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."
20090413
By Any Other Name
Great article by Joe Queenan at the WSJ today. Here is the start:
20090331
Government & Healthcare
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.
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.
20090323
Green Manufacturing: Subaru
There was an interesting article in the WSJ today on how the US Subaru manufacturing plant has become rather environmentally efficient.
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:
That it is not just an act but a whole process, and each steps leads to a better thought, idea, and potential solution.
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.
20090316
Media Political Distraction
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.
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.
20090312
20090223
20090213
Senator vs Secretary
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?
20090209
Reject the Stimulus Package as is
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
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
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
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
20090208
Government Bailout & Executive Pay Cap
I am all for the government imposing a cap on executive compensations with regard to salary, bonuses, and buy-outs. Firstly, it only applies to companies accepting government buy-outs and thus the government has a responsibility to see to it that the money is well spent and not wasted. This occurs in most other circumstances of government financial supports whether it be NIH research grants or federal moneys to states. Federal money should always come with restrictions. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, I hope this executive compensation restriction is such that the vast majority of large companies, those that are "too big to fail" would think twice about asking for federal hand-outs. I rather them take a chance on failure. I think this would be better for the companies, the economy, and the tax payers. Now small companies might be tempted to take government money but since our economy is built on the back of small and medium companies, I am fine with this.
20090126
Government & the Economy
I recognize that in difficult economic times, the public expect the government to act. And it would be appropriate for the government to act but clearly not all actions are beneficial.
Firstly, bailing out any commercial entities because they are "too big to fail" is just ridiculous. Spending money, even tax payer money, should be seen as an economic investment for success. Investing money in failing companies is just absurd. I understand the reason is to minimize job lost but in this is a horrible way to achieve this. When you give money to large companies, the company executives are more likely to see the money than the average worker. The government would be better off increasing the money available to unemployment than to give it to failing companies. In addition, by bailing out failing companies, their legacy actions for continued failure delay their necessary demise so that other, smaller companies with better vision and ability can rise. If anything, it should be the ascendant companies that receive federal funds (in terms of tax breaks rather than hand-outs) rather than the descendant companies.
Secondly, the best way to stimulate the economy is to get more money into the economy for circulation. I believe that this is best achieved by giving more money to the tax payers hand. This can be done as either a tax rebate or as unemployment benefits. The individuals are the one best position to decide how to spend money, not the government, and especially not failing companies that are too big to fail.
Thirdly, if the government feels that it is necessary to direct some of the spending themselves, the money would be best spent toward projects that is not likely to cause dependency. Infrastructure projects, while they may be both necessary and desirable, will require long term commitment for upkeep and maintenance. I suggest a combination of small business grants in new scientific or technology fields, as well as education grants as scholarships for students and research grants.
Firstly, bailing out any commercial entities because they are "too big to fail" is just ridiculous. Spending money, even tax payer money, should be seen as an economic investment for success. Investing money in failing companies is just absurd. I understand the reason is to minimize job lost but in this is a horrible way to achieve this. When you give money to large companies, the company executives are more likely to see the money than the average worker. The government would be better off increasing the money available to unemployment than to give it to failing companies. In addition, by bailing out failing companies, their legacy actions for continued failure delay their necessary demise so that other, smaller companies with better vision and ability can rise. If anything, it should be the ascendant companies that receive federal funds (in terms of tax breaks rather than hand-outs) rather than the descendant companies.
Secondly, the best way to stimulate the economy is to get more money into the economy for circulation. I believe that this is best achieved by giving more money to the tax payers hand. This can be done as either a tax rebate or as unemployment benefits. The individuals are the one best position to decide how to spend money, not the government, and especially not failing companies that are too big to fail.
Thirdly, if the government feels that it is necessary to direct some of the spending themselves, the money would be best spent toward projects that is not likely to cause dependency. Infrastructure projects, while they may be both necessary and desirable, will require long term commitment for upkeep and maintenance. I suggest a combination of small business grants in new scientific or technology fields, as well as education grants as scholarships for students and research grants.
20090121
20090120
Thank You President George W. Bush
I believe History will treat you much kinder than your contemporaries have.
Best wishes for your future.
Update: Others are doing it as well here:
20090114
Gaza: Israel vs Hamas
Israel must not relent from elimnating Hamas from Gaza. Victory is militarily possible because Gaza can be blockaded, isolated and surrounded. To allow Hamas to survive will only strengthen it in the long run. Whether Israel can and will do so remains to be seen. Powerline has addition thoughts.
Once Hamas is destroyed Israel must remain and occupy Gaza (as the US did with Iraq). Israel must help the surviving Palestinians rebuild its governmental and social infrastructure. Since The Palestinians have suffered from the inept management under Hamas, there is a sliver of a chance once Hamas is gone, and with Israeli help, Gaza can be rebuilt as a future politically and economically viable Palestinian state. Israel must not give Gaza to Fatah. Fatah is thoroughly corrupt and corruption is the death of any political society. Fortunately there aren't much Fatah left in Gaza thanks to Hamas.
The best chance for a viable Palestinian state is the eradication of Hamas from Gaza.
Once Hamas is destroyed Israel must remain and occupy Gaza (as the US did with Iraq). Israel must help the surviving Palestinians rebuild its governmental and social infrastructure. Since The Palestinians have suffered from the inept management under Hamas, there is a sliver of a chance once Hamas is gone, and with Israeli help, Gaza can be rebuilt as a future politically and economically viable Palestinian state. Israel must not give Gaza to Fatah. Fatah is thoroughly corrupt and corruption is the death of any political society. Fortunately there aren't much Fatah left in Gaza thanks to Hamas.
The best chance for a viable Palestinian state is the eradication of Hamas from Gaza.
20090112
Surviving Horror
This is not meant as a serious post but it does not mean the contents are without application to real life. . In my household we have been on a horror movie bent of late. The perpetrators have been monsters and humans, supernatural and too natural. I have thus decided (like the book on preparing for the Zombie apocalypse) have decided to generate a survival directive for surviving horror (movies).
1. Do not deviate from the original travel plan. This is typically how you are placed within a horror situation to begin with. As a corollary to this directive is that you must travel well armed. No, bullets may not slow spirits, but there are plenty of flesh causing horrors out there that will indeed bleed.
2. Once in horror situations, be prepared to use deadly force. I am not advocating first strike/pre-emption. But if you find the body (or blood stained suggestions of one) of a travel buddy, then all restraint against the use of deadly force should be suspended immediately. Naturally, if you are armed and are at risk of becoming the first victim of the group, by all means pre-empt.
3. Stick together. United you stand, divided you will die. Stragglers will be picked off. Do not investigate anything or anywhere on your own. Do not even go to the bathroom on your own. I recommend a minimum of 3 persons per activity. Say you are going to the bathroom. One person does the business, one keep an eye out in the room, one in the doorway (leave it open) and keep an eye out in the hall/outside. You should also keep 3 for each watch sleep. Teamwork is essential for survival. This would suggest that the size of your over all team should be six, grouped into threes.
4. Believe your friends. When your friend reports seeing something too crazy to be true, take it on face value as being true. No potential threat should be dismissed, every potential intel should be considered. Your enemy cannot be underestimated. Never assume your enemy follows the same code of behaviour as you do, adhere to the same moral code as most might. A corollary of this is that if you yourself saw something too crazy to believe you must tell others of it without fear of dismissal or ridicule. Distrust breaks down the team effectiveness and cohesiveness.
5. Have a plan for actions. Do not wait to be victims. Your plan of actions should be firstly security and ensure survival of the team. Your plan of actions should be secondly about escaping from the current horror situation. This has to be the order rather than the reverse. You will die without the team, there can be no escape alone. Note that all good plans require knowing what the sequence of actions will be (stepwise progression works best) as well as alternative options. No plans, regardless of how good, will be effective without buy-ins from the team. And the combination of action plans + team require defined role for each team members.
6. Have faith. Believing in a higher power/purpose may not save you from a lunatic, but it may against un-natural forces. Even against the mundane, having faith that you will survive provides a positive goal to enact and accomplish your plan of actions. Faith cannot be under-estimated. If you don't already believe, consider starting to believe (there are no atheist in foxholes). A corollary to this is that if you do not already believe, while others do, do not dismiss their faith, instead trust them, trust their faith (see #4 above).
