublished reasons. Unpublished means that there is still an opportunity to renegotiate. Interesting enough, BYU has also been mentioned as a traveling partner for Boise State to go to the Big East. If BYU turned down the Big XII, I would be skeptical they would choose the Big East instead, but if the Big East was more pliant, then it could happen.

The Big XII needs to make a renewed push for BYU, and perhaps to entice it, consider taking Boise State as well. I understand that there is concerned about Boise State's academics, and a programs academic's reputation and standing lingers longer than on field football prowess, but as long as there is a commitment to academic excellence, it might be reasonable to consider them.

Taking both BYU and Boise State would leave the conference at 12, where the conference started in 2010. But when you rebuild, you should always look to rebuild bigger and better. Again I believe the Big XII should become the Big XIV, no later than 2014. Work today and make plans for tomorrow. Going to XIV would also allow the Big XII to renegotiate its TV contracts for more money, not just keep the same or lose (if there is only 9 teams for 2012).

Who should these 2 teams be? Again we should keep the idea of loco-regional rivalry and traveling partner in mind. Thus i propose the following "couples" in order of appeal.
1. Central Florida & South Florida. Pros: Both are reasonably competitive programs. Both are within a major media market. Both have good fan bases. Both are located in a state rich in potential recruits. Cons: Neither has a long history for football in the national college football psyche. Distance from the Big XII (though this is a minor con).
2. Cincinnati & Louisville. Pros: Both are current AQ conference members. Both are competitive in football. Both have good media markets for viewers. Both have good fan bases. Both are in the Ohio Valley region for recruiting purposes. And both are ready and willing. In addition, Louisville has an excellent basketball program. Cons: While competitive, neither has a long history for football in the national college football psyche.
3. Southern Mississippi & Tulane. Pros: Both are in good football recruiting areas of the Southeastern Conference. Southern Mississippi has a long tradition of football competitiveness and Tulane has a long tradition for academics as an AAU member. Cons: Southern Mississippi has a decent fan base but no significant TV market. Tulane is in a good TV market but with a small fan base, it is unclear they can deliver viewers.
4. Colorado State & Wyoming. Pros: Both are neighboring states. Both has decent fan bases (similar in size to Louisville & Cincinnati). Colorado State is in a former Big XII state with likely many Big XII viewers already. Wyoming has the Wyoming market locked up. Cons: Neither are in good media market. While decent, neither are particularly strong on the football field. Neither are in states rich with recruits.
5. Houston & Southern Methodist. Pros: Both are competitive on the field. Both are in good media markets. Cons: Both are in Texas where there is already 4 Big XII teams so unclear whether there will be a gain in viewers, fans or recruits. Both have relatively small fan bases and thus may not deliver their media market.
6. Rice & Tulane. Pros: Both are AAU members. Both are in good media markets. Cons: Both are poor football performers. Both have small fan base and thus may not deliver their media market.

So a reconfigured Big XII
Division A & Division B (as annual cross division rivalry games)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Baylor & Texas Christian (Great Revival since 1899)
Iowa State & West Virginia

the additions:
Brigham Young & Boise State
Central Florida & South Florida
Cincinnati & Louisville
Tulane & Southern Mississippi
Colorado State & Wyoming
Southern Methodist & Houston
Rice & Tulane

Notes:
1. Interesting enough, taking Central Florida & South Florida as well as Cincinnati & Louisville will likely kill off the Big East before they can reform. Then their BCS Auto Qualifier can go to the MWC & C-USA Alliance Champion.
2. The two matched teams, being loco-regional rivalries, should try to stagger their home games so that in any fall weekends, there will be a nearby Big 12 game within driving distance, whether it be in Provo or Boise, Orlando or Tampa Bay, Cincinnati or Louisville, New Orleans or Hattiesburg, Fort Collins or Laramie, Dallas and Houston, or Houston & New Orleans.
3. Alternative pairings would be BYU & WVU (West & East) and Iowa State & Tulane (North & South). All pairings should be somewhat competitive.
4. My preferred are Cincinnati & Louisville and Rice & Tulane.

Big 12 Expansion: WVU sues the Big East

2011-10-31T21:21:00.003-04:00

With the threat of Mizzou's impeding move, the Big 12 may only have 9 teams for 2012, which appears to put them at jeopardy for meeting their end of the TV contract. This is why they have been talking about Mizzou playing in 2012. As a fail safe they approach BYU but that has hit an impasse. Then they approach the next teams on their list, WVU and Louisville. WVU was willing to try to get out of the Big East in time for 2012 play so here we are. WVU has filed a lawsuit to leave the Big East before the 27 months hold and start Big 12 play in 2012.

Without this lawsuit, the Big East would have rebuilt itself for 2013 play, and the all the Big East teams who wanted out would likely have been out by 2013 rather than 2014. So in all likelihood this lawsuit makes for a 1 year difference. The Big 12 could have taken a harder look for a 2013 arrival while continuing to work on BYU. The Big 12 could and should have worked harder to keep Missouri. All the same time they could have taken Louisville, Cincinnati and WVU and declare the Big 12 is becoming the Big 14 by 2014. Any TV contract problems with 9 members should Missouri leaves could have been renegotiated in light of a forth comming Big 14.

This 27 month clause is similar to the 1 year clause by the C-USA, and even the 6 years tier 1 & tier 2 ownership clause by the Big 12. WVU was a willing participant of the 27 months Big East clause, as it is now a willing participant of the 6 years media ownership clause of the Big 12. These clauses serve the conference members by insuring short term stability, and enough time for the conference to reconstitute itself. I think this lawsuit really put WVU, and the Big 12, in a bad light. I am thinking when will WVU do the same to the Big 12. I am thinking how manipulative the Big 12 appears. The Big 1G, the ACC, the SEC, and the Pac10 did not need any such shenanigans.

Big East: Rebuild for Synergy

2011-10-30T11:36:00.010-04:00

The Big East is having a tough year. So far three football programs have officially declared their departure (Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and West Virginia) and three more are looking to leave (Cincinnati, Connecticut, and Louisville). To rebuild, the Big East is looking to rebuild with teams like Air Force, Boise State, Central Florida, Houston, Navy, Southern Methodist, and possibly Army and Temple. Of these I do not believe Air Force or Boise State will join up. In fact, the target goal of the new Big East is 12 teams; I think they should plan for 14 just in case Louisville and Cincinnati both decides to leave. The teams under consideration are the best available from the C-USA, MAC, and independents but I believe additional teams should be considered.

There are no major teams left but the Big East did pretty good taking C-USA teams and with a higher level of competition, made them more competitive (Cincinnati, Louisville, and USF all come to mind) if not on the field definitely on college football fans' awareness. The best way to rebuild the Big East is to make sure that TVs are tuned to Big East games. Major media market are needed but rather than spread out to cover more markets, major markets within "reach" should be saturated. By this I mean have two Big East teams to cover each market so that each fall weekend a Big East game is played loco-regionally. The two teams thus should alternate home games for the season, with one game against each other to open the season. Once awareness is maintained or even raised, it will be easier to recruit and thus build better teams in the process.

Thus I propose the following. Listed are two teams set for synergy, each will play each other once a year every year but will be in different divisions of the Big East. Each team will also play 5-6 in division games (5 for a Big East with 12 teams, 6 for a Big East with 14 teams) as well as 2 rotating cross division games (staggered for a home and away game each). I have arranged the divisions based also on each team's average ranking from 1960-2010 as listed at mcubed. I have also included two teams making the transition from D2 to D1 for their geography, Villanova and UMass (both in italics below). These two teams will be placed in separate divisions. A contest should be conducted to name the two divisions as they will not be amenable to East & West or North & South. In the list, current Big East programs are in bold. Since in basketball divisions will not matter so much as all teams can play each other, the basketball only non-football programs are not listed.

Division A & Division B (mcubed average ranking 1960-2010)
Cincinnati (67.1) & Louisville (63.3) [Ohio Valley]
Connecticut (69.3) & Massachusetts (NA) [New England]
Buffalo (96.7) & Rutgers (73.2) [New York & Jersey]
South Florida (46.3) & Central Florida (72.3) [Florida]
Southern Methodist (69.3) & Houston (53.1) [Texas]
Villanova (89.9) & Temple (76.4) [Philadelphia]
Navy (68.7) & Army (80.5) [Military]
Average mcubed (72.5) & (69.8)

The two matched programs should open conference play with each other. Given inclusion of a bye week, all Big East programs can open conference play over two weekends. To foster a sense of rivalry and Big East conference should pay for a trophy of some sort trophy to represent these games but allow the two teams to name the trophy. The Big East would be smart to award the winner of the trophy a donation to their general scholarship fund ($10k+?). A scholarship contribution would make it more than a game trophy and get buy in from students (prospective, current, and alumni) and faculty. The Big East would be extra smart if it uses the exit fee money from teams leaving to create an endowment fund for a "Big East" scholarship at each schools (to remain at each school as long as they are members). The rivalry game prize money would go into this endowment fund. All this would generate a certain buzz and allow the Big East to market their conference play openers.

The Big East should also open conference play with the annual cross division rivalry games because it is possible that both teams could become division champions and a rematch could occur in the Big East championship game. Better to put as many games between their first encounter and their last encounter.

This Big East does not guarantee an automatic bid to the BCS (average rankings for the new Big East is 71.3 as compared to 57 for the old) but it does help lay a foundation for a good conference. How so? Well in addition to markets and marketing opportunities, this Big East will also have footprints in 5 of the top 10 states for for football recruitment according to Rivals (#1 Texas, #2 Florida, #5 Ohio, #6 Pennsylvania, and #10 New Jersey. The Big East has to rebuild for the long term.

Additional Notes.
1. The new Big East could start play in 2013 or 2014, depending on when they let out exiting members.
2. Average travel for both divisions are similar, both contain the Ohio Valley, New England, Florida, Texas and Philadelphia.
3. Both Buffalo and Rutgers are AAU members and are matched against each other.
4. If both Cincinnati and Louisville leave, the conference would still be OK with 12 teams.
5. If Boise State and Air Force joins, they would be set as cross division rivals.
6. If Notre Dame stays, their football team should play 4-6 games against Big East programs. This would help strength of schedule as well as another marketing opportunity.

Big 14 in 2014

2011-10-28T23:05:00.013-04:00

News came today that West Virginia University has been accepted into the Big 12 in July 2012. Interesting enough, the long anticipated Missouri's departure to the SEC still has not happened. The word is that the Big 12 is to stay at 10 teams for now. I just don't see that happening. Firstly, how can WVU join in 2012 when the Big East will hold all members to the 27 months notification. Sure WVU will try to renegotiate their exit terms but the Big East can only lose to allow any team to leave before the Big East is ready. Definitely a domino concern is in play as one team leaving early will mean three teams leaving early, which may leave the Big East short of 8 teams necessary to be a NCAA conference. Secondly, why unlikely, Missouri may still stay in the Big 12. Finally, I believe the current TV contract specifies 12 teams and a minimum of 10. Come time to renew and renegotiate the TV contract time returns in 6 years the Big 12 will be certainly negotiate based on the number of teams they have. Numbers provide for both stability and profit.

Thus I believe if Mizzou leaves and West Virginia cannot play in 2012 the Big 12 will need another team for 2012. I also believe that if Mizzou stays the Big 12 will be at 11 and will then consider adding another team to go to 12. Big 12 expansion will not end with West Virginia. Going to 14 however is another matter and in part will depends on what happens with between Missouri leaving and West Virginia playing, i.e. team 11 (with WVU being team 10 to replace Missouri). Team 11 cannot come from the Big East if WVU cannot play before 2014. Brigham Young University remains in play for this reason. Notre Dame is a wish list that will not happen in 2012. If not Brigham Young then it leaves an opportunity for a C-USA team (of which I believe Tulane is the leading candidate over alternatives such as Rice, Southern Mississippi, Central Florida, or Memphis) or a MWC team (Air Force has been ruled out, leaving San Diego State, Colorado State, possibly New Mexico). Of these I think the top two for the Big 12 expansion before 2014, in order, are Brigham Young and Tulane. It is possible that the Big 12 may decide to pick up both to go to 12 rather than just one and go to 11. If invited, unlike BYU, Tulane will jump at the chance.
But when WVU cannot play in 2012 the Big 12 will have to decide whether to take any other teams from the Big East while they still can. The teams to consider then, in order, will be Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida.

So lets then look at how the Big 12 with 12 teams might be configured. In a previous post I laid out divisions based on rivalries. I still believe this is the best approach. To review, the major rivalries in the Big 12 (with Missouri as they have not left yet, but without Colorado, Nebraska, or Texas A&M) are:

Kansas & Missouri (Border War since 1891)
Texas & Oklahoma (Red River Rivalry since 1900)
Kansas & Kansas State (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Texas & Kansas State (Chisholm Trail since 1913)
Iowa State & Kansas State (Farmageddon since 1917)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Missouri (Peace Pipe since 1929)
Baylor & Texas Tech (Texas Farm Bureau Shootout since 1929)
Iowa State & Missouri (Telephone Trophy since 1959)
Texas Christian & Baylor (Great Revival since 1899)

The rivalries in bold will be used as the basis to divide the conference zipper style, with these games representing annual cross division games (an addition 2 cross division games will be rotating, along with the 5-6 in division games). As represented, the first column will represent one division and the second column the other division.

Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Texas Christian & Baylor (Great Revival since 1899)
Iowa State & Missouri (Telephone Trophy since 1959)

Division A will have Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Christian, and Iowa State. Division A will also preserve the Red River rivalry (Oklahoma & Texas), the Chisholm Trail (Kansas State & Texas) and Farmageddon (Kansas State & Iowa State).
Division B will have Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and possibly Missouri. Division B will also preserve the Border War (Kansas & Missouri) and the Texas Farm Bureau Shootout (Texas Tech and Baylor).
One rivalry will not be preserved in this alignment, the Peace Pipe between Oklahoma and Missouri. The Chisholm Trail predates this rivalry and since Missouri may leave I thought it better to preserve the Chisholm Trail over the Peace Pipe rivalry.

With just WVU replacing Missouri there would be no reason to have divisions at 10 teams. But if Missouri stay the Big 12 will take one more, lets say either BYU or Tulane, then I would arrange the following matches:

Kansas State & Kansas
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State
Texas & Texas Tech
Texas Christian & Baylor
Iowa State & Missouri
Brigham Young/Tulane & West Virginia

If Missouri leaves but WVU cannot play till 2014, and the Big 12 takes 1-2 for 2012, and with WVU go to 12 for 2014, then the following could be considered. I am certain the Big 12 will go back to at least 12.

Kansas State & Kansas
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State
Texas & Texas Tech
Texas Christian & Baylor
Iowa State & Tulane (both AAU, both fairly matched in competitiveness)
Brigham Young & West Virginia (both fairly matched in average ranking from 1960-2010 at 42.9 and 40.4, both extreme geographic ends of the Big 12)

Now if the Big 12 decides on more Big East teams than just WVU, then take the match set of Louisville & Cincinnati (the Keg of Nail rivalry). The Big 14 cross division would be zippered as follows:

Kansas State & Kansas
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State
Texas & Texas Tech
Texas Christian & Baylor
Iowa State & Tulane
BYU & West Virginia
Cincinnati & Louisville
A solid conference in football, basketball, market reach, and overall quality. This is my preferred Big 14.

Should BYU not join, then I believe the Big 12 will take Tulane to go to 10 till the Big East teams joins. In addition to Louisville & Cincinnati, the Big 12 should consider South Florida as their average ranking (1960-2010) is 46.3, and will give the Big 12 direct entry and presence in the Florida market for viewers and recruitment. The Big 14 in 2014 thus could be:

Kansas State & Kansas
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State
Texas & Texas Tech
Texas Christian & Baylor
Iowa State & Tulane
South Florida & West Virginia
Cincinnati & Louisville
A pretty damn fine conference as well.

But if there is a chance Missouri stays, this is what the Big 14 in 2014 should look like:
Kansas & Kansas State
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State
Texas & Texas Tech
Texas Christian & Baylor
Iowa State & Tulane
Missouri & West Virginia
Cincinnati & Louisville

College Football Big 12 Realignment & Provisional Membership

2011-10-21T19:11:00.003-04:00

No Big East teams will be a replacement for Missouri in the Big 12 because of their 27 months hold with the SEC. Missouri say if they leave they will leave to play elsewhere in 2012, which means the Big 12 will take a team that can start conference play in 2012. Even if Missouri does not leave till 2013, the Big East teams will not be available till 2014. This is where BYU comes in and probably why they are still being pursued. BYU can probably start conference play in 2012 and definitely by 2013 if they choose to join.

If the Big 12 decides to take the Big East teams anyway, which is what I hope the Big 12 does and go to 14 ("Big 14" is owned by the Big 12) then taking WVU, Louisville, and Cincinnati would be preferred as a package rather than just two of the three, as along with Iowa State would allow for future regional play as well as concentration of geography within the B1F footprint. These three teams may not start Big 12 conference play until 2014, 2013 at the earliest. Thus i see an opportunity for a program to demonstrate its commitment to taking it to "Big 14" level. Such a program would have to start this year and demonstrate itself over the next year or two. Think of it as a provisional membership plan?

For programs currently weak in football play but with excellent academics, the program needs to show commitment to improving itself, partly through on field performance, but more so through building athletic infrastructures such as an on campus stadium of sufficient size and other athletic facilities, coaching hires and staffs, and general support from the institution to its athletic program (not just football). It may also be easier for a strong academic program to commit to academic because academic is the true raison d'etre for universities. If mission one is already accomplished, then mission two, brand building will come easier. For most university, brand building is easiest with athletics. If for simplicity rating programs for good academics uses AAU membership, then there would be three available AAU programs outside of AQ conference: Buffalo, Rice, and Tulane. Buffalo is probably too far away, thus leaving Rice and Tulane.

For programs currently strong in football play but weak in academics, it will need to demonstrate a commitment to improving its academic. This means faculty recruitment, grants awards, and quality improvements. Since most programs are likely doing what it can already to improve academics, I do not see these programs as viable provisional members. When you get down to it there is only one program in this category: Boise State. They have an excellent football program but relatively weak in their academic. I do not think Boise State can do much in the next few years.

Then there are programs lacking excellence in academic and football, but are decent in both. To build up both athletic and academic at the same time is a Herculean effort. They would have to be on the cusp, just needing a bit more time and a bit more resources. The only program that springs to mind is Florida International, strong in academic and in a good geography to build their athletic (Florida).

Another consideration is private programs vs public program. In this consideration the private program will have an edge. For a public institution to increase its effort for academic of athletic will require support from the state government and I just do not see this happening. With the current state of the economy, falling tax collection and government deficit, most state governments would be hard press to commit more money to athletic program building. While the state of the economy is poor for private institution as well, their alumni base may be better positioned tax wise to donate, as well as a desire to see their alma mater compete better.

In final consideration, if the Big 14 does consider provisional membership, the following programs have an opportunity and I list them in order: Tulane, Rice, Buffalo, and Florida Atlantic.

Big 12 Old and New by the Numbers

2011-10-17T21:47:00.004-04:00

The Big 12 took a huge hit losing Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and possibly Missouri. To even get close to where it was it needs 14 teams. The lost is felt across the board in football competitiveness, fan base, money, and AAU.

None of the potential Big 12 candidates individually comes close to a Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, or Missouri. They are all mixed bags.