7. Do not believe there is a traitor among you. Doing so will tear the team apart and doom you. If there is a traitor among you then you are doomed already, but no point speeding things up by breaking up your most important resource, your fellow team members. If the evidence become incontroversial that a person is a traitor, and some team members have already died from betrayal, eliminate the traitor. Use deadly force if necessary. Under no circumstances should you continue travel with the traitor as a captive. He/she will certainly seek to escape bondage while with you and cause harm to your team. While not the best of options, leaving the traitor behind bound and silenced may be an alternative. Know though that if found by your enemy, the traitor will certainly act against you. Why is having a traitor means you are likely doomed? Because the team has already been weakened and fractured by the traitor as well as the process of rooting out the traitor. However, you can at least take solace in the fact that nobody likes a traitor, and that in all likelihood the enemy will eliminate the traitor themselves once his/her usefulness has expired.
1. Do not deviate from the original travel plan. This is typically how you are placed within a horror situation to begin with. As a corollary to this directive is that you must travel well armed. No, bullets may not slow spirits, but there are plenty of flesh causing horrors out there that will indeed bleed.
2. Once in horror situations, be prepared to use deadly force. I am not advocating first strike/pre-emption. But if you find the body (or blood stained suggestions of one) of a travel buddy, then all restraint against the use of deadly force should be suspended immediately. Naturally, if you are armed and are at risk of becoming the first victim of the group, by all means pre-empt.
3. Stick together. United you stand, divided you will die. Stragglers will be picked off. Do not investigate anything or anywhere on your own. Do not even go to the bathroom on your own. I recommend a minimum of 3 persons per activity. Say you are going to the bathroom. One person does the business, one keep an eye out in the room, one in the doorway (leave it open) and keep an eye out in the hall/outside. You should also keep 3 for each watch sleep. Teamwork is essential for survival. This would suggest that the size of your over all team should be six, grouped into threes.
4. Believe your friends. When your friend reports seeing something too crazy to be true, take it on face value as being true. No potential threat should be dismissed, every potential intel should be considered. Your enemy cannot be underestimated. Never assume your enemy follows the same code of behaviour as you do, adhere to the same moral code as most might. A corollary of this is that if you yourself saw something too crazy to believe you must tell others of it without fear of dismissal or ridicule. Distrust breaks down the team effectiveness and cohesiveness.
5. Have a plan for actions. Do not wait to be victims. Your plan of actions should be firstly security and ensure survival of the team. Your plan of actions should be secondly about escaping from the current horror situation. This has to be the order rather than the reverse. You will die without the team, there can be no escape alone. Note that all good plans require knowing what the sequence of actions will be (stepwise progression works best) as well as alternative options. No plans, regardless of how good, will be effective without buy-ins from the team. And the combination of action plans + team require defined role for each team members.
6. Have faith. Believing in a higher power/purpose may not save you from a lunatic, but it may against un-natural forces. Even against the mundane, having faith that you will survive provides a positive goal to enact and accomplish your plan of actions. Faith cannot be under-estimated. If you don't already believe, consider starting to believe (there are no atheist in foxholes). A corollary to this is that if you do not already believe, while others do, do not dismiss their faith, instead trust them, trust their faith (see #4 above).
7. Do not believe there is a traitor among you. Doing so will tear the team apart and doom you. If there is a traitor among you then you are doomed already, but no point speeding things up by breaking up your most important resource, your fellow team members. If the evidence become incontroversial that a person is a traitor, and some team members have already died from betrayal, eliminate the traitor. Use deadly force if necessary. Under no circumstances should you continue travel with the traitor as a captive. He/she will certainly seek to escape bondage while with you and cause harm to your team. While not the best of options, leaving the traitor behind bound and silenced may be an alternative. Know though that if found by your enemy, the traitor will certainly act against you. Why is having a traitor means you are likely doomed? Because the team has already been weakened and fractured by the traitor as well as the process of rooting out the traitor. However, you can at least take solace in the fact that nobody likes a traitor, and that in all likelihood the enemy will eliminate the traitor themselves once his/her usefulness has expired.
20081229
Gaza: Israel vs. Hamas & Iran
I am not sure what Israel hope to accomplish against Hamas in Gaza with the current conflict. Israel surely do not want a repeat of the last Lebannon war. Then, it might have tactically weakened Hezbolla but the resultant military stalemate became a political loss of Israel. I am not just sure that Israel can take out Hamas even if Israel take over Gaza. Certainly this does not mean it is worth the effort to inflict massive damage on Hamas.
What is more potentially interesting is that Israel may be, through the attack against Hamas, may actually provoking Iran, Hamas' major backer, into some sort of response. A military response by Iran would certainly justify an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear program.
All this is happening just before Bush leave office (a more supportive PotUS for Israel) and potentially laying the ground works for an Obama administration support.
What is more potentially interesting is that Israel may be, through the attack against Hamas, may actually provoking Iran, Hamas' major backer, into some sort of response. A military response by Iran would certainly justify an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear program.
All this is happening just before Bush leave office (a more supportive PotUS for Israel) and potentially laying the ground works for an Obama administration support.
20081225
20081222
Newscaster
I wonder what it would be like if our newscasters delivered the news like the sportcasters (say from ESPN Sportcenter). The sportcasters are able to be critical of mistakes (as they and newscasters should be) and yet remain cheerful when the right things are done (as they should be but newscasters are not). I understands that world events, economic reports, and crime news are significantly more serious than a sport contest. Yet the dour harping of negatives by newscaster need to be balanced by positive reports.
To some extent, some bloggers ("blogcasters?") already do this. Bill Roggio and his crew certainly have done this very well. Too bad we don't get more of this from the MSM when it comes to news. We only get if from the MSM when it comes to sport news.
To some extent, some bloggers ("blogcasters?") already do this. Bill Roggio and his crew certainly have done this very well. Too bad we don't get more of this from the MSM when it comes to news. We only get if from the MSM when it comes to sport news.
Automaker Bailout
W is using the TARP moneys to bailout the auto industry. It would have been best if no bailout occurs at all. Second best would have been restructuring ala bankruptcy as a precondition for a bailout. But using the TARP at least means no additional new money is being spent by the feds during the whole economic crisis.
20081218
Speed Kills?
Interesting info regarding driving speed and auto accident fatality from Autoblog
The NHTSA undertook a two-and-a-half year study that examined 5,471 injury accidents nationwide in order to figure out how accidents were being caused. Government researchers conducted their own evidence gathering at crash sites in order to establish a first-hand account of causation. What did they find? Among other things, that more drivers crashed as a result of crossing the center line (11%) than as a result of speeding (5%). Speeding, in this case, defined by "too fast for conditions," not necessarily above the posted limit.
In accidents where driver error was the cause, speeding also came in last as a causative: the 8% who drove too fast were tied with the 8% who fell asleep or had heart attacks while driving. What's more, the NHTSA's causation percentages are strikingly similar to the percentages found in an independent study conducted by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. In its study of crashes in 2007, the VDoT found that 2.9% were due to speeding -- dead last -- while 3.8%t were due to drivers falling asleep or falling ill at the tiller.
20081215
Can Google be trusted? No
Google cranks up the Consensus Engine
I know that its signifies. This means that the results of searches will be biased rather than objective. For the users, some searches, likely political or controversial topics, will be less reliable. For the searched, they too will be affected and it will only be a matter of time when this will be influence by money to google.
While not what one would typically think of as a media company, Googles delivery of information to users for both news and entertainment does qualify it as a media company of sort. It has thus acquired the same status as most other Mainstream Media outlets, that of bias driven policies.
What we all need and search for is objective truth. Once that was thought to be probable with google searches. Now that is no longer the case. The solution for now is to go beyond the first 2-3 pages of google search results.
HT: Public Secrets
Google this week admitted that its staff will pick and choose what appears in its search results. It's a historic statement - and nobody has yet grasped its significance.
Not so very long ago, Google disclaimed responsibility for its search results by explaining that these were chosen by a computer algorithm. The disclaimer lives on at Google News, where we are assured that:The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.
I know that its signifies. This means that the results of searches will be biased rather than objective. For the users, some searches, likely political or controversial topics, will be less reliable. For the searched, they too will be affected and it will only be a matter of time when this will be influence by money to google.
While not what one would typically think of as a media company, Googles delivery of information to users for both news and entertainment does qualify it as a media company of sort. It has thus acquired the same status as most other Mainstream Media outlets, that of bias driven policies.
What we all need and search for is objective truth. Once that was thought to be probable with google searches. Now that is no longer the case. The solution for now is to go beyond the first 2-3 pages of google search results.
HT: Public Secrets
20081212
Job Economics
Two interesting reads today regarding jobs and economics. Firstly, a review from the MIT Press on a book entitled "Minimum Wages" by David Neumark and William L. Wascher.
Now complement the above with the following article by C Edmund Wright at American Thinker
Those in government, especially the recently elected administration, just do not seem to understand how economic work. While the government intention may be good, their results is far short of good.
In this book, David Neumark and William Wascher offer a comprehensive overview of the evidence on the economic effects of minimum wages. Synthesizing nearly two decades of their own research and reviewing other research that touches on the same questions, Neumark and Wascher discuss the effects of minimum wages on employment and hours, the acquisition of skills, the wage and income distributions, longer-term labor market outcomes, prices, and the aggregate economy. Arguing that the usual focus on employment effects is too limiting, they present a broader, empirically based inquiry that will better inform policymakers about the costs and benefits of the minimum wage.
Based on their comprehensive reading of the evidence, Neumark and Wascher argue that minimum wages do not achieve the main goals set forth by their supporters. They reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers and tend to reduce their earnings; they are not an effective means of reducing poverty; and they appear to have adverse longer-term effects on wages and earnings, in part by reducing the acquisition of human capital. The authors argue that policymakers should instead look for other tools to raise the wages of low-skill workers and to provide poor families with an acceptable standard of living.
Now complement the above with the following article by C Edmund Wright at American Thinker
When the jobs report for November came out last week, many so-called "experts" were shocked at the massive loss of an estimated 533 thousand jobs. Even a Time /CNN organization called "The Curious Capitalists" were at a loss to explain it.
Let me attempt to help out these "curious capitalists" (though I am still skeptical that anyone working for CNN or Time is either curious or a capitalist). I caused part of this job loss and I know precisely why; the election. The results portend big trouble for small business.
The job destruction process has started. We are about 20% of the way through our ramp down process and on schedule to complete the shut down by spring 2009. Watch the financial news and you will see continued job cuts each month. We are not alone in our strategy. Far from it. Atlas has shrugged all over the country.
Like many business owners, we are no longer willing to take all of the financial and legal risks and put up with all of the aggravation of owning and running a business. Not with the prospects of even higher taxes, more regulation, more litigation and more emboldened bureaucrats on the horizon. Like others we know, we are getting out while the getting is, well, tolerable. Many who aren't getting out are scaling back.
Those in government, especially the recently elected administration, just do not seem to understand how economic work. While the government intention may be good, their results is far short of good.
20081209
Illinois/Chicago Politics
When I was writing my previous post on Anh Cao's election over a corrupt African-American Democrat in a district designed for African-American Democrats, I was heartened that voters were able to reject race-party affiliation to vote out corruption. I wondered whether there might be a culture shift away from the corrupt Bayou politics as usual since hurricane Katrina. I also wondered what could change the corruption of Chicago politics short of a natural disaster that might cause harm to the good folks of Chicago. Well since Chicago is known as the Windy city not from the cold winds from Lake Superior but from the hot air of Chicago politics, today Chicago suffered a wind storm with the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. His attempt to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder is astounding in its outright bald face plain and simple corruption! I hope voters there will take a good look at what they have and vote against corruption. If guilty, it is exceedingly unlikely that Blagojevich only became so corrupt once he became governor, instead with near certainty he enter the office with a flawed and corrupt character, the same character that allowed him to rise in political circles to become governor.
And as Obama really is a product of this same system, it really causes me to wonder what is the link between Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Now more than ever I have questions about Obama's character and his ability to judge character of others he associated with.
BTW, I know the capital of Illinois is not Chicago but Springfield but it really is all about Chicago politics even if it plays in Springfield.
And as Obama really is a product of this same system, it really causes me to wonder what is the link between Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Now more than ever I have questions about Obama's character and his ability to judge character of others he associated with.
BTW, I know the capital of Illinois is not Chicago but Springfield but it really is all about Chicago politics even if it plays in Springfield.
20081208
Automakers Bail-out
The big three US are looking to the US government for cheap loans to continue business as is. This would be a mistake for the automakers, the US government, and ultimately the US taxpayers. The first question to be asked in all this is why are the US automakers having a problem being competitive. In manufacturing there are three factors to being successful: cost efficiency of production, quality of product, and appeal of product. Currently the cost efficiency of production for the US automakers is prohibitive. While it cost the foreign automakers about the same to manufacture automobiles in the US, the big three automakers are burdened by legacy payments to retired United Auto Workers union members. This substantially increased the cost of operation for the big three. While it is not necessarily wrong to guarantee retired workers a pension, it was a poor decision to use operational budget for this rather than set up a separate fund/portfolio to do so. Considering that the quality of US autos have improved significantly in the past decade, as well as the appeal of SUVs and pickup trucks remain high for US automakers (their major products rather than passenger cars) I believe this aspect of cost inefficiency to be the primary factor for the big three financial woes at this point. For the US government to bail out the US automakers as is would only perpetuate a broken system and reset the date of failure. (Didn't we bail out Chrysler in the 80s?)
I see two potential solutions.
Firstly, let the automaker fail. The benefit would be that in the restructuring and reconstruction of the automaker, a better and more efficient company would arise that would then be competitive. This is the most free capitalist approach to the problem and sets the best precedence for other large companies facing similar problems. We cannot be bailing large inept companies out over and over again. There can be no true success without a chance of failure. I believe this to be the superior, though harder, solution. Harder to do as well as harder to suffer through. I am skeptical this option will be chosen.
Secondly, the federal government could assume the retirement cost and thus remove the financial burden from the big three automakers, thus allowing them a chance of being cost efficient again. Naturally this sets a poor precedence for future bailouts. However, this allows a political solution for politicians wanting to, or expected to, do something to help. And this option would certainly be more palatable than a hand out to the big three, whether they take on new management of not.
I see two potential solutions.
Firstly, let the automaker fail. The benefit would be that in the restructuring and reconstruction of the automaker, a better and more efficient company would arise that would then be competitive. This is the most free capitalist approach to the problem and sets the best precedence for other large companies facing similar problems. We cannot be bailing large inept companies out over and over again. There can be no true success without a chance of failure. I believe this to be the superior, though harder, solution. Harder to do as well as harder to suffer through. I am skeptical this option will be chosen.
Secondly, the federal government could assume the retirement cost and thus remove the financial burden from the big three automakers, thus allowing them a chance of being cost efficient again. Naturally this sets a poor precedence for future bailouts. However, this allows a political solution for politicians wanting to, or expected to, do something to help. And this option would certainly be more palatable than a hand out to the big three, whether they take on new management of not.
20081207
Anh "Joseph" Cao for Congress: Louisianna's 2nd
Congress's first Vietnamese-American Anh Cao defeated 9 term incumbent William J Jefferson (Louisiana's first black Congressman since the end of Reconstruction). From Wikipedia
Despite this, Jefferson was re-elected. This might have been due to the fact that the district "was specifically drawn to give African-Americans an electoral advantage and one in which two of every three voters are registered Democrats." This naturally make Congressman Cao's victory all the more interesting.
I also not the current happenings in Louisiana's election since Katrina. Perhaps the inept response to Katrina by the established political class of Louisiana, long known for its corrupt ways, was the final straw. Since then, Bobby Jindal has been elected as America's first Indian-American governor. Cao's election appears to represent a similar dissatisfaction with corrupt politics as usual in the Bayou.
HT: Powerline
On 30 July 2005, Jefferson was videotaped by the FBI receiving $100,000 worth of $100 bills in a leather briefcase at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington, Virginia.[9] Jefferson told an investor, Lori Mody, who was wearing a wire, that he would need to give Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar $500,000 "as a motivating factor" to make sure they obtained contracts for iGate and Mody's company in Nigeria.[10]
New Orleans Mardi Gras float satirizing "Dollar" Bill Jefferson
A few days later, on 3 August 2005, FBI agents raided Jefferson's home in Northeast Washington and, as noted in an 83-page affidavit filed to support a subsequent raid on his Congressional office, "found $90,000 of the cash in the freezer, in $10,000 increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers." Serial numbers found on the currency in the freezer matched serial numbers of funds given by the FBI to their informant.
Late on the night of 20 May 2006, FBI agents executed a search warrant[11] at Jefferson's office in the Rayburn House Office Building. This is "believed to be the first-ever FBI raid on a Congressional office,"[12] raising concerns that it could "set a dangerous precedent that could be used by future administrations to intimidate or harass a supposedly coequal branch of the government."[13]
Despite this, Jefferson was re-elected. This might have been due to the fact that the district "was specifically drawn to give African-Americans an electoral advantage and one in which two of every three voters are registered Democrats." This naturally make Congressman Cao's victory all the more interesting.