BYU is a good addition if it happens, as BYU is a competitive program in football and strong in academic endowment though not AAU. BYU though can gain viewers in Utah as well as nationally.
Boise State is competitive athletics but weak in academic. There are few viewers in Idaho but they do have a national presence now.
Cincinnati is a solid pick with decent competitiveness, fans and money (more than BYU). They also bring part of the Ohio market.
Colorado State is decent in competitiveness, fans and money. The Colorado market may be primed for a Big 12 presence after the lost of Colorado. There are many Big 12 fans there who are not Colorado U fans.
Louisville is also decent in football competitiveness, fans, though less money than Cincinnati but more than Colorado State. Louisville is also a decent market for the Big 12 to gain.
New Mexico is a weak competitor, few fans, and little money. They are a neighboring state to the Big 12 though with a decent market in Albuquerque.
Southern Mississippi is a strong competitor and has a decent fan base but little money. The market is small and behind Mississippi and Mississippi State. But Mississippi brings the Big 12 that much closer to Florida, a huge market and recruitment ground for players.
Tulane is a weak competitor, small fan base, but good endowment and AAU. Tulane is also in New Orleans a very good market and destination. The Big 12 can afford a few weak competitor who are good academics and bring new market to the league. The Big 12 already has plenty of competitive programs on the field and may need to replenish its AAU memberships.
West Virginia is a strong competitor, large fan base, and decent money but not a strong academic nor a large market. The market is decent if you include Pittsburgh and Northern Virginia though.
SMU and Houston were not included in the analysis because there are already 4 Texas teams and neither would bring new market share.

Overall I would rate the contenders in the following order.
1. BYU
2. WVU
3. Cincinnati
4. Louisville
5. Tulane
6. Boise State
7. Southern Mississippi
8. Colorado State
9. New Mexico

BYU and WVU would become matched rivals for cross division annual play. Same with Cincinnati and Louisville (Keg of Nails since 1929). If Tulane replaces Missouri, then Tulane would be matched with Iowa State. All seems like good matches to me.

Big 12 Should Look East

2011-10-10T13:46:00.006-04:00

News today is that the Big East plans to go to 12 football teams. Their options are limited however with candidates like Air Force, Army, Navy, Temple, East Carolina, Central Florida, Houston and SMU. None of the teams mentioned are from Automatic Qualifying conferences, but teams mentioned (with the omission of Boise State and BYU) are among the best of the rest. If the Big 12 rest at 10, then the opportunity to take teams from the Big East, or these "best of the rest" will be severely limited.

When the Big 12 expands back up to 12, and possibly 14 (given the Big 12 currently owns the copy rights to Big 14), the expansions should consider new markets for both football as well as basketball, major metropolitan areas, and academics. While final decisions cannot come until Missouri decides whether to leave to the SEC or not, the Big 12 expanding to at least 12 now might entice Missouri to stay. Given all these considerations, the Big 12 should move now rather than later.

Which way to expand? If the Big 12 looks to improve both its football and basketball footprints, then it should look to what conference currently are strong in football and basketball. This means Big 10 and SEC for football and ACC and Big East for basketball. All these states are east of the current Big 12 footprint, not west. All these states also have higher population densities than the states west of the Big 12. While geographic continuity should be considered, there are options eastward the Big 12 should consider.

Firstly, I favor the Big 12 inviting at least Louisville and Cincinnati now. Both have reasonably competitive athletics, both have reasonable academics, and both are in complementary population markets. Both straddle the Big 10 and SEC footprints, allowing the Big 12 higher visibility in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana. West Virginia should also be considered if Missouri leaves and the SEC does not pick up West Virginia though this is mostly a football gain only. It is important to remember that the Big East programs needs to give 27 months notice, and may not be available for Big 12 conference play until the 2014 season.

Secondly, the Big 12 should consider penetrating the SEC territory by considering Tulane and Southern Mississippi. Tulane has strong academics and appears interested in strengthening its athletics. Tulane is AAU to replace the AAU that are lost (Colorado, TA&M, Missouri, and "Nebraska"). Southern Mississippi is strong in football, a rival for Tulane, and moves the Big 12 a bit closer to Florida, a major recruiting field and leaves option for addition of Florida teams in the future.

I think the Big 12 will lose out if it does not move ahead of the Big East. BYU and Boise State can both wait and be added later.

Big 12 Reorganization.

2011-10-09T09:40:00.007-04:00

With the Big 12 inviting TCU and TCU accepting membership, it looks like the Big 12 has at least stabilized some (pending Missouri's decision, which I hope and expect to remain with the Big 12). Additional candidates are likely to go to 12 if not 14. I think this would be a good time to look at the organization for division formation. Previously with 12 teams, it was a North vs South with the line drawn between Kansas and Oklahoma. This geography would be hard to re-establish, and an East-West split would also constrain current rivalries as well as future additions. Witness the SEC with 13 teams, 7 West and 6 East. Either the SEC will have to redraw its division if it adds Missouri, or be constrained to take a team to the East (West Virginia? Virginia Tech? Miami? A North Carolina team?). And then what would have to change when it feels 16 teams is needed? Redrawing division lines while preserving traditional rivalries will be difficult for any conference. Thus the Big 12 should give serious consideration now, before it has divisions, as to how the divisions should be drawn to accommodate future growth.

While conference realignment appears largely about money, the best thing about college sports is rivalries and these must be preserved in any division alignments. Thus if rivalries are to be preserved, why not build divisions around rivalries? Currently in the Big 12 there are the following rivalries, from oldest to youngest (rivalries with Texas A&M not included).
Kansas & Missouri (Border War since 1891)
Texas & Oklahoma (Red River Rivalry since 1900)
Kansas & Kansas State (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Texas & Kansas State (Chisholm Trail since 1913)
Iowa State & Kansas State (Farmageddon since 1917)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Missouri (Peace Pipe since 1929)
Baylor & Texas Tech (Texas Farm Bureau Shootout since 1929)
Iowa State & Missouri (Telephone Trophy since 1959).

As can seen in the above, keeping all the rivalries within one division will not be practical. There are two kinds of rivalries, intra-state and inter-states. Since there are more inter-state rivalries, and rivalries should be annual games, it makes more sense to build divisions based on inter state rivalries and keeping intra state state rivalries as an annual inter-division game. With this format the following intra-state rivalries will split the conference into two.
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State
Kansas & Kansas State
Texas & Texas Tech

Around this we will add inter-state rivals, keeping interstate rivals in the same division. In the South we have Oklahoma & Texas (so Oklahoma and Texas should be in the same division). In the North we have Kansas & Missouri and Missouri & Oklahoma (so these 3 teams should be in the same division). The result is Division A: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas with Division B: Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech. Given that both Iowa State and Missouri do not have in state and in conference rivals, and they are rivals as well, the two will be matched as cross division rivals. Now Division B has Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech. There remains two teams for placement, Texas Christian and Baylor. Texas Christian has an 106 games rivalry with Baylor and a 51 games rivalry with Texas Tech. Baylor has a 67 games rivalry with Texas Tech. Thus Texas Christian and Baylor should be in opposite divisions, with Baylor in the same division as Texas Tech.
Thus we end with:
Division A: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Christian.
Division B: Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech.

The balance of power appears to favor Division A (with current upper powers Oklahoma and Texas and mid powers Missouri and Texas Christian) over Division B (with current upper power Oklahoma State and mid powers Kansas State and possibly Texas Tech). But power rankings will change from season to season. Besides, with cross division rivalries, all the strong teams from one division will play against the other division teams as well. With expansion to 12 or 14, addressing power imbalance can occur.

Each year each team should play its cross division rival to open conference play. Playing your cross division rival first because should a set of cross division rivals end up being division champions, their rematch in the division championship would come after all conference plays have occurred. It would also be a great way to start conference play.
Baylor opens with Texas Christian.
Iowa State opens with Missouri.
Kansas opens with Kansas State.
Kansas State opens with Kansas.
Missouri opens with Iowa State.
Oklahoma opens with Oklahoma State.
Oklahoma State opens with Oklahoma.
Texas opens with Texas Tech.
Texas Christian opens with Baylor.
Texas Tech opens with Texas.

Another benefit to divisions based on rival is that travel cost for each team also averages out more evenly. In the old Big 12 division the southern teams had a shorter distance to travel (Oklahoma and Texas) while the northern teams had longer travel distance (Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska). In a division of rivals both divisions have Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas with one also has Iowa while the other Missouri. I also see this as enhancing the smaller state's presence within more populous Texas for exposure, fan building, and recruitment.

With a conference built on rivalries, any additions to the Big 12 should thus be recruited as rivals set. For instance Louisville + Cincinnati (or West Virginia), BYU + Boise State (or West Virginia), Tulane + Southern Mississippi, etc. The rivals division is practical for 12 or 14 teams arrangement. It will need a bit of tweaking for 16 teams though.

Finally, each conference teams should try to cultivate annual extra-conference rivalries. For instance Iowa State and Iowa, Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Christian and Southern Methodist, and Texas Tech and New Mexico. Of the expansion candidates, it would be BYU v Utah (or Boise State), Louisville vs Kentucky, WVU vs Pittsburgh, and Tulane vs LSU for instance. These inter-conference games would highlight the conferences against each other at the beginning of the season, whereas bowl games will highlight them at the end.

Big 12 Expansion Candidates

2011-10-06T20:29:00.001-04:00

The Big 12 will expand this season, taking in my opinion 3-6 teams (depending on whether Missouri leaves or not) and will soon have 12+ members again. This means an 8-9 games conference schedule. Any expansion candidates must consider this schedule, leaving only 2-3 non conference games available. Some of these non-conference games must include games against national and regional rivals. Regional rivals are particularly important to establish a regional presence to build both a fan base and capture media market. Local fans are the most important as they will attend games, buy team related products. A large local fans base will also force more media attention and service.

The leading candidate so far is BYU. BYU has the largest sporting presence in Utah as well as a national presence. Their non conference games would include Boise State, Utah, and possibly one other. These regional non-conference games will certainly help BYU to deliver Utah.

If the Big 12 wants geographical continuity with BYU as well as regain the Colorado market, it must consider a Colorado program. Colorado left the Big 12 for the Pac 12 will not be coming back. That leaves the Air Force Academy or Colorado State. The available number of non-conference games almost certainly rule out Air Force Academy. Air Force will want to play Army and Navy each year. Air Force has also been a frequent competitor of Notre Dame. For Air Force to grab the Colorado market, it must also play against instate rivals Colorado and Colorado State. This is particularly true for Air Force because despite being in Colorado, it neither recruits nor serves Colorado. Both Colorado and Colorado State thus must be a part of the non-conference schedule. Playing both of these Colorado teams along with Army and Navy just is not practical. On the other hand Colorado State non-conference schedule would include the biggest sporting event in Colorado when it plays against the University of Colorado. It would also highlight a Big 12 vs Pac 12 rivalry (similar to a Iowa State vs Iowa game). Colorado State other rivalry with Wyoming would also help deliver the Colorado market. My analysis would favor Colorado State rather than Air Force for the Colorado market.

Another populous state with potential for cross conference rivalry is Louisiana. Here I think Tulane is our best option for the Big 12. Tulane is an AAU member. Tulane is a well established institution in New Orleans and a historical rival to LSU. True Tulane is not very competitive on the field but teams get better by playing against good teams regularly (which the current even shrunken Big 12 has plenty of) and by investing in its athletic program financially. Being a part of an Automatic Qualifying conference will bring more experience and money to Tulane. Given that Tulane is fairly well established in academics, there would be less of an issue for Tulane to put more money into Athletics. Tulane's non-conference rivalries with LSU and Southern Mississippi would certainly help gain viewers in the southern Gulf coast region. The alternative program to Tulane in Louisiana is Louisiana Tech. However, Louisiana Tech is not located in a major metropolitan area, not strong in academic, and doesn't have as much of a presence as Tulane. Tulane was recently mentioned as a potential candidate and they should be considered.

New Mexico might be a consideration but this should be a last resort to fill a gap and round out conference membership to an even number rather than a primary or even secondary target for expansion. There are two teams in New Mexico, University of New Mexico and New Mexico State. Neither are academically outstanding and both have equivalent metropolitan area (Albuquerque and Las Cruces + El Paso). Albuquerque might be a reasonable consideration. A better choice for the Las Cruces + El Paso market would be UTEP rather than New Mexico State. New Mexico could have an outside shot at being considered for the Big 12.

UTEP really doesn't add much to the Big 12 that it doesn't already own in Texas. The top 3 teams in Texas are UT, TA&M, and TTU. TA&M is now lost to the SEC. TCU might be a consideration in that it is the only remaining Texas team with a national recognition. However, SMU isn't so far behind and nor is Houston. Perhaps the best reason to take TCU is to deny the Big East a Texas presence. Of the remaining Big 12 states none have any in state options of note. Of the surrounding states there really no viable options either beyond those mentioned above(Colorado State, Tulane, and New Mexico), whether it be Arkansas, Arizona, the Dakotas or Wyoming.

There is the option of raiding the Big East by taking Louisville, Cincinnati, and even West Virginia. I seriously doubt the Big East will fold any time soon. In addition, if Missouri leaves, these 3 Big East programs will be even less attractive. There won't be geographical continuity. Missouri in this sense is the Big 12's gateway east and these 3 school's gateway west.

Looking West there remains Boise State. Though a very competitive football program, unfortunately Boise State doesn't offer much else, whether it be academic, geographical proximity, or regional media market. However, like New Mexico, Boise State will be considered as a filler team.

In summary, my assessment of expansion candidates for the Big 12 are:
Tier 1: BYU (to replace TA&M)
Tier 2: Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, (only if Missouri stays, and even so, unlikely)
Tier 3: TCU, Colorado State, and Tulane
Tier 4: Boise State, New Mexico
I can see the Big 12 going to 14 for both stability (should another team leaves) as well as parity with the ACC and the SEC. I do not see the Big 12 going to 16 because there isn't a reason to yet, and because when the time come, a 14 teams big 12 will be in a stronger position to take better candidates than it can now. My 14 are: all the current Big 12 (including Missouri), BYU, TCU, Colorado State, Tulane, and Louisville.

Palin is not running for President

2011-10-05T21:03:00.002-04:00

Too bad. I will vote for anyone but Obama but count me out of the campaign season otherwise.

College Football Conference Expansions, the Big Picture

2011-09-25T19:08:00.012-04:00

Though it did not come to pass, there was a substantial amount of buzz regarding super-conferences his past months. I assume that super-conferences will be 16 teams in size. I do not assume there will be just 4 super conferences because of the BCS bowls. There are currently 4 BCS bowls, the Fiesta, the Orange, the Rose, and the Sugar. These four bowls then rotate hosting a fifth bowl for the championship game. Currently the Cotton bowl is negotiating for inclusion as a BCS bowl. There is substantial money associated with the BCS bowls and they will not be going away any time soon. This means there will be 5-6 BCS games each year, and 10-12 teams. To prevent anti-trust, there must me 1-2 open slots for non-automatic qualifying conferences. This leaves 8-10 automatic invites to be divided, likely among 5-6 super conferences. It seems more likely that the six automatic qualifying conferences will become super conferences then one or more of the non-automatic qualifying conferences gaining super conference status and gain automatic qualifying status. In addition, the automatic qualifying conferences have better teams, at least in football, on average than the non-automatic qualifying conferences. For most schools though, football brings in the majority of the income.
Given these consideration, the only driver for conference expansion is to gain television market share without damaging the character of the conference as is. Each conference's character is a varying combination of athletic competitiveness, academic standing, and regionality. Another assumption is that not all conferences are equal and the stronger conferences will have more influence to expand over weaker ones.

The top conference is the Big 10. All of the Big 10 members are institution of significant academic standing and members of the Association of American Universities (AAU). The Big 10 is also based around the Midwest of the US, thus any future members must also be geographically connected to the Midwest yet at the same time increase its market share. If you look at the list of AAU universities not already in the Big 10 but within geographic fit, there are only 4: Iowa State, Rutgers, University of Buffalo, University of Missouri, and the University of Pittsburgh. Of these I believe Pittsburgh and Missouri would be the best fit as Pittsburgh has 2,050 millions followed by Mizzou has 974 millions in endowment, compared to 640 millions for Rutgers, 566 millions for Buffalo, and 508 millions for Iowa State, the Big 10 on average for endowment is 2.264 million dollars. Both Pittsburgh and Missouri would bring major media markets (Pittsburgh, St Louis and Kansas City) and are very much Midwestern. While Rutgers is located in a major media market, neither it nor Iowa State has a very large fan base to carry the market. By this analysis in the NYT, Missouri has a nearly 1.1 million fan base and Pittsburgh as nearly 0.9 million fans. Rutgers has over 0.9 million fans compared to 0.5 millions for Iowa State and 0.2 for Buffalo. Buffalo, with a relatively low endowment fund, small fan base, and not currently in not in a BCS automatic conference (Buffalo is in the Mid-American Conference) will be the weakest candidate for the Big 10. The strongest are Pittsburgh and Missouri. Pittsburgh has recently shifted from the Big East to the ACC and Missouri is currently in the Big 12. Interesting enough the remaining two schools are also in the Big 12 (Iowa State) and the Big East (Rutgers). The big 10, sitting on top with 12 teams should have no urgency to expand.

Next up is the SEC. The SEC recently accepted Texas A&M as its 13th member, and is likely looking for at least a 14th if not 15th and 16th. Given that the conference is currently divided East West, the 13th team will likely be an eastern team. The most attractive candidates are Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia Tech (all from the ACC), South Florida (Big East), and Central Florida (C-USA). Both South Florida and Central Florida are geographically too close to University of Florida and will not add much in terms of television markets and are both unlikely candidate. That leaves the ACC schools and with the new 20 million exit fees, it will be a difficult poach but it will be possible. Of these ACC schools, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, and North Carolina, Miami and Virginia Tech is least wedded to the ACC being among its newest members. Miami also has a huge fan base (1.3 millions compared to 1.7 for Clemson and 1.6 for Georgia Tech) and adds the populous south Florida market for the SEC. Miami however has a certain reputation as manifested by their current troubles with the NCAA. Virginia Tech also has a large fan base, same as Miami at 1.3 millions and gives the SEC a place in Virginia. However, Virginia Tech may want to bring Virginia with them. West Virginia (oft mentioned as a potential candidate) is neither a good geographical fit nor does it add much to the TV market. Virginia Tech also has a large fan base, same as Miami at 1.3 millions and gives the SEC a place in Virginia. However, Virginia Tech may want to bring Virginia with them. Missouri, another currently cited potential candidate, would force reformation of the East-West divisions, is not a better candidate than Virginia Tech or Miami. For 15th and 16th, Missouri will be considered, but so will TCU and SMU to further expand the Texas reach for the SEC. If TCU is still available it will be preferable to SMU In the East it will likely be a program in North Carolina to extend the geography of the conference. By 15th and 16th, the conference may be able to focus more on geographic expansion and be less rigorous on athletic competitiveness so the likes of SMU and perhaps even Eastern Carolina University (both from the C-USA) might be considered. But the SEC will be under no pressure to expand to 15 or 16.

What is left of the ACC will be considered next. Though standing at 14 teams now with their recent raids for Pittsburgh and Syracuse, they may still lose programs to other conferences (Pittsburgh to the Big 10 and Miami to the SEC). For quality programs they will have to continue to raid the Big East with occasional consideration for the C-USA. From the Big East already Rutgers and Connecticut have expressed interests (with 0.9 and 0.6 million fans respectively). These two teams will consolidate the North East reach for the ACC. Other teams to be considered will be South Florida (also Big East) or Central Florida (C-USA). The Florida programs (both with about 0.5 millions fan) will only be considered if the ACC loses either or both Pittsburgh and Miami.

Though the Big 12 might be a stronger football conference, the Pac 12 is currently more stable and will be considered next. The Pac-16 is the most stable conference west of the Mississippi and is highly unlikely to lose any members. This year it tried to raid the nearest automatic qualifying conference, the Big 12, but came up short, mostly because of the egos of the teams being considered (Texas primarily but also to a lesser extent Oklahoma). The Pac 12 will likely have problems finding quality programs for expansion, and will have to look at the Mountain West and the Western Athletic. The Pac 12 has already own nearly all the major media markets west of the Rockies and there are few media markets left to expand into. The candidates are BYU, Boise State, Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, San Diego State, UNLV (all with the exception of BYU are Mountain West Conference). Note that like the Big 10 the Pac 12 does not have to expand.

The Big 12 survived a scare this month and would have ceased to exist as an automatic qualifying conference had Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech all left for the Pac 12. I have blogged about what the Big 12 needs to do to remain viable and competitive as a major conference. The Big 12 will need to expand to move forward, and given the continued risk of losing members (Missouri and Texas) the Big 12 should look to go to 14 rather than stop at 12. The three teams to round out the conference should be announced before the regular season ends; the additional two teams for 14 can wait till after the bowl games. The next three has to be viewed as competitive football teams to shore up the image of the conference viability. I believe two of these three should be BYU and TCU. Both teams have strong national awareness. BYU is an independent that really would prefer to be part of an automatic qualifying conference, would join the Big 12, and add the Utah market. TCU is in transition to the Big East and given how moribund the Big East appears currently, would also gladly prefer to play within its geographical foot print of Texas. The conference would also be better with 4 Texas teams to give it the options for a division split evenly through Texas (TTU & TCU west, UT & Baylor east). Of the currently available Texas teams, TCU is by far the best, better than SMU, Houston, Rice, or UTEP. The twelfth team in my opinion should be Boise State rather than Air Force or Louisville. Boise State is a competitive team that would provide a local competitor for BYU. Air Force has half the fan base of Boise State ( 0.2 millions compared to nearly 0.5) and less competitive. Air Force is also being courted by the Big East and there is no point in a bidding war for a second choice. Louisville has a good fan base (0.6 millions) and is geographically connected to the Big 12 via Missouri. I think Louisville could work but I view Boise State, being a western team, would be a better fit than a more Midwest Louisville. I am also certain the Big East would do what it can to keep Louisville. For team 13 and 14 the Big 12 can concentrate more for market share and worry less about team competitiveness (given a conference already has Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and adding BYU and TCU, possibly Boise State. Market consideration will consider national fan base, local and state appeal, entry into a competitor media market, as well as academic. Top of my list for 13th would be Louisville with Tulane an alternative. Tulane has a small fan base (0.1 millions) but sits in New Orleans and Louisiana, an adjacent market that sits within the SEC and LSU media market. Tulane is also an AAU school with a large endowment of 800 millions and would thus increase the academic profile for the conference. The 14th team needs to be a Colorado school to provide western balance for an eastern Tulane, regain the lost Colorado market and compete with new Pac 12 member University of Colorado. The choice then is between Colorado State and Air Force. Both have about the same fan base (0.2 millions) with Air Force having a better national reputation but the Colorado versus Colorado State annual game is a biggest draw in Denver. Colorado State also has the largest endowment in the Mountain West at an acceptable 400 millions, along with 300 millions in research money. Compared to the state of Colorado, neither New Mexico nor Wyoming compare in either game play or television markets.

The Big East might not survive, currently down to 6 members with the loss of Pittsburgh and Syracuse and at risk for losing Connecticut, Rutgers, as well as Louisville. West Virginia is unlikely to leave, not because it doesn't want to, but because like Oklahoma, it has little options. West Virginia is not attractive to the Big 10, and doesn't add enough to the SEC or even the ACC. To be seen as viable the Big East must expand to 12, possibly 14. However, going to 12 means adding 6 new teams, nearly doubling its remaining members. Though TCU is expected to come on board, I suspect they will instead move to the Big 12. For expansion Army, Navy, Air Force and Temple are all mentioned as potential candidates and I believe these will all be good addition for the Big East, with possibly the exception being Air Force for geographical consideration. Some other teams that should be considered are Buffalo (from the MAC), Central Florida, East Carolina, possibly Memphis (from the C-USA), and Florida International (Sun Belt). Buffalo is an AAU program with strong academic and is nearby to Syracuse, a departing Big East member, and thus continues the western New York presence for the conference. Central Florida has a large fan base (by remaining Big East standards) with 0.5 million fans, and would be a natural local competitor Big East's South Florida. Florida International, though doesn't have much of a football presence, like Buffalo is very strong in academic though not AAU itself. Florida is an excellent market and more exposure for the Big East in Florida is good for the conference. East Carolina wants in, has a decent fan base of over 0.3 millions, and will introduces a foothold in North Carolina, an ACC stronghold thus expand the geography of the Big East. Memphis comes with a smaller fan base (0.2 millions) but would extends and bridge the geography of the Big East. If TCU stays, then Air Force would make more sense, as well as other Texas schools such as SMU or Houston. Once the Big East is at 12 teams, it must then assimilate the new members before bringing in any more.

The remaining conferences, Conference USA (C-USA), Mountain West (MW), Mid American Conference (MAC), Sun Belt, and Western Atlantic Conference (WAC) will naturally have to readjust. For these conferences, geography may be a limiting factor given the cost of travel. Regionality maybe more important than new market gains. C-USA may lose ECU, Tulane, UCF, and possibly Memphis. Replacement for these 4 would most likely come from the Sun Belt (Florida International, Troy, Arkansas State) and Louisiana Tech (WAC). With these programs: Florida International (for Miami market), Troy (nearly 0.4 millions fan), Arkansas State (0.3 million fans) and Louisiana (replace the Louisiana market with the loss of Tulane) the C-USA will maintain its current east-west division and geography. If C-USA also loses Marshall, Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt) should be considered.
The MW, minus TCU, +/- Boise State, +/- Air Force, +/- Colorado State will be down to 4-5 teams but is already expecting 3 teams from the WAC (California State-Fresno, Hawaii-Manoa, and Nevada-Fresno). The MW should consider expanding to get to 12 by raiding or merging with a smaller WAC for 12-16 teams. Yes I know that was tried before but the conference realignment environment is different this time. The teams from the WAC to consider are Idaho, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Utah State and future member Denver and Seattle. The remaining WAC teams, Texas State, UT-Arlington and UT-San Antonio should look to the Sun Belt. Louisiana Tech could also look to C-USA.
The MAC, if it loses Buffalo, should look to Marshall (C-USA) to go back to 12. Marshall is also a nice geographical fit with a rich football tradition.
The Sun Belt, without Arkansas State, Troy, Florida International, and possibly Florida Atlantic but with Texas State, UT-Arlington and UT-San Antonio would largely retain its size and gain a greater presence in Texas. Along with South Alabama, Texas State, UT-Arlington, UT-San Antonio the Sun Belt would have the 4 youngest Division 1 football teams but all in good tv markets.

College Football Big 12 Expansion

2011-09-21T08:36:00.005-04:00

So the PAC-12 have decided not to expand, thus largely leaving Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech in the Big-12. That still leaves 2 thorny issues and 2 uncertainties.
The two thorny issues are conference revenue sharing agreements, equal or unequal. If the conference is to regain stability, rather than going through this drama and turmoil again, it will need to move to equal conference revenue sharing. Doing so will facilitate the conference members to act as a team rather than continuing on every school for itself. Which brings to bear the next thorny issue, which is the Long Horn Network (LHN), U of Texas and ESPN 300 million dollars 10 year partnership sport channel. The LHN, and UT's attitude regarding it, was the essential reason why Texas A&M left, this is the primary reason why the PAC-12 decision against expanding to 16 with OU, OSU, TTU, and UT. If UT and the LHN cannot or will not become compliant to the Big-12 expectations, then UT should not be a football member of the Big-12. UT will be fine as a football independent and should not have a problem scheduling annual games with OU, TA&M, TTU or any other regional teams. UT would have no problems arranging for games with USC, UCLA, Stanford, or Notre Dame. In many ways both UT and the Big-12 would both be better off with an independent UT.
The other uncertainty is Texas A&M (the first is whether UT should go independent or not). If revenue sharing and UT/LHN will comply with the conference, then TA&M may decide to stay. IF UT is independent then TA&M will likely stay in the Big-12.
Once the thorns and uncertainties are clarified, the Big-12 should expand to at least 12, if not 14 or even 16. With either UT or TA&M the next three teams the Big-12 needs to get back to 12, and thus host a conference championship game, would be to add BYU, TCU, and Boise State. All these are competitive teams with national standings. I believe though stopping at 12 would be a mistake and the conference should go to 14 with the addition of Air Force or Colorado State (for the Colorado market) and Tulane (for the Louisiana/New Orleans market). I think 14 would still permit two divisions with a reasonable conference schedule of 9-10 games (6 divisions games, 1 cross division annual rivalry, and 2-3 rotating games from the other division). To go to 16 would mean a pod based arrangement with 4 teams each, 9 conference games. But other than Colorado State/Air Force who else? Wyoming? New Mexico? A 15 team conference would means 3 pods of 5 (4 intra-pod games, 2 inter-pods annuals, 4 rotating intra-pods. Expansion to 14 I think would be reasonable for now rather than going to 15 or 16 to be a super conference.

College Football Conference Realignment

2011-09-19T20:13:00.007-04:00

Since my last post on Big 12 realignment survival through retention and expansion, news over the weekend suggests the Big East is even in worse shape than the Big 12. The Big East, with 8 football schools lost Pittsburgh and Syracuse to the ACC to become their 13th and 14th schools.
Today came an analysis by the NYT's Nate Silver looking at the value of each school with respect to their estimate fan size, and their respective conference. But before I get into Nate's analysis, I want to set forth some premises.

Premise 1. Conference realignment will continue, with conferences seeking to grow larger.

Premise 2. The minimum size for a conference is 12 and the maximum is 16.
Smaller conferences has less leverage for tv contracts, as well as leave member teams open for poaching by larger conferences (both the current Big 12 and Big East are less than 12 teams). Twelve teams will allow the conference to hold a championship game. A championship game brings both visibility and money to the conference. However, 12 teams leave no cushions for changes, as the Big 12 saw last year with the lost of Nebraska and Colorado. Not only did the Big 12 lose its championship game, it also became vulnerable to greater instability as witnessed by Texas A&M, OU, and UT drama this year, which is still unfolding. I am certain that all the conferences realize this and though both the SEC and the ACC had 12 members, both sought cushion against future instability by expanding beyond 12. Had the Big 12 and the Big East possessed any fore vision, they would have expanded to at least 12 last year and now it may be too late. So if the conferences want to expand beyond 12, what would be a good number?
With 13 teams, each team could play 2/3 of the conference each year on a rotational schedule, with a conference schedule of 8 games. Very dooable. Conference championship could be between the top two conference teams rather than by division.
With 14 teams, each team has 13 conference opponents, which is an odd number. One solution is to set up an annual rivalry game, and then play 1/2 or 2/3 of the remaining conference teams for a conference schedule of 7-9 games. 14 teams also allows 2 divisions, with 6 games from your own division each year, 1 annual rival from the other division, and 1/2 the other division on a every other year rotation. Again division championship could be based division champions.
With 15 teams the schedule becomes much more difficult. Each team could play two annual rivalry games then half the remaining conference teams for a total of 8 conference games. The conference could also be split into pods of 5 but this means three pods; 4 games against pods mates, 2 annual rival games (one from each of the other pods) and 2 of the 4 teams from each pods every other year for a total of 10 conference games. !0 conference games is likely too much as it only leave one non conference game within the standard school season. Non conference games bring exposure to a non-conference market, which ultimately enhances the program. 15 teams is dooable but barely so and I am skeptical any conference wants to stay at 15.
With 16 teams, the most popular arrangement is four pods of 4. Each team would play 3 games against pod mates, and 2 of 4 of each other pods for a total of 9 conference games. Pods also allows for regionalization to save travel costs. Divisions would result in an 11 conference games schedule and this is prohibitive. Conference championship could be the two pod champions with the best records.
With 17 teams, the odd number would rule out pods organization and division separations. 17 teams i do not believe is workable.
Thus conferences will likely be configured at 13, 14, or 16. 14 seems most practical to me to allow regionalizations with divisions and designations of division champions that actually means something (rather than pod champion). The WAC tried 16 with pods before and did not work then in actuality despite a workable concept.

Premise 3. The BCS Bowl series will remain intact. The BCS bowl is about money, and money speaks. Many has suggested replacing the BCS bowls with a playoff but that will only happen within a bowl format anyway. Currently there are 5 BCS bowl games: the championship game, the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Orange Bowl, and the Fiesta Bowl. Conference champions would play each other, but sometimes a second team from one conference would rank higher than the champion from another conference, thus open spots are necessary. With 5 BCS bowls there would be 10 teams, easily permissive of 6 champions, 3 second conference teams, and an at large spot. This is practically the current arrangement for the champions of the ACC, Big 1G, Big 12, Big East, PAC 12, and the SEC. There has been talk of 4 super conferences and I just don't see this applicable with the current BCS Bowls. Lets also keep in mind that there is movement to add a 6th BCS Bowl with the Cotton Bowl. 6 BCS Bowls means there will certainly room for more than 4 super conferences.

Premise 4. Conference wealth is based on fans, for TV as well as merchandise.
According to Nate's analysis of team's fan base, the conferences rate as follows:
Big 1G: 15.5 million fans with an average of 1.46 per team.
SEC: 13.5 million fans with an average of 1.13 per team; with Texas A&M 15.5 million fans and 1.19 per team.
ACC: 11.1 million fans with an average of 0.93 per team; with Pittsburgh and Syracuse 12,7 million fans and 0.91 per team.
PAC 12: 7.4 million fans with an average of .62 per team.
Big 12 without Texas A&M: 8.1 million fans with an average of 0.9 per team.
Big East without Pittsburgh and Syracuse: 3.7 million fans and an average of 0.52 per team; with TCU 4 million fans and 0.5 per team.
C-USA: 2.6 million fans with an average of 0.22 per team.
MWC without TCU, with Hawaii, Fresno State and Nevada: 2.5 million fans and an average of 0.25 per team.
Sun Belt: 1.8 million fans with an average of 0.20 per team.
Mid American: 1.6 million fans with an average of 0.13 per team.
WAC without Hawaii, Fresno State or Nevada: 0.5 million fans with an average of 0.11 per team.
Notre Dame with 2.2 million fans (and UT also with 2.2 million fans) appear viable as independents.
As above, despite talk of the Big 12 being weak, it actually has greater potential than the Pac 12.

Premise 5. Teams from strong conferences (BIG 1G, SEC, ACC, PAC 12) will not leave their conference.
Thus realignment will center on the Big 12 and Big East. The Big 12 as is can survive as a fifth super conference, on par with the Pac 12.
For completeness lets look at what looms on the horizon currently with realignment.
PAC 16 with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas Tech: 12.5 million fans with an average of 0.78 per team. Just 4 teams will nearly double the fan base for the PAC 12. Given the rich football recruitment and growing population of Texas over that of California, it could have been these 4 schools expanding to take the PAC 12 rather than the PAC 12 taking in these 4 schools. What the PAC 12 has is organization and leadership that these 4 schools lack, as each essentially is its own master and independent of each other. If these four teams were smart, they would do better by staying and expanding rather than joining the PAC 12.
Elsewhere:
SEC with Missouri and Texas A&M: 18.7 million fans with an average of 1.33 per team.
Big 12 + Big East remnants: 5.6 million fans with an average of 0.56 per team.
Big 12 remnant + MW +BYU: 5.1 million fans with an average of 0.22 per team.
Big East remnants + C-USA: 6.2 million fans with an average of 0.35 per team.
Given the last 3 combination, the Big East is better joining with the C-USA while the Big 12 remnant would do fine with BYU and the MW. However, if the Big 12 remain intact and merge with the MW, BYU and TCU, the result would be 11.63 million fans (20 teams so some pruning will be necessary).
Approximately of course.

In summary
1. Conferences will expand to 14-16.
2. There will be room for 5-6 super conferences, and the Big 12 could remain a player if it remains intact and expand.

College Football Big 12 Realignment

2011-09-16T21:07:00.016-04:00

Last year the Big 12 lost the University of Nebraska to the Big 10 (giving the Big 10 its twelfth team) and University of Colorado to the Pac 10 (which now also has 12 teams). This year Texas A&M University have made plans to leave for the SEC. Currently rumors are flying about Oklahoma University and Oklahoma State University, and the University of Texas considering options with other conferences, and to a lesser extent Texas Tech University and the University of Missouri as well.

My preference is for the Big 12 to continue and expand rather than shrivel and die. I would also like to see UT get kicked out of the Big 12, left with no conferences to join, and thus declare themselves Independent. I personally have no problem with some disproportionate sharing of the wealth among member teams. After all if you are better you should get more. However, a conference should still function as a team, meaning you are only as good as those you play against. The stronger team should help the weaker team some. This is also a trait of a leader. The University of Texas, though better positioned than mist others in conference, has not been a leader in the Big 12 but rather played the spoiled brat. The big 12 teams deserve better.

I hope the remaining eight teams, Baylor University, Iowa State University, Kansas State university, Oklahoma State University, Texas Tech University, the University of Kansas, the University of Missouri, and the University of Oklahoma, all work together to rebuild the conference with recruitment and expansion. Why would any team want to join the Big 12? Because the Big 12 is an automatic qualifying conference for the Bowl Championship Series. However, given the weakened position of the Big 12 currently, it will be highly unlikely to expand with teams already in an automatic qualifying conference such as the ACC, Big 10, Big East, Pac 12, or the SEC. This leaves the second tier conferences such as Conference USA, Mountain West, Sun Belt, or Western Athletic. Interesting enough, the unequal distribution of conference money may make expansion of teams from these conference easier for the existing teams.

Teams I think the big 12 should consider are, in order:
Tulane University. Enrollment of 11,000. Endowment of 800 millions US$. Football Stadium for 73,000. Tulane would also bring in the New Orleans and Louisiana market of 1.2 millions and 4.5 millions respectively.
Colorado State University. Enrollment of 25,000. Endowment of 400 millions US$. Football Stadium for 34,000. Colorado State would resume Big 12 football in Colorado with its 5 millions already familiar with the conference.
University of Houston. Enrollment of 39,000. Endowment of 500 millions US$. Football Stadium for 32,000. Houston is an up and comer program with a competitive team in a major media market.
Texas Christian University. Enrollment of 9,000. Endowment of 1.1 billions US$. Football Stadium for 44,000. TCU is a competitive team, a good school, and belongs in the Big 12 rather than the Big East.

The addition of these 4 teams would bring the Big 12 back to 12. While both Boise State and BYU would make strong competitors, the distance is too far and the market gain not worth enough to travel for. However, alternative neighbors, or to bring the conference to 14 for greater stability would be to add the Air Force Academy (4,400 enrollment, 24 millions US$ endowment, and 52,000 football stadium) and the University of New Mexico (35,000 enrollment, 300 millions US$ endowment, and 40,000 stadium) to maintain regional hegemony.