I also not the current happenings in Louisiana's election since Katrina. Perhaps the inept response to Katrina by the established political class of Louisiana, long known for its corrupt ways, was the final straw. Since then, Bobby Jindal has been elected as America's first Indian-American governor. Cao's election appears to represent a similar dissatisfaction with corrupt politics as usual in the Bayou.
HT: Powerline
20081203
Racism v. Sexism
When confronted with racism, those affected band together to fight back. Sometimes they even win: witness African-Americans & Obama.
When confronted with sexism, women fight among themselves and thus usually end up losing.
When confronted with sexism, women fight among themselves and thus usually end up losing.
20081129
WoT: Mumbai 08
The events in Mumbai are winding down. Bill Roggio has an excellent analysis of the tactical aspect of the terrorist attacks.
What is unclear to me is what was the goal of the attack? Possibilities:
1. The attack was to force India to withdraw from Kashmir. I am skeptical of this one for several reasons. Firstly India has suffered several terrorist attacks before over Kashmir without a change to the status of Kashmir, why would the terrorists expect a different outcome this time? Secondly, the tactical play of this attack appears different. While possible, I do not believe it is probable that this is about Kashmir.
2. The attack was to distrupt and weaken India's center of commerce. This certainly will be a result to some degree but what exactly would be the gain for the terrorists? Only if this would benefit one political party over another. I am skeptical that one political party in India would stoop to such low to gain political power. There was also a possibility that the attack was meant to influence the US election 3 weeks earlier but was post phoned for one reason or another. This one seems least plausible.
3. The attack was to sabotage the warming relationship between India and Pakistan. The Kashmirs would have the most to gain if relationship between India and Pakistan remain contentious. The Pakistani intelligence agency remains implicated in training the Mumbai terrorists. I think this is the most plausible.
4. One step further than thought #3 is that rogue elements of the Pakistani intelligence service are trying to push India and Pakistan toward actual war. Win or lose, and especially a likely stalemate, these elements would then take the opportunity to seize Pakistan, supported by Taliban elements in the Northwest territories of Pakistan and disgruntled elements of the Pakistani army. I would think that even rogue Pakistani intelligence elements would think this is too risky.
5. Conspiracy ideation might run along the line that the entire Mumbai attack was a red-herring. That not even the participating terrorists knew what the real plan was. The real plan could have been to grab something or someone else in Mumbai proper, or even elsewhere in India. By grab it could be grab to take or grab to kill. If the true target was that sensitive, I am uncertain that we would know anytime soon. Since this is already conspiracy laced thoughts, there is no need to further delve deeper into what the true target may have been. Intriguing never the less.
Update
6. A Powerline post suggests another possibility in direct opposition to #3 and #4. That is, the Pakistani intelligence agency is acting in full accordance with the Pakistani government to weaken India, perhaps in continued desire to gain territory like Kashmir, or to see the down fall of India in general. Why are they then also seeking rapproachment with India? To obtain cover for their true goal. Could Pakistan approach be like the Palestinians, that is negotiation with Israel continues while bombing to destroy Israel continues?
What is unclear to me is what was the goal of the attack? Possibilities:
1. The attack was to force India to withdraw from Kashmir. I am skeptical of this one for several reasons. Firstly India has suffered several terrorist attacks before over Kashmir without a change to the status of Kashmir, why would the terrorists expect a different outcome this time? Secondly, the tactical play of this attack appears different. While possible, I do not believe it is probable that this is about Kashmir.
2. The attack was to distrupt and weaken India's center of commerce. This certainly will be a result to some degree but what exactly would be the gain for the terrorists? Only if this would benefit one political party over another. I am skeptical that one political party in India would stoop to such low to gain political power. There was also a possibility that the attack was meant to influence the US election 3 weeks earlier but was post phoned for one reason or another. This one seems least plausible.
3. The attack was to sabotage the warming relationship between India and Pakistan. The Kashmirs would have the most to gain if relationship between India and Pakistan remain contentious. The Pakistani intelligence agency remains implicated in training the Mumbai terrorists. I think this is the most plausible.
4. One step further than thought #3 is that rogue elements of the Pakistani intelligence service are trying to push India and Pakistan toward actual war. Win or lose, and especially a likely stalemate, these elements would then take the opportunity to seize Pakistan, supported by Taliban elements in the Northwest territories of Pakistan and disgruntled elements of the Pakistani army. I would think that even rogue Pakistani intelligence elements would think this is too risky.
5. Conspiracy ideation might run along the line that the entire Mumbai attack was a red-herring. That not even the participating terrorists knew what the real plan was. The real plan could have been to grab something or someone else in Mumbai proper, or even elsewhere in India. By grab it could be grab to take or grab to kill. If the true target was that sensitive, I am uncertain that we would know anytime soon. Since this is already conspiracy laced thoughts, there is no need to further delve deeper into what the true target may have been. Intriguing never the less.
Update
6. A Powerline post suggests another possibility in direct opposition to #3 and #4. That is, the Pakistani intelligence agency is acting in full accordance with the Pakistani government to weaken India, perhaps in continued desire to gain territory like Kashmir, or to see the down fall of India in general. Why are they then also seeking rapproachment with India? To obtain cover for their true goal. Could Pakistan approach be like the Palestinians, that is negotiation with Israel continues while bombing to destroy Israel continues?
20081127
20081124
2010 Election: Census for 2012
The Republican Party needs to regroup and regroup fast. While there has been an argument to make the party more centrists, I think this argument is lost both on value and sentiments. The Republican Party cannot win more votes if it disenfranchises its most active (in terms of word of mouth support as well as get out the vote effort) faction, the Christian conservatives. Every poll thus far have suggested that the Republican voters want to make the party more conservative, more right leaning rather center leaning. Those who can still remain Republican with this shift should do so, those who cannot should consider whether the Democrats or the Libertarians have what it takes to win their vote, or even whether they should sit out of the next election. Meanwhile the Republicans should proceed with preparations for the 2010 state elections because this election will have at least a decade long consequence.
Why are the 2010 state elections so important? Because the next census will be conducted in 2010, and electoral changes will be reflected in the 2012 election. That means who ever is in charge of the states when the districts are redrawn will be doing so.
From Wikipedia the following states are expected to change:
Obviously more effort should be placed in states expected to gain, but even effort will be required in states expected to lose as their congressional district map will also be redrawn.
Considerations regarding priority should also weigh which states will Republicans have the best chances. For this I referenced Jay Cost's recent post on 2008 polarization of the PotUS election. I recognize that many states may have voted for Obama that remain in Republican control but Jay's evaluation looks at how far the state population voted away from the national mean, thus providing a window at the trend for these states. From his analysis, I then categorized states as either red or blue, the remainder are listed as neutral leaners.
Thus cross referring the expected 2010 census winners and Jay's analysis i get the following:
I ranked neutral states gaining representations first because these states will also be in play for the Democrats, thus these states are where the Republicans must make the greatest efforts. Second is the state (Utah) where Republican will likely win if sufficient attention and effort is made. Third are neutral states where the Republicans cannot lose if they do not want to be redistricted out of representation. Fourth is the state (Louisiana) where Republicans will likely maintain representations as long as they can maintain control. Note that no solid Blue states are expected to gain or lose representation.
For Democrats, they too will focus on the neutral states expected to gain or lose. But because none of the Blue states are expected to gain or lose, they will be able to place resources to win in Red states changing.
Neutral states that leaned red expecting to gain representations are Texas (4), Arizona (2), Georgia (1), South Carolina (1), and Utah (1) for a total of 9. Neutral states that leaned blue expecting to gain representation are Florida (2), Nevada (1), North Carolina (1), and Oregon (1) for a total of 5. For the moment if we assume that the new district goes along with the color of the states, this would mean a net gain of 4 for Republicans.
Neutral states that leaned red expecting to lose representations are Louisiana (1), and Missouri (1) for a total 2. Neutral states that leaned blue expecting to lose representations are New York (2), Ohio (2), California (1), Illinois (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), New Jersey (1), and Pennsylvania (1) for a total of 11. Assuming that the party in power based on the state leaning redraws the map to exclude their political opponent, this means a potential net loss of up to 9 congressional seats for the Republicans.
If the Republicans cannot control the redrawing of the congressional district, they could lose an upward of 5 seats before 2012 election season even roll around.