The conference's two divisions should be split to include Texas in both (2 Texas teams each) to allow all conference teams continuous exposure to the most populous state in the conference. The divisions could be East-West or by "zipper" based on rivalries. Each year each team would play all its division partners and half of the other for a total of 8 games, allowing plenty of non conference play. A 14 team split would allow for 10 conference games (6 within the division, 1 annual rival game from the other division, and 3 general rotating games from the other division). A 16 teams two division conference would result in an 11 game conference play and is not practical with the current season length.

Should Texas stay then either not add TCU or expand the conference with the University of New Mexico for 14 (along with Tulane, Colorado State, TCU and Houston). The current Big 12 teams, minus Texas A&M University, are:

Baylor University. Enrollment 13,000. Endowment 870 millions US$. Football Stadium 50,000.
Iowa State University. Enrollment 29,000. Endowment 500 millions US$. Football Stadium 55,000.
Kansas State University. Enrollment 24,000. Endowment 280 millions US$. Football Stadium 51,000.
Oklahoma State University. Enrollment 23,000. Endowment 500 millions US$. Football Stadium 60,000.
Texas Tech University. Enrollment 31,000. Endowment 775 millions US$. Football Stadium 60,000.
University of Kansas. Enrollment 30,000. Endowment 1 billions US$. Football Stadium 50,000.
University of Missouri. Enrollment 33,000. Endowment 975 millions US$. Football Stadium 71,000.
University of Oklahoma. Enrollment 30,000. Endowment 970 millions US$. Football Stadium 82,000.
University of Texas. Enrollment 50,000. Endowment 14 billions US$ for the entire UT system. Football Stadium 100,000.

2011 09 11

2011-09-11T01:03:00.000-04:00

Tragic Loss in Afghanistan

2011-08-06T11:36:00.005-04:00

Tragic loss, 25 US seals, 6 helicopter crews, 7 Afghan special forces, and one combat dog was lost when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan today.

My condolences for all the families, and both our nations.

4th of July 2011

2011-07-04T01:00:00.004-04:00

Independence day, not just from England, but from tyranny. Not that England was particularly tyrannical, but any government has the potential to be so. In fact, if left unchecked, all government will become tyrannical if the people are not vigilant. It is only natural that those in power will want more power. Those in power some times forget, or tries to forget, or lies otherwise, that the power to govern comes only from those governed. The American people asserted this before, and if necessary, will do so again.
Thus, I wish us all a Happy Independence Day today and ever more.

The GOP Field 2011

2011-06-14T23:04:00.002-04:00

I watched most of the GOP New Hampshire debate last night. There simply not enough contrast and fighting; everyone was too jovial and collegial with each other. They seem all old boys GOP network: Cain wanting in, and so did Bachmann. That resulted in the front runner remaining the front runner: Romney. I am not a fan.
I think Sarah Palin should declare and run. She would be a clear contrast to both the current GOP field, as well as with Obama. Regarding her electibility, let the primary decided de facto rather than pundits declaring her unelectable a priori and there for should not run. Regarding electibility, consider this:

Palin Ties Obama in Key Swing States: OH, NC, NV, MO, PA

Osama, Obama, and Pakistan

2011-05-02T16:30:00.003-04:00

1. Osama bin Laden is dead. Certainty of the offered "proof" is good for most, but i am certain a few will remain skeptical regardless of the evidence available. I doubt much will change from the islamofascist perspective. Any loss of OBL active leadership will likely be offset by his new role as a martyr.

2. Congratulation of all parties involved. GW Bush who started the ball rolling. The intelligence service for finding and tracking him down. The soldiers and operatives who were the boots on the ground. Obama for giving the final mission go ahead.

3. Most troubling is the role Pakistan had and did not have in this operation. If they have protected him, it was because elements of the Pakistani government wanted to do so. Possibly it was for economic reasons to get continued financial aid from the the US, but more likely for ideological reasons. The ideologically inclined elements will not be happy at OBL's death, and the islamofascists in Pakistan may make an issue with the current Pakistani government for allowing it to happen. They will suspect and claim active Pakistani government involvement regardless of what the governments (the US and Pakisan) denies. Either the Pakistani government was inadequate to protect OBL from foreign infidels within Pakistan itself, or that they were a party to a betrayal. That the government harbored him at all for so long will be a condemnation from some Pakistanis. Pakistan has been a powder keg for a while. I worry this even may be a tipping point, the lighting of the fuse, for Pakistan becoming a fail state. Perhaps even civil war. Either way, the West cannot allow a nuclear Pakistan to degenerate or deteriorates much more. And we certainly cannot walk away given Iran is a direct neighbor and a failed Pakistan will be a boon to Iran. OBL's death may be the first lightning spark of an oncoming storm.

Rap the Economists

2011-04-29T19:11:00.000-04:00

Texas: Variation and Consequences of States' Policies

2011-04-06T22:56:00.002-04:00

The eight states with no state income tax grew 18% in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8%.

The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15% in the last decade. The other states grew just 6%.

The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15% in the last decade. The other states grew 7%. …

Texas’ economy has diversified far beyond petroleum, with booming high-tech centers, major corporate headquarters and thriving small businesses. It has attracted hundreds of thousands of Americans and immigrants, high-skill as well as low-skill. Its wide open spaces made for low housing costs, which protected it against the housing bubble and bust that has slowed growth in Phoenix and Las Vegas.

The states, said Justice Brandeis, are laboratories of reform. The 2010 census tells us whose experiment worked best. It’s the state with the same name as the county that’s the center of the nation’s population: Texas.

Source: Michael Barone
Hat Tip: Ace of Spade and PjTatler

Lybia, the US and the UN

2011-03-20T14:11:00.003-04:00

I am unhappy with how the US got involved militarily in Lybia. As i see it, it happened as follows:
1. Eastern Lybian rebelled against Gaddafi.
2. Gaddafi employs military means to crush the rebellion.
3. Obama declares not to declare, that the US has no dog in this fight.
4. the Arab league pressured the UN to impose a no fly zone to protect the rebels.
5. Europe through the UN got a no fly zone declared.
6. the US act as agent for the UN and impose a no fly zone: our resources in lives and supplies.

What the hell? Why are we the follower rather than the leader? Had we at step 3 declare our national interest involved, or even as pursuant to our democracy agenda are getting involved, i would have been fine with.
Had step 6 been for the US to declare this is your show we will not obstruct, we will even support, but you (the Arab League, Europe, and the UN) do the heavy lifting and fighting.

Instead what has happened is a declare abdication of US leadership to
A. Declare our national/international interests are involved and taken the lead to make it happen or
B. Declare our national/international interests are no involved and sat this one out.

We are letting the UN wag us and i find that unacceptable.
Especially given how well the no fly zone worked in Iraq with Saddam Hussein for a decade. Not.

Egypt

2011-02-06T20:35:00.003-05:00

After a week of consideration regarding the events in Egypt, I believe that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak should stay as prime minister until a new president is elected in the scheduled election in September. I also believe he has lost confidence of the people to run for re-election and even if he has not, a Mubarak victory in September will not be accepted as free, fair, and legitimate. But to hand over power now is not an endorsement of democracy, rather it would be an endorsement of mob rule.
Essentials of a true democracy must include free and fair election, an orderly transition of power, and that the elected are accountable to the people through the rule of law and through elections.

Happy Chinese New Year 2011

2011-02-03T00:01:00.001-05:00

PDS

2011-01-15T12:46:00.000-05:00

Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

2011-01-09T14:55:00.002-05:00

My best wishes to her and all others injured. My condolences to the family of those killed, and perhaps as well as the family of Jared Loughner, the alledged gunman.
But lets keep things in perspective. This appears to be a crime of a mentally disturbed individual. This is not a political assassination. This is not a manifest problem of our political discourse. This is a tragedy but not a national tragedy.

Again best wishes to all who suffers because of this despicable act.

Christmas

2010-12-25T19:19:00.002-05:00

I cannot believe it has been a month since I have posted. I guess just letting the mid season election settle in before the 2012 campaign start gearing up next year.

Never the less, this has been a lovely Christmas day. Soft snow is steadily streaming down. I hope everyone out there has a safe, warm, and love fill day.

Happy Thanksgiving

2010-11-25T18:44:00.001-05:00

Palin & Quantitative Easing (QE2)

2010-11-20T19:42:00.002-05:00

Palin's recent criticism of Fed's Chairman Bernanke plan to inject $600 billions into the US economy have gotten some notice. Her timing was impeccable.

Firstly, she was ahead of any other Anti-Obama politician to publicly voice opposition. A leader rather than a follower.

Secondly, she made this ahead of the G20 meeting, where Bernanke's, and thus Obama's as well, plan was panned. Her vocal opposition nicely planted a seed of her economic philosophy in international minds.

Medal of Honor

2010-11-16T14:05:00.001-05:00

from today's WSJ:

At one o'clock today in the East Room of the White House, an Iowa-born soldier will receive the nation's highest decoration for valor in combat. In our nine-year war in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is only the eighth Medal of Honor. Even more rare, the man who has earned it is the first from this war to live to see the president place it around his neck.

The soldier is Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta. On Oct. 25, 2007, then-Specialist Giunta and his team were on a mountain ridge in Afghanistan's violent Korengal Valley when they were ambushed by the Taliban. He took a bullet stopped by a protective vest as he helped pull one soldier to safety.

Then he went forward to help the sergeant, Joshua Brennan, who had been walking point. Two Taliban were carrying Sgt. Brennan away. Spec. Giunta shot the Taliban and brought Sgt. Brennan back.

Here we are reminded that in war there are few storybook endings: Sgt. Brennan would soon die of his wounds.

* * *

What kind of man is that? When we think of military heroism, we may think of Rambos decorated for great damage inflicted on the enemy. In fact, the opposite is true. Every Medal of Honor from these wars has been for an effort to save life. Even more telling, each specifically recognizes bravery that cannot be commanded.

Of the eight who have earned it, three—Army Pfc. Ross McGinniss, Navy Petty Officer Michael Monsoor, Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham—threw themselves on grenades to protect their comrades. Navy Lt. Michael Murphy knowingly exposed himself to enemy fire so he could call in help for his team.

Army Staff Sgt. Jared Monti died trying to rescue a fellow soldier. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Miller was killed while diverting gunfire from Taliban forces so his team could carry their commander to safety. Army Sgt. First Class Paul Ray Smith—the first from these wars to earn the Medal—took on an overwhelming Iraqi force from a machine gun atop a disabled armored personnel carrier, allowing the safe withdrawal of many wounded American soldiers.

On that ridge in Afghanistan, Salvatore Giunta could not save his sergeant. But he did deprive the enemy of its victory—and death of some of its sting. In that same "60 Minutes" segment, a fellow soldier (who earned a Silver Star in the same firefight) put it this way. "The last thing Brennan ever saw was us," says Sgt. Erick Gallardo. "You know, he saw us fighting for him. . . . We fought for him and he's home with his family now because of that." It's a soldier's gift. Because of Sgt. Giunta, the family of Josh Brennan know that when their loved one breathed his last, he did so knowing he was among friends willing to put their own lives at risk for him.

2010 MidTerm Election

2010-11-02T01:00:00.001-04:00

Best wishes to all the Tea Party candidates.

Warm wishes to all the remainder Republican candidates.

If you want to change Washington VOTE!

Christine O’Donnell

2010-11-01T17:51:00.000-04:00

We the People of the First State from Friends of Christine O'Donnell on Vimeo.

Dr. Donna Campbell: Hannity's Q&A

2010-09-24T19:38:00.006-04:00

Q1. What is your position on National Security, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, our military and the dignity of our veterans?

The strength of our national security efforts determines the strength -- and longevity -- of our Democracy.
As the Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War attest, peace can be declared by words but is often ultimately gained by war, and war in Iraq was necessary.
While the Patriot Act would not be needed in a Utopian world, here in the real world, ever-present and ever-increasing threats demand the resources made available by the Act.
I support our troops defending our freedoms at home, and our forces promoting democracy in hotspots around the world. And I thank all who have donned, are wearing and will wear a uniform of this great nation's Armed Forces. Those who have risked their lives so that we may live peaceably to pursue life, liberty and prosperity deserve this country's utmost respect, help and support for so long as these veterans are here on earth.
Circling back to the vein of national security, I believe this includes the patrolling of our nation's borders and coasts, a responsibility not being fully carried out under the current Administration, causing several of the 50 states to act on their own. The role of the federal government is narrowly defined in the Constitution, and yet, the Administration is ignoring the dangers of unchecked immigration while at the same time pursuing follies far beyond the bounds of the founding documents. (Please see my answer to Question 5 for more on immigration.)

Q2. Do you support or oppose efforts to negotiate with dictators in places like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, and if we negotiate, what would be the pre-conditions?

Negotiation has a place among parties that are of like ideologies, and among parties that are of differing ideologies.
I believe it is worth an effort to seek out solutions first with the pen before working with the sword. I would have little support for sustaining negotiations clearly going nowhere, and I would not hesitate to invoke the sword should agreements reached in a negotiation subsequently be broken.
I would say the most important pre-condition would be attaining a mutually-agreed to objective for meeting -- and would add that pre-conditions are themselves articles often prone to negotiation.

Q3. Do you feel the current national government is fiscally responsible, and what is your philosophy on government spending and taxation in order to balance the budget?

Having pushed the national debt beyond the $13-trillion mark and rising fast, the current Administration and congressional majority party do not fit the definition of "fiscally responsible."
The key to solvency lies with limiting outgo to income; something Americans do at kitchen tables with their family budgets, and something the President and his cohorts in Congress would be wise to do beginning today.
Rather than raise taxes and print money to cover newly-created debts our grandchildren will still be digging out from under, federal spending must be cut to a level of sustainability.
The alternative involves other countries calling in their loans...

Q4. Do you feel this country should be energy independent and if so, what are some action steps that we can take to attain independence?

Energy independence for this country is a laudable goal promulgated as far back as the Nixon Administration if not before. Letter of the law, "energy independent" would mean every BTU of energy expended in the U.S. would stem from a source within, or just offshore the U.S. I'm not sure this is literally feasible, but I do think a markedly less dependence on foreign energy is highly achievable.
This summer is understandably a dicey time to talk of oil exploration, with so much wildlife and ecology harmed and endangered in the Gulf. The underwater oil geyser makes clear that contingency equipment and plans need considerable ramping up, but oil and natural gas exploration continues to be a dominant part of America's energy plan.
Augmenting oil and gas efforts are the continued refinement of coal harvesting and burning techniques; the increased infusion of alternative fuels and battery power; and the expansion of natural energy provided by the wind and sun.

Q5. Within the next 12 months, do you see the government taking action to secure our borders and what is your stance on how our borders should be secured?

In answering Question 1, I touched on my displeasure with the federal government's shirking of border duties over the last couple of years.
In theory, I would envision the federal government properly staffing the borders, coasts and entry points, and thoroughly enforcing existing immigration laws.
In reality, over the next 12 months I see many states taking up the measures that Arizona has been forced to create and enact on its own.
I think when enough states join together, Washington will drop its frivolous suit against Arizona and spend the time saved in the courtroom on the very real national security issue of immigration.

Q6. Describe your thoughts on why you support or oppose a national health care plan and if you support any free-market alternative solutions to the plan.

Nationalizing health care is one of the major forces that brought me from ER doctor to ER doctor and congressional candidate!
I have firsthand knowledge of the precarious nature of our country’s health care system as a physician. The current health care business model simply does not work; and it won’t work until individuals are empowered, encouraged and enabled to take direct control and responsibility for their own health.
The federal government has no constitutional basis for reorganizing and regulating our health care. There are commonsense solutions deserving time on the floor of Congress, such as: Health insurance portability. Frivolous lawsuit/scandalous damage award reform. Tax credits for personal insurance plans. Medical savings account deductions. Preventive health behavior initiatives.

Q7. Do you think that that our education system is currently effective and what is your position on teachers' unions and teacher accountability?

"Effective" will mean different things to different people, but in a world where the education received by America's children ranks far back in the bus compared to other nations, there is work to be done.
Let's return control of our local schools to our local communities.
Let's let locals decide when and when not to foster/condone/permit an environment of unionized teachers.
And let's let the performance of teachers dictate the pay and tenure of teachers.

Q8. Are you concerned about the future of Social Security and Medicare, and if so, what are your ideas on how to save these programs from bankruptcy?

Yes.
Both programs were enacted in times where life expectancy simply wasn't nearly as long as it is today. What's great for people, more time on earth, is a mathematical pothole to the solvency of these two programs.
One thing to begin focusing on is educating today's students about the financial practicalities and realities of the world outside the classroom and off the campus. The fewer people conditioned to rely on the federal government for retirement pay and healthcare, the better for all involved.
Another aspect that really has already begun is pushing back the target ages for drawing partial and full benefits. The people of FDR's age simply weren't considering the prospect of a 25-year retirement, and even the seniors of LBJ's time were not thinking much beyond 10 or 15 Golden Years. Today, we're finding a growing number of retirees whose retired years exceed their working years, making the boosting of the benefit collection age up a bit both reasonable and prudent.

Q9. What is your take on the role of judges? Should they be allowed to legislate from the bench?

Judges are to execute judiciary responsibilities.
Judges legislating from the bench makes no more sense than members of Congress ruling on matters of law or the President creating laws.
The nation's three branches of government are by design co-equal; and by necessity, are to be quite separate.

Q10. Is the American Dream attainable? If so, will individual responsibility help Americans attain it and/or what aspects of the American Dream should be assisted by the government?

Yes!
Having worked my way through college and medical school to become an emergency room doctor and a happily married adoptive mother gives me great cause to be thankful for what this country has to offer to anyone willing to dream a bit and work a lot.
The federal government can aide in the process, to a degree. A well-defended nation, a unified monetary and banking system, along with moderate regulatory oversight in matters of public health and safety come to mind.
But beyond these base tenets, government's best role is played well off stage -- and far away from our pocketbooks.
Please visit www.drdonnaforcongress.com to learn more about me, and more about my stances on the important issues of the day.

From Hannity.

She is now at 220k, needing another 80k to get to 300k for NRCC support.
Donate here.

Why she thinks she can win here.

Last Best Hope

2010-09-24T17:00:00.001-04:00

Dr. Donna Campbell

2010-09-22T21:17:00.002-04:00

Dr. Donna Campbell is running against Lloyd Doggett who is a Democrat politician since 1973. He voted for Obamacare.

Dr. Donna Campbell is a small town physician who promises doing all she can to repeal Obamacare, favors energy independence, believes in small government, and something i too very much believe in, simplifying the tax code toward consumption rather than income taxation.

Please support her by donating something here.

9 11

2010-09-11T19:21:00.002-04:00

Republicans in Charge

2010-09-10T05:19:00.001-04:00

There is significant talk that the Republican may be able to take control of Congress and perhaps the Senate away from the Democrats. This has led me to wonder what the Republicans can do in 2011 that will give them an opportunity for gains in 2012 without Obama benefiting. Firstly I do not believe the Republicans should play politics if given the opportunity to lead and save America from the Obamacrats. They should do everything possible to reverse what was enacted in the past two years.

Firstly, extend the Bush tax cuts and keep calling it the Bush tax cuts. If they cannot get sufficient votes to extend it, ask for a greater majority in 2012. If they do pass it that will put Obama in the position to sign it or veto it. If he vetoes it, then ask for a veto over riding majority in 2012 if the economic condition continues to be poor, and blame Obama for it. If economic condition improves without it, then America will be better for it. If Obama passes the Bush tax cuts and the economy improves, remind everyone in 2012 that it was the Bush tax cuts rather than the Obama tax cut that improved the economy. If Obama passes the Bush tax cuts and there is no resulting economic growth (unlikely), ask for a greater majority to reduce tax and regulation even further.

Secondly, repeal Obamacare. Again if there is not enough vote to do so then ask for a greater majority in 2012. If it makes it to Obama, he will have to either veto it or pass it. If he vetoes it, and it remain unpopular in 2012, as for a greater majority to repeal it. If he sign the repeal, he loses a "political accomplishment" of his administration.

Economic Growth

2010-09-06T16:17:00.004-04:00

As we all know, this supposed "Recovery Summer" is any thing but and this should come as no surprise. What is a surprised is that the Democrats actually believe their economic plans would actually stimulate the economy. Lets review what their plans entailed. Firstly was the 800 billion dollars stimulus package. Common sense would say that government spending is always wasteful and inefficient and that any such money that does make it to projects will only be short lived and at best, maintain employment as is rather than grow it. Once the government fund dries up, so would the activities associated cease and those employed for the project be at risk for being cut.

The second plan the Democrats enacted was Obamacare. The argument goes that if the cost of health care was reduced, the cost savings would go toward economic growth and increased hiring. The first fallacy here is that nothing in Obamacare actually goes toward decreasing the cost of health care, it just spread the cost around differently. Then there is the second fallacy is that if it the healthcare cost of hiring is reduced, more people will be hired. Things just simply do not work that way. Employers do not hire because they can afford to hire, they hire only because they have work that needs to be done, work that will help them generate a profit. In addition, Obamacare also increases the administrative cost for the employer so that while it may be cheaper upfront to hire, it will be more costly to administer the hiring.

The third plan the Democrats enacted was regulating the financial market. By financial market I mean Wall Street and the banks, not the home purchase lending policies that led to the housing bubble burst that led to the economic collapse 2-3 years ago. While more rigid standards and oversight may make for a more stable financial environment, a more stable financial environment in itself does not stimulate economic growth, especially in the short term as firms have to spend administrative costs to stay in compliance.

Lets look at things from a different perspective, what it does take to generate economic growth.
Firstly, there has to be a perceived opportunity for profit. By painting the economic environment as impending depression rather than a transitory recession to correct for the housing bubble burst. The Democrats intentionally fear mongered to get justification to enact their economic plans (faulty plans at that) without sufficient regards for the national perception. They then made it worse by predicting an over optimistic scenario that never came. Never came because their policies and plans are just wrong. The Democrats then made a second mistake in criticizing capitalism and the drive for profit. The opportunity well for profit was deliberately poisoned.

Secondly, there has to be available credit to finance project to take opportunity for profit. This was the main reason for the bail-outs but the bail-outs was resented by most Americans. The bail-outs was also directed at a few large firm whereas the majority of economic activities in the nation were with small and medium firms. These small and medium firms also suffered disproportionately from the housing bubble defaults. Thus the bail out did not and could not stimulate growth. In addition, the low interest rate as determined by the Federal Reserves was not in any meaningful way different from the interest rates before the economy soured. And since it cannot really go lower even when the economic environment is worse, there wasn't any growth to be derived.

Thirdly, there has to be an economic infrastructure facilitative for profit. Stability of the financial market is facilitative but not stimulative; it is the minimum necessary. When the financial market is unstable, economic growth is unlikely. When the the financial market is stable, economic growth is not a result. What is more important regarding economic infrastructure is the administrative cost or barrier to profit. There are two aspects here, the actual administrative cost to remain in legal compliance. The greater the cost, the more onerous the process, the less likely the risk to make a profit will be taken. This administration has sought to increased regulations of business. When you add on increased taxation on profits, even just the threat of increased taxation on profit, will dampen any enthusiasm for growth. Note, the other aspect of economic infrastructure that impedes economic growth is the amount corruption. I have no doubt that a significant amount of the economic stimulus was spent with a political component.

These same factors also explain why centralized economies do not produce the same economic growth as free capitalism.

Bottom line is that this administration has done everything possible to impede economic growth. It has demonized profit. It has increased the cost to make a profit. It threatened taxation on profit.

Government and Marriage

2010-08-07T07:18:00.004-04:00

These guys pretty much share my sentiments on Government and marriage.

Government can regulate and define civil contracts such as civil unions, including benefits, consequences and penalties associated with being in one, and ending one. Leave marriage for social institutions.

Support the Tea Party

2010-07-31T22:12:00.010-04:00

Here & Here

Vote out the Democrats this November.

Happy 4th of July 2010

2010-07-04T10:34:00.002-04:00

Government Accountability

2010-06-23T05:00:00.002-04:00

Recently two nations have discovered vast potential resources that could transform their country from poor third world affairs toward second world status; Ghana with oil and Afghanistan and minerals. With great wealth comes power and responsibilities. These governments cannot appropriate this income for their own use, even if well intended to serve its people. A government that does not depend on its citizens will not be accountable to its citizen.
A government comes to depend on its citizens through two primary ways. Firstly through taxation to acquire income for governmental function. But this alone will a recipes for corruption; obligue noblesse cannot be institutionalized or relied upon. Also firstly, side by side with taxation is election. True election can only exists in a open Democracy where there are competitive election and true counting of the votes. Secondary to taxation and election has to be term limits. Once elected the power acquired through taxation will make incumbents the favorites for elections. Term limits for all elected officials is a necessary safeguard against corruption, but not necessarily accountability.
The final and ultimate safeguard against a corrupt and unaccountable government must rest with its citizens. Whereas elections is a political manifestation of this, the potential for more must exists, even if only on the periphery beyond conversation. The population must be armed for the potential event of insurrection against a corrupt, unaccountable and unjust government. On the most base of level, the government must fear those it govern so that boundaries will be respected beyond the written law.
The United States has all the requisites for government accountability. With regard to the new found democracy of Iraq, as well as that of the nations of Ghana and Afghanistan, my advice is to arm their population as a first step toward an accountable government. Yes this will make formation of a new government more difficult, but this difficulty arises from ensuring that the population to be governed is agreeable with the nature of the government. Growing pains ensure appropriate future limits.

Indian Americans

2010-06-22T21:45:00.003-04:00

When Nikki Haley wins the gubernatorial election in South Carolina come November, as she did tonight in the GOP run off, she will join Bobby Jindal as the second Indian American to be elected as Governor in the US. Interesting that both are Republicans.

Update:
WSJ: An Indian in the White House?

Obama

2010-06-20T20:26:00.004-04:00

In less than a year and a half of a four years term, the majority of Americans have come to understand the nation made a mistake with his election. Obama's failures span all fields of government from domestic economic policy, environmental protection, health care reform, foreign relations, as well as military direction. At the core the failures arise from a mismatch of core values between what American values and Obama's own ideology as well as a failure of leadership, believing rhetoric sufficient to inspire actions without sufficient ability to direct people of ability to apply their expertise.
Whether Obama is a fool or a knave has become irrelevant; the time for that debate has passed. The time now is how to minimize his ability to damage this nation. Personally I believe Obama is both a fool and a knave, a highly dangerous combination but insufficient ground for impeachment. With our divided government, the definitive mean to contain Obama lies within either the Judiciary or the Legislative. Unfortunately, the integrity of the Justices in the defense of the Constitution is under threat with Obama's appointment of judges as approved by Congress. Thus the key to contain Obama is to apply all reasonable resources to neutralize the leftist Democrat control of the Legislative Congress. All competitive House elections must be turned away from the Democrats. At this point I do not believe there are any such creature as a conservative Democrat; they must all be turned out. If permissible, safe Republican races must also turn from RINO incumbents to conservative new comers unless this turn threatens election of a Democrat.
The secondary line of defense against the harm of an Obama presidency will be the the states. Both the governorship and the state legislatures must move toward conservative ideals of less dependency on the Federal government. A dependent state government are willing victims of federal over reach that is the hallmark of the Obama administration. And among the ranks of current or former governors, someone with true leadership and executive experience will we find a challenger for Obama come 2012.

Update:
Roger L Simon wonders if Obama has lost interests in being President and believes this would be a dangerous situation for us all.

Pure Imagination

2010-06-01T23:27:00.000-04:00

Memorial Day

2010-05-31T10:49:00.003-04:00

Lets also remember the Love they gave as well as the sacrifices they made.

image from Stuck in Customs

Right vs Left: US Government

2010-05-07T13:58:00.003-04:00

There certainly is a difference in expectations between the left and the right regarding the role of the US government. I have noticed that there are still plenty of bumper stickers decrying the war on terror. Yet, waging war is well within the purview of what a government, any government, does. In my opinion the primary goal of any government should be protecting its citizens against foreign power whether it be another national government, band of corsairs, or terrorists. I empathize with the pacifist sentiments of the left regarding war in general, and I also acknowledge their disagreement whether it was a just war or not in Iraq. I happened to think we should do more than retaliate against the perpetrators of 9/11 and if Iraq succeeds as a democratic state, I believe this will move Arab jihadists just a little away from terrorism. South Asians are another matter completely and deserves its own post. I bring this up because my abhorrence of the Obamacare must feel similar to the left regarding the WoT/Iraq. Yet I just do not see how Obamacare is within the purview of the US government at least as laid out in the US Constitution. That the discussion of Obamacare even occurred and considered at all is astounding. Not to mention how it came to pass seems very undemocratic.

The WoT/Iraq was about whether the US government should or should not wage war.
Obamacare was about whether the US government could or could not be in the business of providing healthcare. There is just no constitutional basis for this discussion to even get to a disagreement.

One might argue that Obamacare is not about US governement healthcare ... until you realize that the regulations imposed will increase the cost of providing private insurance, thus herding more and more people toward government care.

Socialist Holy Grail

2010-03-08T22:02:00.002-05:00

I think most people who are against the current health care reform believe that re-election pressure on the Democrats would be sufficient to stop the legislative process of health care reform. I do not believe that the normal legislative process is in play here. Health care reform is the holy grail of the socialist left. Now that it is within reach, they will risk everything to achieve it. The Democratic leadership will risk even losing the congressional majority to achieve this. Yet I believe this is short sighted because it should be more than achieving health care reform, it should be about achieving durable health care reform. Without bipartisan support, should the Republican win back majority in either house or senate, the health care reform will come tumbling down.

Health Care Reform

2010-01-23T17:14:00.003-05:00

With Scott Brown election to the US Senate from Massachusetts on Tuesday, the Democrats' proposed health care plans are doomed. Certainly this is good news not because health care in the US shouldn't be reformed but because their proposal had more to do with government control than health care reform itself. Any future proposals for health care reforms must address the following issues, though not necessary all together as a composite proposal.

1. Malpractice Reform. Health care must first be about the delivery of health care. Malpractice reform will make it easier for health care professional to deliver quality care in an efficient manner.

2. Provide care for for those in need but without coverage. This predominantly pertains to those with preexisting conditions. One way to do so might be to provide tax advantages for commercial insurance companies to include this population.

3. Stimulate competition in the health care insurance market. Allow companies to offer policies across state lines.

4. Stimulate consumer cost awareness. When the consumer feels more of the cost, they will price and quality shop. Perhaps co-pays should be based on a percentage rather than a flat fee. Naturally health care providers will also have to make both their fees and their results available. Results may be given as percentage-brackets rather than raw values.

2010-01-16T18:40:00.002-05:00

I support Scott Brown as the next US Senator from Massachusetts. Why?

1. His election would give Republicans 41 votes, enough break the Democrats current filibuster proof 60 votes.
2. He has promised to vote against Obama care.
3. He is running for the People of Massachusetts' US Senate seat, not dead Kennedy's US Senate seat.

I have given money once already and have just given again. You can do so as well here.

Humor: Our National Debt

2009-11-22T22:43:00.000-05:00

Passing It On: "The Way We Get By"

2009-11-06T18:24:00.003-05:00

Every day and night since May of 2003, a group of people in Bangor, Maine, have been on call for an uncommon, self-appointed duty at the city's international airport: to greet every flight carrying troops returning from, or departing for, Iraq and Afghanistan. All of the greeters featured in "The Way We Get By" (PBS Wednesday, 9-10:30 p.m. ET, but check local listings) are elderly and battling illness. The soldiers we see them cheering look uniformly fit and bursting with youthful health. As the film progresses, the interaction between the young (who face a possible death) and the old (who are staring at a more-certain one) sheds new light on the meaning of service. Along the way it also stuns us with unforgettable portraits of Americans of all ages in the fullness of life.

Bangor International Airport has been the first (or last) landfall in the U.S. for more than 900,000 troops (and dozens of dogs) from Iraq and Afghanistan. Sometimes there are six or more flights a day, each duly recorded on an airport wall chart by the greeters. As the war-zone returnees file off the planes here—everyone we see is clad in light-colored camouflage fatigues—the first person they hear inside the terminal often is 87-year old veteran Bill Knight, standing ready to shake every passing hand. Sometimes he cries out "Welcome home, heroes." Alert viewers will see even battle-hardened soldiers choking up.

On some faces there is joy. But for many, it takes more than landfall to break a grim spell; it takes the sight of these American civilians waiting in the terminal to say thanks. "You feel dull until you walk down the ramp and see these people," one apparently battle-hardened soldier explains in a wobbly voice. Then "you get tears in your eyes."

Some of the most affecting moments here involve contemporary soldiers stopping to hug and honor the greeters, whom they see as the generation of GIs who went before. "We're standing on their shoulders," one returnee says, and "what they've done in years gone by. We're just now starting to appreciate [that service] because we had to go through it ourselves."

Election 2009 Thoughts

2009-11-05T06:51:00.005-05:00

1. A huge congratulation to the Republicans of Virginia for their huge wins.
2. Congratulations as well to Governor Elect Christie of New Jersey.
3. State elections are about state issues. The current issue in Virginia is the economy. McDonnell had a more positive message than Deeds. I think this was a significant factor in his win. Had Obama's administration economic policies been better, Obama and Deeds would have done better. Personality only go so far in politics, especially once you have to govern.
4. The NY-23 election was also about local issues. The take home lesson for conservatives and the GOP is that both have to work together to win. A third party candidate is not viable from the outside. But threats of a third party run may be preempted by cooperation between the GOP and conservatives. Had Hoffman won in NY-23, there would have been a greater impetus to field third party candidates elsewhere in NY in 2010 (given the established nature of the Conservative Party in NY) and maybe elsewhere nationally as well.
5. I think #4 is also significant regarding the Arctic Fox Palin. She would be more effective to shape the direction of the GOP better than building a third party movement.

Republicans, Conservatives and Independents

2009-10-25T15:44:00.004-04:00

Since the November loss, not just for the presidency but also regarding seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives, there has been an ongoing debate on how to rebuild the party. The two predominant ideas are either to make the party more appealing to Independents or to return to core principles of conservatives. This competing idea is playing out in the NY23 race where the GOP nominated a moderate candidate Dede Scozzafava (as they called her) with the belief she will be more appealing to independents. In response, conservatives and conservative commentators have come out roaring against a candidate they consider either a RINO at best, or a far left at worse, in favor of a non GOP candidate from the Conservative party of NY, Doug Hoffman.

Conservatives Call On Scozzafava To Withdraw
Conservatives roar; Republicans tremble

I believe the GOP bosses are making several huge mistakes. Firstly, all successful organizations need people to do the work and believe in the work. Without the base, the party is certain to fail.

Rasmussen: 73 percent say GOP leaders have lost touch with Republican base

Secondly, there is also a divergence of the party's goal and the base's goal politically. The party wants to win election. Thus it makes perfect sense for the party to focus on candidates they believe are electable with appeals to the middle. But the base is more concerned with how the party will govern once elected. By having candidates that are far removed from the base's ideology, once elected they don't necessarily vote with the party. See Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe as examples.

Thirdly, the choice between electability and adherence to party ideology is a false choice because you could have both. Independent voters are frequently not wedded to a particular ideology. They do not have their own party or party platform. They thus choose from what is offered by the current parties come election time. Thus when the choice is between idea X and idea similar to X, the tendency will be to go with idea X itself rather than X-lite. But when the choice is between X and Y, where both are clearly different, Y becomes distinguished and appealing in its own right.

Obviously if an idea is clearly bad, it will not be chosen. I do not believe this is the case with the ideas of Conservatism. I believe the ideas of Conservatism continue to be sound and appealing to most of Americans, not just conservatives. As is, conservative outnumber liberals and twice as many Americans are becoming more conservative than more liberal.

While some politicians focus on winning elections,
On the NY23 Race, We Have A Practical Choice To Make

other remembers why why politicians are elected for office to begin with.

The votes of every member of Congress affect every American, so it's important for all of us to pay attention to this important Congressional campaign in upstate New York. I am very pleased to announce my support for Doug Hoffman in his fight to be the next Representative from New York's 23rd Congressional district. It's my honor to endorse Doug and to do what I can to help him win, including having my political action committee, SarahPAC, donate to his campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law.

* * *

Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of "blurring the lines" between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections. Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party's ticket.

2010 Election: the States

2009-10-16T22:14:00.000-04:00

Recently at the Horse Race Blog Jay Cost posted this

Above all, the RNC needs to focus on its fundraising infrastructure. It must be ready for the Obama money tsunami that will be crashing ashore in the fall of 2012. If you thought the President raised a lot of money last cycle, you haven't seen anything yet! Also, the party needs to figure out why the Democrats have managed not only to catch up to, but actually exceed, the Republicans in fundraising - this after the banning of soft money, which had historically helped the Democrats. That's a puzzler that should have Republicans - above all Michael Steele - thinking about innovation. This should be happening to the exclusion of guest hosting radio shows, Mr. Chairman!

I emboldened the money quote. As I thought about it, I was at first skeptical to attribute Obama’s victory to money spent. After all, wasn’t it a nation tired after 8 years of W and ready and take a chance with a promise “Hope and Change?” And now that “Hope and Change” is revealing itself as empty rhetoric and dangerous far left ideology, I do not believe any sum of campaign money be spent to reverse the distrust the nation has acquired by then. So how can a money advantage possibly make a difference? Through vote fraud.

No, money may not buy enough vote to win election, but money can be spent through organizations such as ACORN. ACORN through shady voter registration efforts and with sufficient funding may have won Al Franken his Minnesota Senate seat. Steps must be taken to prevent voter fraud and I don’t think community vigilance will suffice. The law must be clarified to prevent illegal voter registration and a legal strategy must be planned for as contingency for illegal vote counts. I believe controlling the state legislature will be essential for the fair legislative over sight of the electoral process. In most states judges are appointed, usually by the Governor. Thus efforts to elect favorable governors are necessary. In a few states judges are elected and attention must be made to there judicial races as well.

Previously I discussed to importance of the 2010 state election in order to be in position to redraw the Congressional district maps as the result of the 2010 Census. It now appears to me that state elections are even more crucial than I previously thought. We all must pay close attention to and expand our efforts to win out states.

A Rational Voice in Congress on Health Care

2009-10-15T19:52:00.000-04:00

Insurance Deductable

2009-09-28T21:17:00.003-04:00

I took my car into the shop yesterday for some body work after a minor collision. Because all i had to do was to pay the co-pay, i didn't really shop around for the best deal. I suspect the same mentality applies to most people when it comes health insurance and co-pays. Thus as long as everyone charges a similar amount, they can all over charge without concerns, and the consumer doesn't really care.
A better system might have been instead of a flat co-pay, use a percentage based co-pay, with plans for 5%, 10%, 20% etc co-pays. Thus there would be an incentive for the consumer to price shop. For health care, cost must be itemized and be more transparent. And to assist consumers in choosing the right provider, a rating system for the provider must be available. Any such ratings must consider how sick his/her patient is before care, and how sick they are after care.