Why are the 2010 state elections so important? Because the next census will be conducted in 2010, and electoral changes will be reflected in the 2012 election. That means who ever is in charge of the states when the districts are redrawn will be doing so.
From Wikipedia the following states are expected to change:
Probable Gainers:
Texas (4)
Arizona (2)
Florida (2)
Georgia (1)
Nevada (1)
North Carolina (1)
Oregon (1)
South Carolina (1)
Utah (1)
Probable Losers:
New York (2)
Ohio (2)
California (1)
Illinois (1)
Louisiana (1)
Massachusetts (1)
Michigan (1)
Minnesota (1)
Missouri (1)
New Jersey (1)
Pennsylvania (1)
Iowa (1)
Obviously more effort should be placed in states expected to gain, but even effort will be required in states expected to lose as their congressional district map will also be redrawn.
Considerations regarding priority should also weigh which states will Republicans have the best chances. For this I referenced Jay Cost's recent post on 2008 polarization of the PotUS election. I recognize that many states may have voted for Obama that remain in Republican control but Jay's evaluation looks at how far the state population voted away from the national mean, thus providing a window at the trend for these states. From his analysis, I then categorized states as either red or blue, the remainder are listed as neutral leaners.
Thus cross referring the expected 2010 census winners and Jay's analysis i get the following:
1. Neutral states gaining representations: Texas (4), Arizona (2), Florida(2), Georgia (1), Nevada (1), North Carolina (1), Oregon (1), and South Carolina (1)
2. Red state gaining representations: Utah (1)
3. Neutral states losing representations: New York (2), Ohio (2), California (1), Illinois (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Missouri (1), New Jersey (1), Pennsylvania (1), and Iowa (1)
4. Red state losing representations: Louisiana (1),
5. Blue states gaining representations: none
6. Blue states losing representations: none
I ranked neutral states gaining representations first because these states will also be in play for the Democrats, thus these states are where the Republicans must make the greatest efforts. Second is the state (Utah) where Republican will likely win if sufficient attention and effort is made. Third are neutral states where the Republicans cannot lose if they do not want to be redistricted out of representation. Fourth is the state (Louisiana) where Republicans will likely maintain representations as long as they can maintain control. Note that no solid Blue states are expected to gain or lose representation.
For Democrats, they too will focus on the neutral states expected to gain or lose. But because none of the Blue states are expected to gain or lose, they will be able to place resources to win in Red states changing.
Neutral states that leaned red expecting to gain representations are Texas (4), Arizona (2), Georgia (1), South Carolina (1), and Utah (1) for a total of 9. Neutral states that leaned blue expecting to gain representation are Florida (2), Nevada (1), North Carolina (1), and Oregon (1) for a total of 5. For the moment if we assume that the new district goes along with the color of the states, this would mean a net gain of 4 for Republicans.
Neutral states that leaned red expecting to lose representations are Louisiana (1), and Missouri (1) for a total 2. Neutral states that leaned blue expecting to lose representations are New York (2), Ohio (2), California (1), Illinois (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), New Jersey (1), and Pennsylvania (1) for a total of 11. Assuming that the party in power based on the state leaning redraws the map to exclude their political opponent, this means a potential net loss of up to 9 congressional seats for the Republicans.
If the Republicans cannot control the redrawing of the congressional district, they could lose an upward of 5 seats before 2012 election season even roll around.
20081122
Victory in Iraq
In the days leading up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, I was against the invasion. I was against it because I could not understand what would have been the gain for the US. Like most others, I thought we should first finish our effort in Afghanistan.
But instead of believing the MSM, or even the Bush administration, I sought to figure it out for myself. These were still times when 911 felt fresh. I started out asking why we were attacked. Did US involvement (our purchase of Middle Eastern oil) not bring wealth to an area not seen good times since the fall of the Ottoman Empire? Many ideas were proposed. I quickly rejected the idea that as victim we were responsible or deserved to be attacked. I also rejected the premise that poverty and ignorance led the terrorists to attack us. No, they were mostly middle class or higher, and for the most part college educated. Why then did these men not made a success of themselves in their own town and nations? As I looked deeper, it became clear that despite the veneer of civility, the people of the Middle East, Arabs in particular, were an oppressed bunch. Politically, all the nation states of the Middle East were authoritarian.
At the same time, the few voices opposing the war suggested that the Iraqis could not possibly govern themselves should we liberated them, that we cannot and should not "impose" democracy on Iraqis. I was struck by how elitist and even racists these Western voices were. Were the Germans not similarly disposed as unfit for democracy as evidence by their actions during WW2? Same with Japan? And are these not among the stalwarts of Democracy in the 21st century?
Sometimes an idea is so obvious and commonplace that it is taken for granted, and not even register or appreciated. That idea is that all men crave self-determination once the basic securities of food and shelter are obtained. That like the Germans, the Japanese, and even the Vietnamese, when given the opportunity and freedom for self-determination over their lives, most will gladly do so. A people's political voices cannot be suppressed for long. This came to me like an epiphany.
The Arab voices had been muffled in the Middle East for a long time. It is one thing to speak up in dissent and ask for change away from oppression, taking great personal risk of liberty and life to do so, it is another to do the same and take great risk of liberty and life of your family and friend. When people cannot speak out directly at home, in one's community, one's nation, then people finds alternative outlet. For most Arabs, it became easier to accept the harsh reality of the present and work toward a better afterlife as promised in Islam. For small few, having moved through Islam, the choice was to strike back at their own government. It isn't Islam per se, but politics in the name of Islam. For these Arabs, these would be terrorists, they sought change not for greater liberty, they sought change to empower their own politicalization of Islam. They are Islamofascists.
How would the Islamofascist strike back at their own government, weaken their government and empower themselves while keeping friends and family relatively safe? By only indirectly attacking their own government, and do it away from their own nations. How would these few act against their government indirectly? By attacking what keep their government going and in power. And thus it became obvious to me that when the terrorists attacked us on 911, it was to force us to reconfigure our support for Middle Eastern regimes, perhaps even withdraw from the region entirely.
Given our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, nay, given the whole world's economy reliance on Middle Eastern oil, the US cannot withdraw from the Middle East. Could we then reconfigure our relationship with these authoritarian regimes and push for greater liberty and democracy? We have been for quite some times without much success. Never the less, this could never be the solution because no nation state ever want to be told how to be by a foreign power. But there was an alternative. Iraq was technically in a state of war, with a ceasefire intermittently broken.
Iraq was an opportunity to directly transform a political process of a nation toward democracy. There is hopeful reason to believe that a free and democratic Iraq could transform the entirety of the Middle East, just as a democratic Japan has done for the Far East and Germany had done for Central Europe. It was a huge gambit that would take years to accomplish and decades to take effect. Victory in Iraq and transformation of the Middle East certainly not guaranteed. I saw the Iraq war as an opportunity of great transformational and historical power. A gambit that earned my awe and respect for the strategic thinking involved.
I understood that the hunt for Osama bin Laden would be a dead end. As soon as we kill him, another would rise in his place, declare bin Laden a Martyr, and continue their Islamofascist plans without him. Only through culture and political transformation can we eliminate their raison d'etre and limit their appeal and recruitment power (financially or manpower wise). I also understood immediately that Iraq as the transforming nidus of the Middle East policy could never openly be declared as our reason, motive, or goal in resuming military action against Sadam Hussein's regime. The world will not tolerate the arrogance of the US stepping into the Middle East with the strategic goal of transforming the regional governments. They did not even want the US to remove the homicidal dictator of Iraq!
I thus tolerated the pretext of weapons of mass destruction on Iraq's part to nullify the ceasefire. I also tolerated the apparent meme of war for oil, because it really wasn't for oil but about oil. Such fine but important difference would not be appreciated.
After the Iraq invasion started March of 2003, I understood that the success or failure of the endeavor to transform the Middle East via democratization of Iraq cannot be known until at least five years have passed. A few months over the five-year mark, I believe Iraq should now be seen as a success for Democracy. Today, November 22, 2008 is Victory in Iraq. Does this mean that a Democratic Iraq will transform the region? I hope so, but I doubt we will understand whether this happen or not for at least a decade.
20081120
Global Cooling
The bad news for global warming alarmists just keeps rolling in. Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The majority of data presented below is from just the past few weeks. Also see: U.S. Senate Minority Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists (and rapidly growing) Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007” & ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008 - July 18, 2008 & An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists.
Amusing.
I have always considered the "global warming" craze a fad similar to the "global overpopulation" craze in the 1960s.
Amusing.