What is a Tax?

2009-09-28T17:45:00.000-04:00

What is a tax? Apparently Obama does not know.

Sarah Palin in Hong Kong

2009-09-24T08:25:00.004-04:00

Once again Palin pre-empts Obama's speech, this time on the international stage. Sarah was invited to speak in Hong Kong at the CLSA Asia Pacific Markets Conference. Exerpts below are from the WSJ:

On Conservatism:

You can call me a common-sense conservative. My approach to the issues facing my country and the world, issues that we’ll discuss today, are rooted in this common-sense conservatism… Common sense conservatism deals with the reality of the world as it is. Complicated and beautiful, tragic and hopeful, we believe in the rights and the responsibilities and the inherent dignity of the individual.

We don’t believe that human nature is perfectible; we’re suspicious of government efforts to fix problems because often what it’s trying to fix is human nature, and that is impossible. It is what it is. But that doesn’t mean that we’re resigned to, well, any negative destiny. Not at all. I believe in striving for the ideal, but in realistic confines of human nature…

On Liberalism:

The opposite of a common-sense conservative is a liberalism that holds that there is no human problem that government can’t fix if only the right people are put in charge. Unfortunately, history and common sense are not on its side. We don’t trust utopian promises; we deal with human nature as it is.

On what caused the financial crisis:

While we might be in the wilderness, conservatives need to defend the free market system and explain what really caused last year’s collapse. According to one version of the story, America’s economic woes were caused by a lack of government intervention and regulation and therefore the only way to fix the problem, because, of course, every problem can be fixed by a politician, is for more bureaucracy to impose itself further, deeper, forcing itself deeper into the private sector.

I think that’s simply wrong. We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place. The mortgage crisis that led to the collapse of the financial market, it was rooted in a good-natured, but wrongheaded, desire to increase home ownership among those who couldn’t yet afford to own a home. In so many cases, politicians on the right and the left, they wanted to take credit for an increase in home ownership among those with lower incomes. But the rules of the marketplace are not adaptable to the mere whims of politicians.

…

Lack of government wasn’t the problem. Government policies were the problem. The marketplace didn’t fail. It became exactly as common sense would expect it to. The government ordered the loosening of lending standards. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates low. The government forced lending institutions to give loans to people who, as I say, couldn’t afford them. Speculators spotted new investment vehicles, jumped on board and rating agencies underestimated risks.

On greenhouse gas legislation:

It seems like some are looking to ever more ways that will actually destroy economic opportunities today. Take for example, Washington’s cap-and-trade scheme. I call it the “cap-and-tax” scheme. Right now we have the highest unemployment rate in 25 years, and it’s still rising. And yet some in D.C. are pushing a cap-and-tax bill that could cripple our energy industry or energy market and dramatically increase the rates of the unemployed, and that’s not just in the energy sector.

American jobs in every industry will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under this cap-and-tax plan. The cost of farming will certainly increase. That’s going to drive up the cost of groceries and drive down farm incomes. The cost of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also rise. We are all going to feel the effects. The Americans hardest hit will be those who are already struggling to make ends meet today, much less with this new tax every month…

I am not indifferent to environmental concerns. Far from it. As governor, I created a sub-cabinet to study the impacts of climate change in my state. And I was the first governor to do so. It took us in a new direction…

I’m a supporter of nuclear power and renewables. We can develop these resources without destroying our economy. And we can help the environment and our economy through energy independence.

On health care:

I seem to have acquired notoriety in national debate. And all because of two words: death panels. And it is a serious term. It was intended to sound a warning about the rationing that is sure to follow if big government tries to simultaneously increase health care coverage while also claiming to decrease costs. Government has just got to be honest with the people about this….

As I said, it’s just common sense to realize that government’s attempts to solve large problems like the health-care challenges that we have, more often create new ones, and a top down one size fits all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for some one-fifth of our economy.

Common sense also tells us that passing a trillion dollar new retirement program, that’s not the way to reduce health-care spending. Real health-care reform is market oriented, patient centered and result driven. It would give all individuals the same tax benefit, that an ideal plan that I would have in mind, same tax benefits as those who get coverage through their employers. And give Medicare recipients vouchers so that they can buy their own coverage. And reform tort laws and change regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top down government plan, we should give Americans themselves control over their own health care with market friendly responsible ideas.

On relations with China:

We engage with a hope that Beijing becomes a responsible stakeholder, but we must take steps in the event that it goes in a different direction. See, we all hope to see a China that is stable and peaceful and prosperous. Optimism that yes, it will be.

Asia is at its best when it is not dominated by a single power. In seeking Asia’s continued peace and prosperity, we should seek, as we did in Europe, an Asia whole and free. Free from domination by any one power…

On China’s relations with Taiwan, and other controversial issues:

We simply cannot turn a blind eye to Chinese policies and actions that could undermine international peace and security. Here, China has some one thousand missiles aimed at Taiwan and no serious observer though believes that it poses a serious threat to Beijing. Those same Chinese forces make our friends in Japan and Australia kind of nervous.

China provides support for some of the most questionable regimes, from Sudan to Burma to Zimbabwe. China’s military buildup, it raises concern from Delhi to Tokyo because it’s taking place in the absence of really any discernable threat to it. China, along with Russia, has repeatedly undermined efforts to impose tougher sanctions on Iran for its defiance of the international community in pursuing its nuclear program. And the Chinese food and safety, uh food and product safety record, of course it’s raised alarms from East Asia and Europe to the U.S. and domestic instance of unrest. From the protest of Uighurs and Tibetans to Chinese workers throughout the country rightfully makes a lot of people nervous.

On human rights and democracy in China:

The more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnic group will be able to settle disputes in court rather than on the streets. The more open it is, the less we’ll be concerned about its military buildup and its intentions. The more transparent China is, the more likely it is that they will find a true and lasting friendship based on shared values as well as interests. And I’m not talking about a U.S.-led democracy crusade. [We’re] not going to impose our values on other countries. We don’t seek to do that. But the ideas of freedom and liberty and respect for human rights, it’s not just a U.S. idea. They’re very much more than that. They’re enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other international covenants and treaties.

On China-U.S. economic relations:

Our economic interdependence drives our relationship with China. I see a future of more trade with China and more American high tech goods in China. But in order for that to happen, we need China to improve its rule of law, and protect our intellectual property. We need to avoid protectionism and China’s flirtation with state assisted national champions. On our part we should be more open to Chinese investment where our national security interests are not threatened. In the end though, our economic relationship will truly thrive when Chinese citizens and foreign corporations can hold the Chinese government accountable when their actions are unjust.

Read more at Texas for Palin.

All the above just makes common sense. Contrast the above with the apologetic nonsense the Obamassiah had to say to the UN yesterday.

In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world. Nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War.

...

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people, and - in the past - America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment, it only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self evident - and the United States of America will never waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.

ACORN is Despicable

2009-09-18T18:08:00.004-04:00

Previous I posted about ACORN and Fraud. The revelation documented by Hannah Giles, James O'Keefe, and Andrew Breitbart at Big Government deserves big applause. Both the House and the Senate now have taken steps to stop funding ACORN. I am sure they will find a way (both the Democrats in bed with ACORN and ACORN themselves) will find a way to continue their activities. The key though is that their taint is now in the public domain.

What is exemplary about this episode isn't just about breaking open how despicable and corrupt ACORN is, but also how corrupt and lazy the main stream medias are. In the process it also underscores how new media, as well as concerned citizens can make a difference that shame and make irrelevant the legacy media. Again, kudos to the folks at Big Government! Happy hunting.

Read the Bill

2009-09-15T07:11:00.003-04:00

Yesterday on the way home National Public Radio had a piece on protesters expecting congressmen to read a bill before they vote on it. It was clear that pushing bills through votes before the bill is read is the norm in Congress. I suspect that most congressmen simply trust the bill's content, constructed by congressional committee, to be firstly what it purport to be and secondly to be legally sound. Given this implied or practical trust, that it would be reasonable for most of Congress to vote on a bill they have not read. NPR's slant was that this has been going on all along and thus should be acceptable. It is not. Just because a process has continued to occur, and perhaps even accepted as standard practice, does not make it either sound or acceptable. Truly faulty reasoning.

If they think that such trust is sufficient, then the bill should be voted on by all citizens in the US. But that is currently not possible. Until then, I expect my congressman to at least give a damn, show some professional curiosity to know and understand what is in a bill when they vote for it. If they cannot understand it, they either should not be a congressman or the bill is too complicated to pass. Passing a tortuous complicated bill into law results in either enlargement of a faceless bureaucracy that implement such laws, and or loop holes that would devalue the intent of the law. Either is unacceptable.

911

2009-09-11T06:27:00.002-04:00

Remember 911.

Fight terrorism.

Obama & the Managerial High Ground

2009-08-29T10:24:00.003-04:00

In a previous post I looked at what appears to be Obama attempt to stay above the political realm by staking out the moral high ground.

Most of Obama's words thus far suggest that he is staking a claim for the Moral High Ground. He has released the torture memos because he believes he is better than the Bush administration in this regard. He is releasing the pictures of "torture" prisoners for the very same reasons. When he was oversea he apologized for past US actions, because he nominally believe the US could have done better, and that under him we will. There are two things to consider here.

First is that if he thinks this will make the US safer or better he is wrong. Those who work toward our destruction do so not because of some reasoning, but some hatred. That we could have been better angers them. That we believe we could be better also angers them. There mere fact that we are different from what they want to be angers them, regardless of how good we are. Staking claim to the Moral High Ground may make things worse for us. It certainly not keeps us safer. Those that seek to compete against us will not treat us better, or help us further our goals. They compete against us because they think they can beat us. Given any opportunity to do so they will certainly try regardless of who has the Moral High Ground.

Second is that if he thinks he can claim the Moral High Ground he is also wrong. This sort of thinking seems rampant to those without practical experience in life, living by concepts they believe the world should operate by rather than the principles the world lives by. This is akin to a rich couple believing their wealth keeps their estate well maintained, rather than understanding that it is still the housekeepers and gardeners' labors over dirt. Or a hospital CEO proclaiming how many lives his hospital saves, without acknowledging it is the doctors and nurses work in soilage and pus. Or a general believing he won the battle rather than the soldiers killing and maiming. The difference between Obama's Moral High Ground and reality is the difference between Ideals and Practice.

At best, his stake for the Moral High Ground only shows his naïveté. What it clearly reveals is his hubris, not his humanity. And through it all, he has also demonstrated willingness to use politics to further himself.

I return to this topic after reviewing two recent events pertaining to the current Obama administration.

The first is his attempt to push through a health care reform package that he did not craft, that he doesn't know much about, and doesn't really care too much regarding the details other than it gets done and gets done quickly. Some commentators have suggested that he is trying to avoid the mistakes of Clinton's own attempt to reform health care, which was to too involved in its creation. To me it seems Obama have decided to allow others to craft the reform, and he would just be the catalyst to make it happen. This naturally allow him to take credit for its passage, should it pass, as well as distance himself from it, should it fail (and it should).

The second is his "allowance" of the Justice Department to investigate the CIA interrogation of captured terrorist (note it really just one terrorist that this is all about, the guy who helped planned the 911 attack Khalid Sheikh Mohammed). To me he is putting both attorney general Eric Holder out on the limb as the one person actually politically responsible for the investigation (though certainly another person as lead investigator actually will do the factual work) as well as as Leon Panetta as the current head of the CIA. This way he will appease the far left who have clamored for an investigation. The political fall out during the investigation will now be between the CIA and the Justice department with him as the overlord observer. Should the investigation finds something, Panetta will certainly be the fall guy within his own CIA for allowing the investigation. Should the investigation finds nothing, Holder will be left holding an empty bag and suffer the rantings of the unhinged left. Either way Obama is shirking actual responsibility for the investigation, or the even more responsible decision not to investigate at all.

Everything points to Obama being a very poor leader. He may be inspiring to his supporter but he doesn't take ownerships of his decisions, letting others fall away while he takes credit for their success or distance himself for their failure. A true leader lead by leading, not by being.

"Spreading the Wealth" for Health Care

2009-08-15T21:38:00.003-04:00

Over at Bookworm room, she reports a conversation with he Kaiser Permanente Doctor.

The doctor had a very interesting take on the current uninsured. I said that a lot of people are opposed to the proposed plan because they recognize that those numbers being bandied about regarding uninsured are false. That is, the 45 million (or whatever) uninsured aren’t uninsured simply because of poverty. The vast majority are either illegal aliens (and you can see his views about those above) or voluntary uninsured. As to the latter, my friend thinks they’re the real problem. He understands that these people are voluntary uninsured because they are young and healthy. They’re gambling that they won’t need insurance. Or they might be marginally insured, in that they buy a $10 policy with a $10,000 deductible, just in case something really bad happens. They are not putting money into the system.

What this doctor likes about mandatory universal health care is that it forces the voluntary uninsured into the system. He thinks it grossly unfair that they are not paying into the system, while people who need insurance are paying. If there were more money in the system, the person with a preexisting condition would not be required to pay as much for his insurance. In other words, he thinks that the insurance system should be a cross between an uninsured motorist requirement and social security. He freely admits that this is a government mandated spread the wealth approach, and one of which he approves.

Because he has a philosophical approach that requires everyone to be in the health care market, whether they want to be or not, he is unperturbed by CBO numbers projecting vast increases in the cost of health care under the new plan. He thinks the CBO people, being accountants and not doctors, have no idea what they’re talking about. What he envisions is a brave new world in which the government simply provides more insured people who will use medical services. He finds it inconceivable that universal health care (which is a system by which all people are insured, but medical care providers continue to be privately owned) can shade into a single payer, government-owned system.

He does not believe that having the government as an insurance provider will change the system and drive out private insurance. Nor does he believe that, even if all private insurance is gone, with the government being the only bill-payer, that this will do anything other than purify the private medical system of the current social injustices that plague it. He also refused to believe that, in other countries that have socialized medicine, there are treatments that are denied to people, not because the treatments don’t work, but because the people are deemed (by government mandate) to be too old or too ill to be worthy of treatment. As for government lists of treatment, he says we have them already, because every care provider is in thrall to Medicare and related government programs. He did not see a difference between the fact that Medicare sets prices, but does not yet set age or health boundaries for providing treatments.

He is very disturbed by the opposition to the health care plan, which he sees as the product of Republican cabals who are shipping agitators into local town hall meetings. The absence of any concrete evidence of such busing (such as buses) does not change his mind.

I explained that people are also concerned that they’re being sold a bill of goods that is not as promised. The rush to pass a bill (three weeks “deliberation” to change a sixth of the economy) didn’t bother him at all. “That’s how things go.” When I raised specific concerns about the existing bill (the inability to stick with your insurance if you change jobs, the incentive for employers to dump insurance and drive people into the government system, the government decision boards re treatments, the enhanced access the government will have to our finances) he just didn’t care. He thought those were petty concerns and was sure I was wrong. He also discounted the hidden taxes in the bill. “Obama promised that he’d veto any taxes.”

The doctor also dismissed the fact that many of the bill’s proponents — including the president himself — are on record as supporting single-payer care (which is different from the universal care this doctor supports). He denies that Obama lied at the New Hampshire townhall when he when he said ““I have not said that I am a supporter of a single-payer system,” despite several past instances of his having said precisely that. “There’s no lie there,” said my doctor friend. “Obama did not say that he ‘never’ supported single payer care. He’s talking in the present tense. He doesn’t support it now.” I said that, if that’s what the great communicator meant, that’s what he should have said, including explaining why he’s changed his mind. “Nah,” said the doctor. It was clear.

The conversation ended there.

My response, with some additional comment not posted there in italic, is as follows.

1. Unnecessary tests rarely profits the doctor ordering it, whether it be lab tests or procedures. When a doctor sends a patient to get endoscopy, the gastroenterologist profits (if not on salary) from the procedure, not the referring physician. Yes the referring doctor could have just given you a trial treatment, as well as the gastroenterologist. Kaiser though also would not profited from the endoscopy it this was an in-network service. Kaiser predominantly profit from the subscription/insurance fee of its members by taking more in than they spend, by taking money from people who use less of kaiser services and spending some (but not all) of it on those who need and use more.

2. Health systems thus profit by taking money from those who subscribe for health services but do not use as much of it as they put in. If we look at our national health care system overall, the problem may seem that the uninsured are not putting money into the system and thus your doctor’s impression may seem correct but it is not. The uninsured do put money into the system already through taxes they pay to the local, state, and federal system. Those who choose to go uninsured likely believe that they would not need to be insured because they don’t expect to use health care should have that choice respected. In large part these are young people who really don’t need to. To think we should force them, or those who cannot afford insurance, to buy insurance or buy into the health care finance system seems coercive to me.

3. I have no problem with the doctor being agreeable to the government spreading the wealth in this regard for health care. If you think it is a form of taxation for the general well being of the nation, like that of national defense for instance, or border control, or disasters relief a health care tax might even seem reasonable. What is not reasonable is to think that as a democracy that rose party out of refusal to pay unfair taxes, that the doctor would take exceptions to people, whether it be a majority or a minority voice of protest. Isn't that the essence of the Tea Parties and the townhall protests currently underway regarding what the current government proposes. And should the majority decides against this tax should it be forced on them anyway?

4. For a learned person, the doctor still made several gross error in analysis and judgment. The first being a sampling error based on anecdotal experience. Just because the Kaiser system works does not mean a government managed system would. Yes clearly a “public” option will drive private plans out of business because the government plan will get income from everyone through taxation, even the already insured will pay them, thus the government’s “public” option plan will always have a higher ratio of pay-ins to pay-outs than any private plan could match. And since the government has the right to set health care standards for all, private health system cannot hope to compete. In addition, the government has never been known for being efficient financially or in service provided whether it be Amtrak, the post office, or Veterans Health Administration. What partly work now, or even what works well now, can work even less later. Not all reforms make things better.

5. The second error the doctor made is likely based on hubris of being an educated physician thinking he knows better for the patient than the patient himself. Though the current drive for health care reform is really about reforming to control costs rather than improve care access (though some will certainly benefit from improved access), when it comes to the ultimate and primary recipient of health care, it is about quality of care. The current anxiety and consternation among the majority of Americans center around the care they are currently getting as contrasted to the care they may or may not get with the reform. The doctor likely believe he can deliver the same (high?) level of care to his patients and are thus is dismissive of patients general concern over health care reform. He may not realize some patients may not think so highly of his delivery, and he certainly underestimate how someone smarter (or perhaps even less smart than he but has a better political pedigree) than he, another physician installed as a health care czar, may feel inclined to believe he is wasteful and starts to dictate how he could do better, placing him in a position to have to change his standards of practice to conform to someone else’s standards. When one is smart, there is a tendency to believe that one is right and that this right is self evident to anyone else with half a brain.

6. The third error the doctor made is allowing his own convictions and bias blind him to information challenging the veracity of his own beliefs.

I have frequently noted that when a doctor speaks out for or against in the current health care debate, they are given special status and what they say seems to gain greater significance. But shouldn't the truth and the justice of any argument be equally valid and valued regardless of the speaker? It is all really rather amusing.

The Cost of Health Care

2009-08-09T10:23:00.008-04:00

As part of the justification to "reform" the health care system in the US is predicated on the argument that the cost of health care in the US is too high. How do they know? It is because our the amount of money we spend on health care is higher than that of other industrialized nations without a better outcome? In these analysis, one such better outcome is typically measured as survival of some sort or another. I think survival measures are misleading for several reasons. Take infant survival for instance. Yes, as reported to the World Health Organization the US has higher infant mortality rates than most Western nations. Why is this? Partly because of how we calculate the mortality figure; what constitute a death is obvious but what constitute a birth is not always so obvious. The WHO specifies a birth as a "viable birth" but in some nations, if a live infant is born without meeting their ability to keep alive, it isn't considered a "viable birth".
Using mortality as a measure of health care outcome also doesn't show the whole picture. In the US we spend a significant amount of resources on palliation to improve quality of life without improving the over all survival. Medicare spends about 25-30% of its budget each year on the last year's of life. We typically do all we can to save a life and spends the resources to do so. But it isn't just in the last year of life. In Germany for instance, post operative analgesia are typically aspirins and ibuprofen, analgesics we can get over the counter here in the US. Here in the US, nearly all post operative analgesics are narcotic based, with pills for outpatient care and patient controlled intravenous injection of narcotics for inpatient recovery. These things cost money without extending longevity.
But for somethings longevity is better in the US. Take cancer survival for instance. But longevity also varies across the globe that has nothing to do with health care delivery. The US has a significantly higher population of obese patient and a higher incidence of heart disease, likely due to our diet.

The second motive to reform health care is to reign in health care inflation. I remember the same arguments a decade ago for Health Maintenance Organization (HMOs). For a few years, health care inflation was reigned in but afterward, it resume at previous rates of increase. The chart below is interesting in that this isn't just in the US but the health care inflation is on a similar projection in the UK as well as France.

What this graph signifies again is that there a cultural component the health care cost and health care inflation that is not being discussed. Western nations have rapidly rising health care cost, Japan does not. That there is cultural variation on what we spend money on should come as no surprise. For instance, most homes in the US has air conditioning and thus we have less consequences of heat waves. In France this isn't so.
All in all, we get what we pay for. In the US we spend more on palliative measures and this in actuality is a mark of our wealth. Health care isn't about survival in the US, health care is also about quality of life. This is a choice our society has decided on. Yes like any choice we can change our mind but we need to be cognizant what the debate should entails. I suspect some advocate for health care reforms knows this but also realize that a supposed cost saving argument is easier made than a cultural changing argument.

Capitalism and Creating Jobs

2009-08-01T11:25:00.003-04:00

This was published in the WSJ by Bill Burbage on Thursday 20090730. I thought it made alot of sense and rather insightful. Perhaps it was obvious but sometimes the obvious needs to be restated.

No entrepreneur has ever had an objective of “creating jobs.” Everybody, employers and individuals alike, constantly seeks to eliminate jobs. As Adam Smith put it in “The Wealth of Nations,” all of the tools and machines that we use are designed to “facilitate and abridge labour,” i.e., to reduce jobs. People go into business to make a profit. If any jobs are created in the process, they are created because there is no way to avoid it. Employees are expensive.

To create more jobs, the sovereign must remove as many obstacles as he can between the entrepreneur and his ability to make a profit. No other stimulus is necessary. As Smith says: “The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition, when suffered to exert itself with freedom and security is so powerful a principle that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations.”

In his wildest nightmare Smith could not have imagined the “impertinent obstruction” of a 15.3% payroll tax—not on profits but on total revenues. Mandates by the federal government have made the hiring of an employee more akin to adopting him and his family.

To those who think that a recovery is automatic based on historical or cyclical experience, consider that Cuba has not recovered in 50 years. It will not recover in another 50 years unless it restores an environment that is not hostile to entrepreneurial activity; neither will the U.S. Instead of eliminating the obstacles that already exist, we are preparing to pile on even more with the carbon tax and health-care reform.

"The HC Monstrosity-All 1,018 Pages"

2009-07-28T07:00:00.001-04:00

Fleckman reads all 1018 pages of the current healthcare bill and gives us highlights. I have selected a few of note. The rest available here. My comments in italics.

PG 950- 980 BIG GOVT core pub health infrastruc. incl workforce capacity, lab systems; health info sys, etc
What happens when the core lab and info system goes down?

Pg 932 The Govt will estab Preventative & Wellness Trust fund- intial cost of $30,800,000,000-Billion.

PG 913-914 Govt starts a HC affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.

PG 898 The Govt will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps. 2 ensure supply of public health prof.

PG 876-892 The govt takes over the education of our Med students and Drs.

PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Drs. perform mandatory HC for 2yrs for part loan repayment.

Pg 865 The Govt will MANDATE the establishment of a National Health Service Corps.

Pg 859 Govt will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes thats Billion.

PG 844-845 OMG! This Home Visitation Prog. includes Govt coming in2 ur house & telling u how 2 parent!!!

Pg 838-840 Govt will design & implem. Home Visitation Prog 4 families w young kids & families expect kids.

PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by Govt for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.

PG 829-833 Govt will impose a fee on ALL private health ins. plans incl. self insured to pay for Trust Fund!

PG 801 Sec 1751 The Govt will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!

Pg 789-797 Govt will set, mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs brought 2 mrkt. Bye innovation

Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Svcs – “increasing birth intervals btwn pregnancies.” Govt ABORTIONS any1?

Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforce. purposes the Secretary-HHS will give Atty General access to ALL data.

Pg 719-720 Sec 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable med equip or home med svcs MUST b enrolled in Medicare.

PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny HC providers/suppliers admittance into HC Exchng.

Pg 676-686 Govt will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, incl. teaching hospitals.

PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency – Govt will tell U where ur residency will b, thus where u’ll live.

Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Govt may implement any “Quality measure” of HC Services as they see fit.

PG 621 Lines 20-25 Govt will define what Quality means in HC. Since when does Govt know about quality?

Pg 503 Lines 13-19 Govt will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic med records.

PG 438 Sec 1236 – The Govt will develop a patient decision making aid program that u & Dr. WILL use.

PG 432 Lines 18-21 The Govt will publish “quality measures” 4 individual’s end of life in Federal Register.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life.

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order. Logan’s Run anyone?

PG 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends.

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death.

PG 404 Lines 12-16 Govt exempts itself again from – Chap 35 of title 44, USC incl. privacy of Americans.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

Pg 304 L 17-19 Govt does NOT have 2 protect ur priv, share w any1, & is not resp http://www.twitlonger.com/show/c5bcfdae5fa79a650bbdab6be70918ac (expand)

Pg 304 L 17-19 BIG ONE HERE: Expedited Data Collection – Chapter 35 o… Read More: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/c5bcfdae5fa79a650bbdab6be70918ac

Pg 303 L 12-25 Post Acute Care Svcs Data – Govt will collect data including Pers. info as they see fit.

Pg 287 Line 14-25 PROOF that Govt will ration HC by mandating waiting periods for readmission.

PG 276 Line 3-20 Oxgen Equip & Supply Cos -Govt MANDATES u will provide suppl NO MATTER where indiv. is.

PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you’ll all be paid the same.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs.

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc.

Pg 151 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Aggregate Rules-tax on employers payroll not on pub opt. incl payroll of other biz.

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE.

Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ #AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.

Pg 126 lines 10-15 HC Bill – The Govt can make up prices for anything at anytime for any reason.

Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monop.

Pg 110 Lines 7-12 HC Bill Employment taxes on ALL employers NOT offering Govt HC. No choice.

Pg 109 Sec 207 – Health Trust Fund. The Govt will raise taxes on EVERYONE 2 fund HC as they see fit.

Pg 84 Sec 203 HC bill – Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange.

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

Pg 62 HC bill – Protection of Data, Govt shows they will have database of ur pers & financial info.

Pg 61 HC Bill lines 22-24 Congress has no clue what Elec. Med Records will cost. Asks for estimate.

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer!

Pg 58HC Bill – Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

Pg 37 Sec 132 of HC Bill – The Govt will be reviewing grievances about themselves and will decide on appeals for rejected claims.
You can only sue the government if they let you.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get.

PG 24 Sec 116 of HC bill Govt effectively sets prices for ALL private health plans. WTF!!!!

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

HT: Right Wing Sparkle

Republican Party & Conservatives Ideology

2009-07-26T19:39:00.007-04:00

According to wikipedia, conservatism in the US is described thus:

is a major American political ideology. In contemporary American politics, it is often associated with the Republican Party. Core conservative principles include a trust in God and country, and many U.S. conservatives support a fiscal policy rooted in small government, laissez faire capitalism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy, American conservatives usually advocate some moderate aspects of "American exceptionalism", a belief that the U.S. is unique among nations and that its standing and actions do and should guide the course of world history.

The above description links two things that are currently incompatible in practice, the Republican Party as a vehicle to elect Conservative politicians with Conservativism consisting of "a fiscal policy rooted in small government, laissez faire capitalism, and supply-side economics. The reality is that any conservatives entering politics may believe sincerely in small government but how can one reasonably expect anyone to work to make one's job less essential? How to be in government in order to make government smaller? Isn't this what is expected of a Conservative Republicans?

Democratic politicians believe in big government. They enter politics with the goal of enlarging the role of government. The longer they stay in government, the larger role they play in government, the more successful they are at achieving their political ideology. This will not be true for Conservative Republicans. The longer Republicans stay in politics, the less conservative they become in terms of small government. Once they lose the Conservative political ideal of small government, they really are no longer Conservatives. They may remain social conservatives or religious conservatives, but even social conservatives prefer the government not to dictate social conducts and even religious conservatives prefer government apart from their church. Thus a Republican politician that is not a Conservative will at best become ineffective as a Conservative, or will betray the Conservative cause.

This is playing itself out in US politics. The Republican Party, as directed by long time DC insiders, long term Republican politicians, is growing away from from Conservative voters political ideation. Witness the low turn out for McCain before Palin and the current Tea Parties. I believe most Republican politicians may earnestly believe they are doing the best they can, and that having been in government longer, they may even know better than the Conservatives that voted them into office. Some I believe already know they have strayed far from Conservatism and just don't care. Some of these latter, like Arlen Spectre, renounce their Republican status and run as a Democrat. Some of these latter continue to masquerade as Republicans and help direct and run the Republican Party. Because of their self-serving dishonesty, these are the most despicable of politicians, Republican or Democrats. Regardless, the longer a Republican stay in the same political office, the less Conservative they become.

As is, the only way I can see to minimize the natural political corruption of Republican politicians is term limits. Republican politicians or the Party should adopt and declare voluntary and self imposed term limits. Waiting for a law to impose term limits is very unlikely to happen. Term limits hurts the Democrats and is counter to their political goals and ideation. Term limits allows Republicans to adhere to their political goals and ideation. I actually believe that when a politician declares he will limit his political career, to achieve a declared goal in a set time, or step away and let another try, will help his electoral chances.

Obama's Press Conference on Healthcare Reform

2009-07-22T20:33:00.002-04:00

1. The usual strawman "to do nothing with the current status quo unacceptable."

2. The usual fear mongering "something has to be done now."

3. The usual hope sales "we can do better and will do better."

It is also evident that Obama is selling the goal of "affordable healthcare for everyone" but offers no plan as to how to make it all happen.

All rhetoric, no substance.

Holding the Hands with Those Falling Into Night

2009-07-14T20:38:00.004-04:00

JOINT BASE BALAD — The emergency-room trauma call and the medical staff's immediate action upon his arrival is only a memory to her now; sitting quietly at the bedside of her brother-in-arms, she carefully takes his hand, thanking him for his service and promising she will not leave his side.
He is a critically injured combat casualty, and she is Army Sgt. Jennifer Watson of the Casualty Liaison Team here.

Although a somber scene, it is not an uncommon one for the Peru, Ind., native, who in addition to her primary duties throughout the last 14 months, has taken it upon herself to ensure no U.S. casualty passes away alone. Holding each of their hands, she sits with them until the end, no matter the day or the hour.

"It's unfortunate that their families can't be here," said Watson, who is deployed here from Fort Campbell, Ky. "So I took it upon myself to step up and be that family while they are here. No one asked me to do it; I just did what I felt was right in my heart. I want them to know they are heroes.

"I feel just because they are passing away does not mean they cannot hear and feel someone around them," she continued. "I talk to them, thanking them for what they have done, telling them they are a hero, they will never be forgotten, and I explain my job to them to help them be at ease knowing the family will be told the truth."

HT: Bookworm Room

The First Shot: Cap & Trade

2009-07-14T06:57:00.003-04:00

It has begun.

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity."

Not hesitating to naming names!

Related: The Economy Is Even Worse Than You Think
The average length of unemployment is higher than it's been since government began tracking the data in 1948.

Sarah Palin: 2010 and 2012.

2009-07-11T18:25:00.000-04:00

On July 3rd 2009 Sarah Palin declared her political independence from out current politics as usual mess. She did so by resigning from being governor of Alaska rather than waiting till her term expires in 2010. Her surprise resignation has led to speculation of an impending scandal or a mark of erratic lack of endurance for public life. Many, believes her resignation regardless of her reasons signifies the end of her political career. I am not among them.

On first response I too thought this was a bad political move on her part. That she would have been better off finishing out her term in 2010 and subsequently run in 2012, assuming she retains an interest in politics. This is indeed the conventional wisdom. But you just don’t go against conventional wisdom to be contrarian. What could possibly be so urgent that she could not wait until 2010?

Lets look first at what she had to gain by finishing her term. She would have established a track record of executive leadership experience. She then would have had a year plus to then pre-campaign in the lower 48 states. All along she could have continued to increase her fund of knowledge in areas she is weak in (foreign relation and economics) as well as strengthen and refine her political stance regarding energy independence, small government, and strong national defense. She would have remained one of the leading contender going into the Republican primaries.

I stopped at this point trying to figure out what would be so great for Sarah Palin to do the politics as usual pathway to nomination. The primaries are creaky process that completely ignore must win states, in many places open to democrats and independents to manipulate the nomination process, and encourages candidates to yield to the front runner. And for Republicans in particular it is a process that somehow manages to nominate the next in line, like Dole and McCain. This implies that the Republican Poobahs have a lot to say in the nomination. The Democrat nomination process in 08 was certainly suspect for manipulation to nominate Obama over Hillary.

Even if Sarah decides to go through this nomination process, she would be challenging the Republican Washington DC Inside the Beltway types. Without broad base political support, she runs the risk of being marginalized and perhaps even passed over. Being stuck in Alaska until the end of 2010 will certainly limit her ability to campaign for other politicians. And politicians owe no debts until they get elected. There are no significant races in 2011. She needs to be able to campaign in the lower 48 starting Spring of 2010 in order to build political debts for 2012.

She may be also contemplating campaigning for local officials running for state offices. I expect her to have significant appeals to local communities and candidates. Why would she do this? Because a few states will be expected to gain congressional seats based on the 2010 census, and it will be the state legislatures that will draw congressional district maps for the 2012 elections. Even states that are expected to lose seats could be impacted by her campaigning for local officials to minimize loss of conservative congressional seats.

Note that Palin has stated she will campaign for conservatives, not just republicans. This is exceedingly smart for three reasons. Firstly, there has been a growing disparity between the national Republican party and the conservative voters. This is likely a result of Republican Poobahs living too long inside the DC beltway. Secondly, if she does win the Republican nomination, she will need the support of conservative Democrats in the general election. Thirdly, if she can help conservative democrats raise money, they might become less beholden to the Democrat National Committee.

And she can help campaign against Obama’s awful economic policies as a way to initiate relationships with fiscal conservative Democrats and Republicans. None of her options to build a lower 48 political base and influence can be achieved as a Governor of Alaska.

Sarah Palin's Resignation

2009-07-10T06:33:00.002-04:00

Two thoughts on John’s post at Powerline on Sarah Palin to comment on.

Is Sarah Palin an arch-conservative? No. She has social conservative beliefs on military, religion, gays, and abortion, thus she has taken a stance and of a character that does appeal to arch-conservatives. That she does not seek to impose these beliefs during governance should make her appealing to independents. As a politicians who believes in small government, fiscal responsibility, and good governance as you pointed out, she should be appealing to all voters. I do not believe this has changed at all since August of 2008. Yes, her selection as McCain’s Vice-President running mate opened doors for her and you can argue she is being an opportunist. But given the opportunity to make a positive impact and real change for our nation, she should explore her potential to do so. In fact, I believe it would be irresponsible for anyone, not just her, do hide out and not make a difference.

Is Sarah Palin a target of political attacks? Certainly. Not just in the media but also by frivolous ethic charges. All the ethics charges evaluated thus far has been dismissed. Has the cost been significant? Not really though half a million dollars is a lot. Has the ethics charges been crippling to her governance? Probably and this is hurtful to Alaska’s use of tax payer not just in terms of money but in terms of man power and resources. Has the ethic charges been crippling to her ability to be a politician? Certainly. To resign because of it and retreat from public life would add fuel to the fire and embolden other attacks on other politicians, right or left. To resign because of it and enlarge her public life would completely defeat the political motivations behind the attacks. After all, aren’t the ethic charges intended to anchor her down in Anchorage (i know Juneau is the capital), shut her down and silence her voice? If so, then whenever she appears in the lower 48 at any and all sorts of political and economic events it will be a complete victory over those who seek to corner and limit her political influence.

Is her resignation politically risky? Yes. But to maintain the status quo is defeat. To be paralyzed politically, cost your states resources on frivolity, and encouraged continued devious political attacks, just so she can claim a full term as Governor when campaigning in 2012 is irresponsible.

I Support the Current and Constitutional Government of Honduras

2009-07-08T20:27:00.004-04:00

Despite what the MSM may be reporting, and our pittiful ZerObama president is saying, there was no coup in Honduras.

From Honduras:

I write this report to try to explain the situation from my point of view, and try to clear the scenario for as many international eyes and ears as possible.

Mr. Zelaya was elected president of Honduras through popular election on November 2005, for the 2006-2009 period. He was elected on a narrow margin, mostly due to the ruling party's candidate desire to push for the death penalty in our country, which is not allowed in our law. We are a peaceful and tame people, and do not like such drastic penalties.

Mr. Zelaya was elected because he opposed death penalty, and he promised to continue his party's work on improving the situation on our country's education, health and social situation, while promoting democracy and swearing to protect our Constitution. He also promoted a so called "Citizen's power", which was supposed to be a channel for the people to express their thoughts to the government.

In the first 2 years of his term, he seemed to be trying to fulfill his promises, but then we see him starting to engage in relations with Venezuela's leftist president Hugo Chavez, which per se is not a bad thing, but he starts to support his ideologies.

This is where Mr. Zelaya stabbed the Honduran people in the back. He makes an unpredicted turn to the left, which the majority of the population is against, but nevertheless, he goes on with the integration of Honduras to the ALBA, Hugo Chavez's initiative, which has caused nothing but civil unrest on countries that have joined. This mostly motivated by promises of easy money by Chavez.

Zelaya starts also to take a populist stance, first approving a huge increase in government workers' wage, then approving a general increase to the minimum wage to levels where small and medium business were not able to cope with. He uses his "Citizen's power" initiative to promise the poor areas of Honduras a thousand and one benefits with the integration to the ALBA. This all seems good, but in the background, he is asphyxiating our country's air-thin budget with these initiatives, and forgoing such responsibilities such as the fight of crime, drug trafficking, diseases, the World's economical crisis, and many other social matters.This is Zelaya first crime.