I have always considered the "global warming" craze a fad similar to the "global overpopulation" craze in the 1960s.
20081116
Republican Party: Abandon the Evangelical and Shift to Center?
The point of a political party should not be about winning elections, nor should it be about pandering to the voters. The point of a political party is to enact positive change to our nation, and that means moving the middle away from the middle. The left understood this very well, why do we not? By moving toward the middle and abandoning out core principles we deserve to lose each and every time.
I am not religious. I do not see the evangelical faction of the Republican party pushing God onto the agenda. I see them as pushing a pro-life and pro-family agenda and i have no problem with either of these. Even as a libertarian the government still has to protect its weakest members and maintain the most basic unit of our society and community.
Having said this, I think the party should push these on the State level. Abortion is not and should not be a federal issue. It has no place in our constitution and all powers not explicitly given to the feds in the constitution belongs to the state. We should leave it there.
I would say the same of marriage. Having said that, I also think marriage should be a church issue and make civil unions a legal issue. I personally think civil union legal rights should only be given to families (i.e. couples with kids), whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual).
The party should continue to push for strong nation defense primarily on the national level. Other aspects of the Republican principles like small government, fiscal responsibility, economic opportunity, and personal responsibility apply equally to State and Federal levels.
I am not religious. I do not see the evangelical faction of the Republican party pushing God onto the agenda. I see them as pushing a pro-life and pro-family agenda and i have no problem with either of these. Even as a libertarian the government still has to protect its weakest members and maintain the most basic unit of our society and community.
Having said this, I think the party should push these on the State level. Abortion is not and should not be a federal issue. It has no place in our constitution and all powers not explicitly given to the feds in the constitution belongs to the state. We should leave it there.
I would say the same of marriage. Having said that, I also think marriage should be a church issue and make civil unions a legal issue. I personally think civil union legal rights should only be given to families (i.e. couples with kids), whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual).
The party should continue to push for strong nation defense primarily on the national level. Other aspects of the Republican principles like small government, fiscal responsibility, economic opportunity, and personal responsibility apply equally to State and Federal levels.
20081114
Internet Boycott
I have decided to boycott some of the more liberally biased media. I will no longer post any link or follow any link to the NYT, LAT, or CNBC/NBC. I am contemplating CNN, FN, and WaPo as well. Everytime anyone goes to one of their web page, they gain in ad revenues. I cannot support that. I encourage all of you to boycott them as well.
Since they have no idea whether I am watching their TV network, this naturally does not affect that medium.
Since they have no idea whether I am watching their TV network, this naturally does not affect that medium.
20081113
Emotional Thoughts
I think the intolerance of the left is due to two factors. Probably not limited to the left but currently surprisingly common on the left. Firstly is the idea that what they think reality is is what reality is, rather than matching reality to thought. Some of this is pure hubris of course. (The opposite of course has its flaws as well, as what we see isn't always what it is either), Secondly is the tendency for those on the left to respond emotionally. This certainly is not limited to the left but definitely some people are more emotional than others.
Naturally the adage "moderation in all things" should be considered. A healthy skepticism should always be maintained, that what you think may or may not be true and what you see may be all that is, or not. Only with skepticism can critical analysis be conducted. And the greatest enemy to skepticism is bias.
Regarding emotion, it adds value and quality to life. Like flavor and color. But it should not and cannot not replace what it is tied to, is not in itself value. And thus when one's idea is challenged, the idea has to be allowed to defend itself unarmored by emotions. Because emotion binds and bias the idea from truth.
Surprising though how some can imbue abstract thoughts with emotional values. Perhaps the surprise is really I, being able to compartmentalize and keep the two separate.
Thought for the post: when Descartes say "I think therefore I am" how can he be certain this is not just a close loop process of his programmed computer head rather him as a sentient and independent entity?
Naturally the adage "moderation in all things" should be considered. A healthy skepticism should always be maintained, that what you think may or may not be true and what you see may be all that is, or not. Only with skepticism can critical analysis be conducted. And the greatest enemy to skepticism is bias.
Regarding emotion, it adds value and quality to life. Like flavor and color. But it should not and cannot not replace what it is tied to, is not in itself value. And thus when one's idea is challenged, the idea has to be allowed to defend itself unarmored by emotions. Because emotion binds and bias the idea from truth.
Surprising though how some can imbue abstract thoughts with emotional values. Perhaps the surprise is really I, being able to compartmentalize and keep the two separate.
Thought for the post: when Descartes say "I think therefore I am" how can he be certain this is not just a close loop process of his programmed computer head rather him as a sentient and independent entity?
20081111
Palin: Energy Conservation & Independence
To Governor Sarah Palin,
Now that you have returned to Alaska and resume work as Governor, I thank you for all the hard work and resilience you have demonstrated as our VP candidate. Please take the next few months off to relax, unwind, and enjoy the holidays. But come the New Year I hope you will take some time to consider whether you want to return to national politics. I like millions others hope you will. Toward this hope I have a few thoughts to share should you are interested.
Firstly, govern well. By that I mean take good care of the people of Alaska especially as we as a nation enter difficult times. In doing so, I hope you will be attentive to political principles that work and those that do not. I hope some of the principles you find productive would include principles many conservatives and Republicans are fond of, including conservative fiscal policy, small government footprint in American lives, fair economic opportunities for employers and employees, the promotion of a culture of personal responsibility in and out of government, and the continued recognition that a strong nation requires preservation of traditional families.
Secondly, consider forming a political action committee (or a 527) for Energy Conservation and Independence. On the most basic level, this will allow continued involvement nationally on a topic that touches all American lives. Locally energy conservation means exploring “green” renewable energy sources, thus providing credentials on environmentalism. Such an organization will also provide the opportunity to become an expert on a vital topic that spans and binds the international community. There are global energy exporters who are America’s friends (Canada, Mexico, Norway), foes (Iran, Russia, Venezuela) and associates in between (Africa, Central Asia, the Middle East). How these nations energy income has affected their influence regionally and globally? There are also net energy importers like China, Japan, and India. How will the competition for energy affect their relationship with the US, both as current competitors and as potential collaborators? As part of the organization’s activities, conduct fact-finding trips over sea. Once there see first hand how, in addition to energy economic, nationalism and religious ideologies are driving these nation motives and actions.
Thirdly, with the accumulated experience gained, hone and refine a philosophy of governance and politics. The best philosophy is one easily understood and readily appealing to the public (your base, the independents, as well as the opposition) of Middle America as a whole. It should also be well supported by a record of evidence that the intellectuals would and should appreciate. Maybe write a book providing how your vision and philosophy could positively transform America.
Fourthly, build political alliances. Identify candidates for political offices nationwide, red states and blue states, you respect and agree with. Through you political action committee provide energy expertise, campaign support, or even personal appearances and endorsement. But even more importantly cultivate and maintain contact with the rank and file who remain excited about your potential candidacy. These regular folks, me included, love you because we feel you are one of us and speak for us. We will certainly need to be organized and rallied to provide the ground game for any national campaign for you when the time comes.
Finally, contemplate why and how you appeal to the base as well as why so many on the left have become deranged over you. Accentuate your positives and attenuate your negatives but always remain true to yourself, and those who believe in you.
Best wishes for the future.
Political Party & Elections
With the recent 2008 election losses, some commenter have suggested that the Republican Party become more centrist in order to win. I think this misses the point of political parties in general. If the goal of any political party is to win election, then it is only about empowering some to lead others. Shouldn't we be primarily concerned about where we are being led to? It has to be about ideology first.
And if the party's ideology is in tune with the center, then how can any candidate from that party even possibly be leading rather than just manage the status quo once elected. Now if the status quo is great, then we may not want to expend the effort to make things better. But i assure you that things can be better. And once the premise that things can be better, then you have to ask how can you enact policies to change and make things better. And as soon as you do so, then you are proposing non-centrist ideas.
The goal then of any party is to suggest actionable plan that appeals to the center, to be adopted by the center, to make the party ideals mainstream. When this occur, it is not the party becoming more mainstream, it is actually the center being shifted toward the party's ideology. Thus in order for a party to be successful, it must have non-mainstream non-centrist ideas. However, if the party actionable plan is too extreme, then it will not appeal to the center. Society adopt changes very slowly.
In a previous post i suggested some principles the Republican party should adhere to, cultivate, and build upon.
These may not be new ideas, but they are great ideas have made our nation great and should continue to guide our nation forward. These ideas continue to appeal and resonate with most Americans. Thus the solution for the Republican party to win elections is not to become more centrist. Rather, it is for the Republicans to offer and deliver meaningful changes and improvement to America that remain congruous to these principles.