With this strategy, Zelaya "purchased" the support of some in-country blocks, such as peasant and indigenous organizations.This all would have been good, until you see Zelaya's true intentions.

His purpose was of gathering support for his new project: to dispose of the current Constitution, over which he was sworn in, and create a new one, similar to ones crafted by Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, with which he would be allowed to be re-elected. This is Zelaya's second crime.

In trying to create a legal and "democratic" facade for his project, Zelaya used one of the statutes of his "Citizen's power" initiative, which is the "Law of Citizens' participation", in which the people can put request to the government to conduct surveys about the peoples opinion. The problem is that no one to be asked about their will to change the constitution. This was fabricated by Zelaya, by threatening public employees to fire them, if they do not bring in a quota of "voluntarily" signed requested for this inquiry. So public employees, trying to safeguard their jobs, started forcing people to sign this if they wanted to be treated at hospitals, sold needed medicines, and even have a phone line repaired. This is Zelaya's third crime.

After gathering a certain number of "requests", he started moving for the installation of a popular inquiry, in which he would ask if the people wanted a new constitution, and which was going to take place today. The issue here is that this "popular inquiry" was not sanctioned by any independent and legal body, such as the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and, furthermore, was declared illegal by the Supreme Court of Justice, on the grounds that our Constitution forbids anyone on changing the basic, or petrous, articles of it, which state the form of government and the impossibility of re-election. This was his fourth and last crime, against the Republic of Honduras.

This day's event, where just a consequence of Zelaya moving on with this illegal inquiry. After his stubbornness to continue with it, his arrest was ordered by the Supreme Court of Justice, arrest which was conducted by the brave men in the military.

HT Right Wing Sparkle.

more from Powerline Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

MLK Was a Republican

2009-07-06T15:41:00.001-04:00

Sarah Palin

2009-07-03T20:02:00.006-04:00

It is well known by now that Sarah Palin is resigning as governor at the end of the month. Why she is resigning is any one's speculation at this point. We won't know for sure until after she is no longer governor. I would say an August.

Exerps from Palin's resignation speech:

Life is too short to compromise time and resources... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and “go with the flow”.

Nah, only dead fish "go with the flow".

No. Productive, fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time... to BUILD UP.

And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I'll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE... I'll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won't deride them.

I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska – or Outside Alaska.

But I won’t do it from the Governor’s desk.

...

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous... well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that... I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more... what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT – that time is precious... the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer.

My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for OUR freedom and security… we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up, they take a stand and know that LIFE is short so they choose to NOT waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than SELF... and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions – those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and NOT this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.

May we ALL learn from them!

*((Gotta put First Things First))*

First things first: as Governor, I love my job and I love Alaska. It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what’s best for Alaska. I’ve explained why… though I think of the saying on my parents’ refrigerator that says “Don’t explain: your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”

But I have given my reasons… no more “politics as usual” and I am taking my fight for what’s right – for Alaska – in a new direction.

My speculations in no particular order.
1. She will remain in politics, though possibly not as a candidate.
2. She cannot rail against the "politics as usual" of Washington DC as along as she is a Republican Governor.
3. The Republican party is in a big mess right now, and a part of the problem is the huge disconnect between the Republican party insiders and political leaders and the conservative voters of America.
4. To continue in politics she will need to control her message better. She cannot do so as an elected official.
5. she would not resign without having something better already lined up.
6. Her strength is Energy, her weakness are business and foreign affair.

Palin could be lining up to create a third political force for conservatives. Perhaps not a third political party but a force apart from the Republican party. Even with a two party system in Congress a third way / independent president will certainly change how DC politics work. This may appear like what Perot attempted, but there are two main difference. She has substantial charisma, Perot did not. Perot has the financial resources, she does not ... or does she?

Who would back her?
someone who has media connection ... perhaps even ownership
someone who is in the energy industry ... and well funded
someone who is international and yet with an American perspective
in all likelihood, not a single someone but a group of someones.

Healthcare Admin Cost: Government vs Private

2009-06-29T15:06:00.004-04:00

Last week I was at a dinner of healthcare provider and naturally the discussion turned to Obamacare. One physician stated that Medicare administrative cost was only 3% compared to substantially higher numbers for private insurance plans. This figure shocked me because it seems unbelievably low. And as it turns out, it should not be believed. As it turns out, this percentage is based on administrative cost as a percentage of medical payment.

However, there are other ways to crunch these numbers, and one such way is how much medicare spends to administer the cost of managing each person's healthcare payment. Robert Book at the Heritage Foundation have done just that.

Obamacare: the "Public Option"

2009-06-21T08:34:00.002-04:00

What is the "public option" under Obamacare? What is being proposed is that all citizens are required to be a part of a healthcare plan. To cover those that cannot afford private plans, the government would provide for a government rant "public option."

What is the problem then with the "public option?" It will drive the private plans out of business. Private plans collects money only for the members it serves. The "public option" collects money from all tax payers and covers only those without a private plan. There is no way that any private plan can come even close to the intake:outlay ratio of the "public option" plan. Thus initially the "public option" plan will be substantially cheaper as well. Those who pays for healthcare plan, whether it be individual or business, will gradually gravitate to the "public option" plan to reduce cost. (And cost has been and will continue to be the main problem of healthcare in the US).

What is wrong with the US government's "public option" plan being the primary provider of healthcare in the US? Because the government is inept and incompetent and inefficient when it comes to providing any service. Talk to any patients who has experience both the Veterans Administration care (Government care for veterans) and the private sector and they will tell you which is better. Talk to any healthcare provider regarding ease of providing care to their patients between Veterans Administration care and the private sector. They will all tell you that the private sector does it better. The private sector does it better because they are competing among themselves and competition always stimulate quality. I do not mean to suggests that Veterans Administration care is inadequate, I only suggests the private sector does it better.

Thus the end result is that the "public option" will result in the government being the primary and dominant healthcare provider, near universal healthcare. The result will also be healthcare that is delivered inefficiently and poorly. As such, either the quality of care will fall, and or the cost of care will increase. When the cost of care increase, the likely response will be to reduce the care provided, i.e. rationing. Then healthcare will certainly be worse than what we have today. At least today, if you are unhappy with the care, you have alternatives and options.

Iranian Protest 09

2009-06-20T09:10:00.002-04:00

Peaceful revolutions are the exceptions, more commonly peaceful attempts at revolutions are crushed brutally. Against a totalitarian regime willing the hold on to power despite its people, willing to act with violence against its own people, these protests will come to no good, leaving only blood, deaths, and persectutions. Just like with Tiananmen square in 89. My heart goes out to freeom loving Iranians.

Memorial Day

2009-05-25T06:07:00.002-04:00

Obama & the Moral High Ground

2009-04-25T22:47:00.004-04:00

Most of Obama's words thus far suggest that he is staking a claim for the Moral High Ground. He has released the torture memos because he believes he is better than the Bush administration in this regard. He is releasing the pictures of "torture" prisoners for the very same reasons. When he was oversea he apologized for past US actions, because he nominally believe the US could have done better, and that under him we will. There are two things to consider here.

First is that if he thinks this will make the US safer or better he is wrong. Those who work toward our destruction do so not because of some reasoning, but some hatred. That we could have been better angers them. That we believe we could be better also angers them. There mere fact that we are different from what they want to be angers them, regardless of how good we are. Staking claim to the Moral High Ground may make things worse for us. It certainly not keeps us safer. Those that seek to compete against us will not treat us better, or help us further our goals. They compete against us because they think they can beat us. Given any opportunity to do so they will certainly try regardless of who has the Moral High Ground.

Second is that if he thinks he can claim the Moral High Ground he is also wrong. This sort of thinking seems rampant to those without practical experience in life, living by concepts they believe the world should operate by rather than the principles the world lives by. This is akin to a rich couple believing their wealth keeps their estate well maintained, rather than understanding that it is still the housekeepers and gardeners' labors over dirt. Or a hospital CEO proclaiming how many lives his hospital saves, without acknowledging it is the doctors and nurses work in soilage and pus. Or a general believing he won the battle rather than the soldiers killing and maiming. The difference between Obama's Moral High Ground and reality is the difference between Ideals and Practice.

At best, his stake for the Moral High Ground only shows his naïveté. What it clearly reveals is his hubris, not his humanity. And through it all, he has also demonstrated willingness to use politics to further himself.

Favorite Modern Artists

2009-04-13T22:19:00.008-04:00

the TimesOnline is running a poll of favorite modern artists. My top 3 votes are as follows:

Diebenkorn

Kandinsky

Hopper

HT: Powerline

Tax Day Cometh

2009-04-13T13:59:00.003-04:00

I did my taxes yesterday. Two days from now will be tax day, and many will turn out that day for a Tea Party protest. Here is a great summary of what taxes should be like from Bookworm Room:

Principles of Sound Tax Policy

¨ Simplicity. Administrative costs are a loss to society, and complicated taxation undermines voluntary compliance by creating incentives to shelter and disguise income.

¨ Transparency. Tax legislation should be based on sound legislative procedures and careful analysis. A good tax system requires informed taxpayers who understand how tax assessment, collection, and compliance works. There should be open hearings and revenue estimates should be fully explained and replicable.

¨ Neutrality. The fewer economic decisions that are made for tax reasons, the better. The primary purpose of taxes is to raise needed revenue, not to micromanage the economy. The tax system should not favor certain industries, activities, or products.

¨ Stability. When tax laws are in constant flux, long-range financial planning is difficult. Lawmakers should avoid enacting temporary tax laws, including tax holidays and amnesties.

¨ No Retroactivity. As a corollary to the principle of stability, taxpayers should rely with confidence on the law as it exists when contracts are signed and transactions made.

¨ Broad Bases and Low Rate. As a corollary to the principle of neutrality, lawmakers should avoid enacting targeted deductions, credits and exclusions. If such tax preferences are few, substantial revenue can be raised with low tax rates. Broad-based taxes can also produce relatively stable tax revenues from year to year.

By Any Other Name

2009-04-13T13:56:00.003-04:00

Great article by Joe Queenan at the WSJ today. Here is the start:

The Obama administration has come under intense criticism for replacing the term "war on terror" with the emaciated euphemism "overseas contingency operations," and for referring to individual acts of terror as "man-caused disasters."

This semi-official attempt to disassociate the administration from the fierce rhetoric favored by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney has enraged Americans on both the right and left. Many feel that such vaporous bureaucratese is a self-emasculating action that plunges us into an Orwellian world where words have no emotional connection with the horrors they purport to describe.

Yet, if the intention of the Obama administration is to tone down the confrontational rhetoric being used by our enemies, the effort is already reaping results. This week, in a pronounced shift from its usual theatrical style, the Taliban announced that it will no longer refer to its favorite method of murder as "beheadings," but will henceforth employ the expression "cephalic attrition." "Flayings" -- a barbarously exotic style of execution that has been popular in this part of the world since before the time of Alexander -- will now be described as "unsolicited epidermal reconfigurations." In a similar vein, lopping off captives' arms will now be referred to as "appendage furloughing," while public floggings of teenaged girls will from here on out be spoken of as "metajudicial interfacing."

A Taliban spokesman reached in Pakistan said that the new phrasing was being implemented as a way of eliminating the negative associations triggered by more graphic terminology. "The term 'beheading' has a quasi-medieval undertone that we're trying to get away from," he explained. "The term 'cephalic attrition' brings the Taliban into the 21st century. It's not that we disapprove of beheadings; it's just that the word no longer meshes with the zeitgeist of the era. This is the same reason we have replaced the term 'jihad' with 'booka-bonga-bippo,' which has a more zesty, urban, youthful, 'now' feel. When you're recruiting teenagers to your movement, you don't want them to feel that going on jihad won't leave any time for youthful hijinks."

Central Asia is not the only place where the coarse terminology of the past is being phased out. In Darfur, the words "ethnic cleansing" are no longer in use, either by rebels nor by the government itself. Instead, the practice of targeting a particular tribe or sect or ethnic group for extinction is being called "unconditional demographic redeployment." In much the same spirit, the archaic term "genocide" -- so broad and vague as to be meaningless -- has now been supplanted by "maximum-intensity racial profiling."

Government & Healthcare

2009-03-31T07:01:00.007-04:00

The government is once again making a push to assume a greater role in health care. This move is nominally to provide health care to the millions uninsured. This guise is at best well intentioned ignorance, and at worse a ruse for greater control. Yes there are millions uninsured. Firstly, the vast majority of these people are young health people who do not need insurance. The young and elderly are already covered under Medicaid and Medicare. Secondly, for those uninsured who needs health care, they have access to care as no hospital can turn away a sick patient. True an argument can be made that preventive care to avoid becoming sick is better than being treated once sick, but the data on preventive care remains rather soft. And for preventive care that does make a difference, like screening mammograms, there are plenty of programs that will provide free screenings. But this is where the truth can be found, in that if you are uninsured and needs treatment, you will be laden with a huge bill. The problem of health care in the US is not coverage of the uninsured, the problem of health care in the US is a problem of cost.

Put it another way. Why are there uninsured at all? Because either they choose not to buy health care insurance, or because they cannot afford health care insurance. If they choose not to buy, it is probably because they don't see the need for it. If it is because they cannot afford health care insurance, then this again is certainly the problem of health care cost rather than a problem of uninsured.

Does the high cost of US health care means better health care? Yes and no. We spend an exhorbitant amount of money keeping premature infants and the terminally ill patients alive as long as we can. Frequently we fail, and especially with the terminally ill, we only prolonged their lives by days or weeks rather than years. Is this a smart spending of our health care resources? This aspect deserves a serious conversation in our society and culture. But this is not being discussed because the politicians would much rather talk about providing universal coverage rather than smart spending.

Certainly this is out of concern of a slippery slope that if we restrict money to be spent for premies and the terminals, we might restrict money spent on other areas of health care as well. And this gets us back to the essential problem of health care, cost. And anyone will tell you that the solution to cost increases is to control cost. Initially cost reduction can be gained through better efficiency and better care process to reduce complications (another direct contributor to cost). However, these cost control gains will never be as much as projected. Many different forms of health care delivery has been tried in the US in the past 20 years, all promising to reduce health care cost. All has provided a few years of cost control only to be followed by rising cost along the previous trajectory. Part of the problem here with government heath care and cost is that the government is never cost effective or sufficiently cost conscientious. Then it will come down to either accepting the increasing cost of health care or reducing service available.

Will the government accept the increase cost of health care? Will the people accept increasing taxation? For a while yes, but only for a while. When the cost of taxation for government health care is too high, what typically would happen next is that services will slowly but surely be restricted. And what we would all end up with would be universal coverage with less health services.

One other consideration. We all get what we paid for. When we pay for our health care directly, service is owed to us. When the government pays for health care, service is owed to the government.

Green Manufacturing: Subaru

2009-03-23T17:02:00.002-04:00

There was an interesting article in the WSJ today on how the US Subaru manufacturing plant has become rather environmentally efficient.

Subaru of Indiana Automotive Inc., a factory of more than 3,000 workers who make roughly 800 automobiles a day, has pursued green initiatives since its launch 20 years ago in Lafayette, Ind., by Japan's Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. With employees at every level of the plant looking for ways to save energy, reduce waste and generally make processes more efficient, one measure of its success is a 14% reduction in electricity consumption on a per-car basis since 2000. An even bigger achievement: It has not shipped any waste to a landfill since May 2004.

The authors, skeptical themselves at first, have confirmed the company's claims with their own detailed research. How did Subaru do it? By redesigning numerous plant processes, thus producing less waste and requiring less material as inputs. Since 2000, the company says, it has reduced the amount of waste it generates per vehicle by about 47%. Of the solid waste that the factory still generates, 99.9% is recycled or used by other companies as manufacturing inputs or as raw materials that they process to resell. The remaining 0.1% is hazardous waste that must by law be incinerated by a licensed facility.

Though I drive a Subaru and in general would buy another one (uncertain whether this is due to the quirkiness factor or the great service i get currently at the dealer) what particularly caught my eye was this particular algorithm below:

1. To burn material for energy is better than sending it to a landfill.

2. To recycle it is better than burning it.

3. To reuse material is better than recycling it.

4. To reduce the amount needed is better than reusing it.

5. To eliminate the need for material is better than reducing it.

That it is not just an act but a whole process, and each steps leads to a better thought, idea, and potential solution.

Media Political Distraction

2009-03-16T20:19:00.002-04:00

There has been alot of noise in the media of late pertaining to Republicans or Conservative personas. By this I mean the White House vs Rush deal, the Steele vs Rush deal, the Steele & abortion/nazi deal, the Megan McCain vs Ann Coulter vs Laura Inghram deal. None of these things matter now or in the long run.

I think Republicans and Conservatives need to stop reacting to the Democrat/Progressive agitators. We should all remember that the Liberals control the mainstream media. All this is meant to distract the voters from the Obama agenda and incompetencies.

Debt Star

2009-03-12T07:44:00.002-04:00

HT: Instapundit

RNC Grassroot

2009-02-23T13:38:00.000-05:00

Senator vs Secretary

2009-02-13T11:13:00.002-05:00

Several prominent politicians have given up their Senator status in exchange for positions as Secretary in Obama's Cabinet. I do not understand this as I view it a step down. As a Senator, you are serving the people of your state directly. As a Cabinet Secretary, you are serving the President of the US. Firstly, since I assume most politicians are ego driven, I would have thought being a Senator a more independent and prestigious position. Secondly being in public service I would have thought serving the people directly would be better than serving an individual, even the PotUS. Finally, as a political career move, what have past Secretaries risen to become?

Reject the Stimulus Package as is

2009-02-09T20:25:00.002-05:00

Having listened to Obama on TV encouraging support for the Stimulus package, I have to come out fully against it. He is clearly fear mongering of economic collapse, and thus some action is better than inaction. He never fully explain why the stimulus would create jobs rather than works.

And he is clearly the opposite of W. He speaks a lot but doesn't really say much. No efficiency of words.

Update: sign the petition at NoStimulus

Economic Stimulus: Work vs. Job

2009-02-09T08:28:00.003-05:00

This exchange between Steele & Stephanopoulos highlights something that has been adequately addressed by the media's discussion regarding Obama-Democrat's "stimulus/pork package."

When the government spends money on short term projects, such as construction, work is created but not jobs. A job is something is stead work, something you can go to the bank with and use to get credit for a house or a car. A work is a temporary arrangement where you get paid for a limited duration, whether it be picking crops in the field or building a bridge. Any stimulus spending should keep this difference in mind.

The more I think about it, the less it make sense for the Government to spend money as a stimulus. Firstly, it takes money from taxes to spend, and in the process serves as the middle men. Be certain that the money it collects and the money doled out is not one for one. Secondly, the Government consistently acts in the short term, without sufficient thought to long term consequences. The government emphasis on works rather than jobs is a clear example of this. Thirdly, the taxpayer is in a much better position through his or her interaction with out capitalistic economy to direct spending dollars to what he, she, and the community needs as a whole. Fourthly, the increased in government spending for any stimulus package will only drive the deficit up, further limiting the availability of credits to the economy while increasing foreign ownership of our economy.

As such, the government stimulus should primarily be in the form of tax cuts. This will also have the added benefit of forcing the government to trim its budget. The primary spending of the government should be directed toward national defense.

The only stimulus spending at this point that makes sense to me are grants for research (both scientific, industrial and economic) that will lay the foundation for further discoveries.

HT: Right Wing Sparkle