And if the party's ideology is in tune with the center, then how can any candidate from that party even possibly be leading rather than just manage the status quo once elected. Now if the status quo is great, then we may not want to expend the effort to make things better. But i assure you that things can be better. And once the premise that things can be better, then you have to ask how can you enact policies to change and make things better. And as soon as you do so, then you are proposing non-centrist ideas.
The goal then of any party is to suggest actionable plan that appeals to the center, to be adopted by the center, to make the party ideals mainstream. When this occur, it is not the party becoming more mainstream, it is actually the center being shifted toward the party's ideology. Thus in order for a party to be successful, it must have non-mainstream non-centrist ideas. However, if the party actionable plan is too extreme, then it will not appeal to the center. Society adopt changes very slowly.
In a previous post i suggested some principles the Republican party should adhere to, cultivate, and build upon.
Strong National Defense
Small Government in Society
Conservative Fiscal Policy
Fair Economic Opportunity
Culture of Personal Responsibility
Traditional Family Value
These may not be new ideas, but they are great ideas have made our nation great and should continue to guide our nation forward. These ideas continue to appeal and resonate with most Americans. Thus the solution for the Republican party to win elections is not to become more centrist. Rather, it is for the Republicans to offer and deliver meaningful changes and improvement to America that remain congruous to these principles.
20081110
Rebuild the Party
From Rebuild the Party.com
There is much more. Read it all then join in on the effort.
As Republicans, we face a choice.
Either we can spend the next several months -- or years -- trying to figure out what just happened, excusing our defeat away as a temporary blip or the result of a poor environment, and waiting for Barack Obama to trip up. Or we can refuse to take this defeat lying down, and start building the future of our party now.
2008 made one thing clear: if allowed to go unchecked, the Democrats' structural advantages, including their use of the Internet, their more than 2-to-1 advantage with young voters, their discovery of a better grassroots model -- will be as big a threat to the future of the GOP as the toxic political environment we have faced the last few years.
The time is now to set in motion the changes needed to rebuild our party from the grassroots up, modernize the way we run campaigns, and attract different, energetic, and younger candidates at all levels.
There is much more. Read it all then join in on the effort.
Intellectualism: thinkers vs. doers
The problem with some intellectuals, usually professors and pundits, is that they think being smart and showing how smart they are is enough to change the world. It isn't. To change the world and make life better for your fellow men and women requires a good idea that is actionable, followed by the hard work necessary to act, and the resolve to endure adversities and resistance to the goal. Most elitists do not understand this and thus tend to look down on the doers as being inferior intellectually.
I am reminded of this in medicine. In the field of medicine there are two kinds of doctors, proceduralists (like surgeons) and non-proceduralists (like internists). Internists tend to think they are smarter than surgeons and tend to look down on surgeons as mere technicians. But it is actually harder to become a surgeon (grades and skills) than to become an internist. I am not saying internists aren't smart, just that the impression they hold of their own intellectual superiority is incorrect.
Related post: Political Elitism
I am reminded of this in medicine. In the field of medicine there are two kinds of doctors, proceduralists (like surgeons) and non-proceduralists (like internists). Internists tend to think they are smarter than surgeons and tend to look down on surgeons as mere technicians. But it is actually harder to become a surgeon (grades and skills) than to become an internist. I am not saying internists aren't smart, just that the impression they hold of their own intellectual superiority is incorrect.
Related post: Political Elitism
20081109
Mainstream Media
In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq the MSM was pretty much committed to promoting the invasion. Afterward, they became rather critical of their lack of critical evaluation of the justifications for war. More recently the MSM promoted the candidacy of Obama without much critical evaluation of who he is and where he stands on the issues. I wonder how long it will be before they come the regret their Obama worship.
It is not MSM bias that should concern us all. Everyone has bias. I am certain even they are aware of their bias. What should concern us all is the fact that the MSM are so gullible. Or perhaps even worse, that they know it and still feel compelled to go forward.
It is not MSM bias that should concern us all. Everyone has bias. I am certain even they are aware of their bias. What should concern us all is the fact that the MSM are so gullible. Or perhaps even worse, that they know it and still feel compelled to go forward.
20081108
My Political Party
As part of my on going “back to the blackboard” rethinking of everything (political), I want to work out some ideas on what and how I want my political party to work. When I say “my” what I mean is the party I want to be a part of rather than having my own political party.
Firstly, I want to know what are our core principles. I want these principles enshrined in the party's charter or its constitution. The principles that matter to me, and ones that I also believe to have broad appeals are:
These may not be new ideas, but they are great ideas have made our nation great and should continue to guide our nation forward. The current issues and challenges should always be considered, referenced and debated on these core principles. While these should be our principles, our actions should remain decisive, ethical and magnanimous. Our means must be compatible with our goals.
Secondly our spending priorities should be:
Thirdly I would like the party to interact more with its members. The party cannot be just about fund raising and votes. I would like to see that every year (or every other year) a convention is held for party members. During this convention current stance in response to current issues and challenges should be addressed. Proponents and opponents should debate where and how the party should respond. Then the members (those present and over the net) votes and thus party positions delineated and updated. Politicians can also make announcement for the upcoming year.
Fourthly political candidates for the party should be judged based on how close they are to the core principles of the party. Their appeals are determined through a series of state level election. The states should be grouped regionally; one state from each region would then hold its primary election each month. Allow a few weeks for the candidates to debate, retool, hold rallies, and then repeat with a new set of states, again one from each region. The states within each regional group can decide among themselves what order they shall hold their primary election. Likely I would prefer that each primary election is limited to party members but at the same time, each primary election should also serve as recruiting opportunity for non-members to join up and thus vote.
What I do not want my party to be a hateful opposition party. When they other party cannot do something, we should take no glee if the America would suffer for it, we should say we can do it. When they do something right, we don’t say that it was no good, we say we can do better. I also do not want my party to be into identity politics. We should court Hispanics because they share many of our principles of small government, conservative fiscal policy, and economic opportunity. We should reach out to African-Americans because only through returning to traditional family value, accepting a culture of personal responsibility, and embracing economic opportunity can they be strong and free. We should stop bashing gays. We should be pro-immigration and come up with a new term for “illegal immigrants.” We cannot be viewed as an anti-minority or anti-immigrant party.
The funny thing is that I have never truly identified myself as a Republican until this election. I voted for W and have been fairly happy with him (I am primarily a Strong National Defense guy) and since he won, I could remain an independent. I was never really all that into McCain until Palin. Now that the Democrats are in power I figure the best way get them out of power is to throw my lot in, for now at least, with the Republicans. And if the Republicans do not offer me participation other than my vote, then I will still judge each candidate based on my party platform and vote appropriately.
Firstly, I want to know what are our core principles. I want these principles enshrined in the party's charter or its constitution. The principles that matter to me, and ones that I also believe to have broad appeals are:
Strong National Defense
Small Government in Society
Conservative Fiscal Policy
Fair Economic Opportunity
Culture of Personal Responsibility
Traditional Family Value
These may not be new ideas, but they are great ideas have made our nation great and should continue to guide our nation forward. The current issues and challenges should always be considered, referenced and debated on these core principles. While these should be our principles, our actions should remain decisive, ethical and magnanimous. Our means must be compatible with our goals.
Secondly our spending priorities should be:
1. Fund our party organization and groups on all college campus. They will be the future of the party. Even if they don’t, an educated voter is much preferred over an ignorant one.
2. Develop a 50 states effort. If we give up states like California, Washington, and New York we will never win.
3. Fund election campaign. How much funding support should consider the candidate compatibility with party principles, appeal to party members, and electability.
4. Fund charity projects. Our ultimate goal through politics is a stronger and better America, but crisis will develop that will transcend politics. We have to demonstrate we care for more than political power.
5. Fund research projects. We need proof that our principles as applied to the issues are actionable, effective and beneficial.
Thirdly I would like the party to interact more with its members. The party cannot be just about fund raising and votes. I would like to see that every year (or every other year) a convention is held for party members. During this convention current stance in response to current issues and challenges should be addressed. Proponents and opponents should debate where and how the party should respond. Then the members (those present and over the net) votes and thus party positions delineated and updated. Politicians can also make announcement for the upcoming year.
Fourthly political candidates for the party should be judged based on how close they are to the core principles of the party. Their appeals are determined through a series of state level election. The states should be grouped regionally; one state from each region would then hold its primary election each month. Allow a few weeks for the candidates to debate, retool, hold rallies, and then repeat with a new set of states, again one from each region. The states within each regional group can decide among themselves what order they shall hold their primary election. Likely I would prefer that each primary election is limited to party members but at the same time, each primary election should also serve as recruiting opportunity for non-members to join up and thus vote.
What I do not want my party to be a hateful opposition party. When they other party cannot do something, we should take no glee if the America would suffer for it, we should say we can do it. When they do something right, we don’t say that it was no good, we say we can do better. I also do not want my party to be into identity politics. We should court Hispanics because they share many of our principles of small government, conservative fiscal policy, and economic opportunity. We should reach out to African-Americans because only through returning to traditional family value, accepting a culture of personal responsibility, and embracing economic opportunity can they be strong and free. We should stop bashing gays. We should be pro-immigration and come up with a new term for “illegal immigrants.” We cannot be viewed as an anti-minority or anti-immigrant party.
The funny thing is that I have never truly identified myself as a Republican until this election. I voted for W and have been fairly happy with him (I am primarily a Strong National Defense guy) and since he won, I could remain an independent. I was never really all that into McCain until Palin. Now that the Democrats are in power I figure the best way get them out of power is to throw my lot in, for now at least, with the Republicans. And if the Republicans do not offer me participation other than my vote, then I will still judge each candidate based on my party platform and vote appropriately.
20081105
Conservatives & Republicans
Conservatives and Republicans are not synonymous. The contentious line between the two will only be highlighted with this election losses. There has been consideration for Republicans to build a bigger tent to get more independent voters. Conservatives have considered moving to form their own party that better represent their thoughts. And then there are the Libertarians, with many similar ideologies.
I believe the Republicans should continue to be a political machinery to elect candidates. I believe the Republicans should be a party of strong national defense, sound fiscal policies, small government, personal responsibility, economic opportunity, and family value.
I believe if people can identify personally with 3 or 4 of these six platform, then they should be welcomed into the party, as long as there will not be compromises on the other 2 or 3 platforms. Then we can have that big tent without driving away conservatives or independents. I do not believe there needs to be or should be a split between Conservatives and Republicans. I also believe that it would be a good thing for the Republican Party and conservatives to continue to have some differences of opinion as a contest of ideas can only make both stronger.
I believe the party should also reach out to Libertarians for similar reasons.
I believe the Republicans should continue to be a political machinery to elect candidates. I believe the Republicans should be a party of strong national defense, sound fiscal policies, small government, personal responsibility, economic opportunity, and family value.
I believe if people can identify personally with 3 or 4 of these six platform, then they should be welcomed into the party, as long as there will not be compromises on the other 2 or 3 platforms. Then we can have that big tent without driving away conservatives or independents. I do not believe there needs to be or should be a split between Conservatives and Republicans. I also believe that it would be a good thing for the Republican Party and conservatives to continue to have some differences of opinion as a contest of ideas can only make both stronger.
I believe the party should also reach out to Libertarians for similar reasons.
Nov 5, 2008: The Day After
Well despite my best hope and wishes, my candidate did not win. First thing first, congratulation to Obama for a historic win. I can only hope he will do his best for this country. Now on to the analysis.
Why McCain lost.
1. He could not effectively communicate his hopes and goals for America under his leadership.
2. He ran a bi-partisan campaign in a partisan election.
3. He was a foreign policy expert when the country needed an economic expert (he should have voted against the bail-out bill)
(4. Bush failed to effectively explain his actions and allowed his good work to be misrepresented)
Why Obama won.
1. The country was ready for change, and bought his message.
2. He effectively presented himself as a template for voters to leave their own impression on who he is
3. He had the money to win.
What comes next.
1. The Democrats do not have super majority in the Senate or the House. This is the brightest spot for Republicans and Conservatives.
2. The Republicans will need to regroup for 2010. There will be finger pointing and there will be skirmishes. I will look more into this later.
3. Sarah Palin will have to decide what she wants to do regarding 2012. If she wants to run for the nomination, then she will have to start the preparation now, define her her political philosophy, gather her supporters, build her network, accumulate both foreign policy and economic credentials, and start thinking strategy and tactics for 2012. In many way, as a Palin supporter, I do feel that last night loss will allow Palin to campaign as an outsider running against the DC establishment in 2012. This is a small bright spot. Currently, if she does win the party nomination in 2012, I think she should pick a reform minded congressman or senator from California or Florida, perhaps a Hispanic? I will definitely have more thoughts on Palin in the next 4 years.
Again, last night was a huge disappointment. But there are also opportunities to be grabbed for the future.
Final thought. The biggest problem with racism in the US is not bigotry but the culture of victimhood when you are a minority. i hope that with Obama's win there will be less "woe is me because America is KKK."
Why McCain lost.
1. He could not effectively communicate his hopes and goals for America under his leadership.
2. He ran a bi-partisan campaign in a partisan election.
3. He was a foreign policy expert when the country needed an economic expert (he should have voted against the bail-out bill)
(4. Bush failed to effectively explain his actions and allowed his good work to be misrepresented)
Why Obama won.
1. The country was ready for change, and bought his message.
2. He effectively presented himself as a template for voters to leave their own impression on who he is
3. He had the money to win.
What comes next.
1. The Democrats do not have super majority in the Senate or the House. This is the brightest spot for Republicans and Conservatives.
2. The Republicans will need to regroup for 2010. There will be finger pointing and there will be skirmishes. I will look more into this later.
3. Sarah Palin will have to decide what she wants to do regarding 2012. If she wants to run for the nomination, then she will have to start the preparation now, define her her political philosophy, gather her supporters, build her network, accumulate both foreign policy and economic credentials, and start thinking strategy and tactics for 2012. In many way, as a Palin supporter, I do feel that last night loss will allow Palin to campaign as an outsider running against the DC establishment in 2012. This is a small bright spot. Currently, if she does win the party nomination in 2012, I think she should pick a reform minded congressman or senator from California or Florida, perhaps a Hispanic? I will definitely have more thoughts on Palin in the next 4 years.
Again, last night was a huge disappointment. But there are also opportunities to be grabbed for the future.
Final thought. The biggest problem with racism in the US is not bigotry but the culture of victimhood when you are a minority. i hope that with Obama's win there will be less "woe is me because America is KKK."
20081104
2008 Presidential Campaign Analysis
This post from Malstrom is absolutely the best thought out and insightful analysis of this presidential election campaign i have ever read. It is long but all great.
Highlights:
On polls and political analysis:
On what drives conservatives to vote:
On why McCain will win PA:
On Palin political appeal.
On Palin and the Republican Reformation:
On the campaign.
Again, please read it all.
HT: Strata-Sphere
Highlights:
On polls and political analysis:
One thing that is very different about this election is the omnipresence of polls and how polls are the axis around all political analysis is conducted. This has never been the case in previous elections. Real political analysts (meaning not hacks or unprofessional pundits), use historical trends, demagraphical data, and other ‘truths’ of past elections. Much of this cannot be translated into a chart or graph. It is a myth that analysis is done via math or graphs or computer models. The original economists, for example, used only words and essays. Political analysis is not about math. Political analysis is about people. To analyze politics, you must be able to analyze people. In other words, the poet and novelist becomes the political analyst, not the mathematician and software engineer. Politics is all about people.
On what drives conservatives to vote:
One of the reasons why Democrats lost the elections of 2002, 2004, and won in 2006 so handily is the appearance (and disappearance) of the phenomenon I refer to as ‘Broken Glass Conservatives’. Conservatives are generally apathetic and have been lately about their candidates. While Bush was a Republican, he was not a conservative. He was conservative on a few things, the things that mattered most to conservatives (foreign policy, judges, taxes), but Bush has no interest in the conservative movement and doesn’t want to ‘lead’ it unlike Reagan. So conservative support for Republican candidates have been very soft (as illustrated in 2006). But if a Democrat or the legacy media (who conservatives believe are the same) insult or attack conservatives or what they believe, the result is ‘broken glass conservatives’ meaning the apathetic, soft Republican (or Democrat) conservative suddenly turns enraged and will literally walk over ‘broken glass’, if need be, to vote. ‘Broken glass conservatives’ phenomenons are all easily prevented if someone had some sense. An example of a ‘broken class conservative’ scenario would be Congressman Murtha (twice) declaring western Pennslyvania as ‘racists’. Remember, Murth’s district is mostly Democrat, and they know about Murtha’s shenanigans (the idea of ‘he’s a crook, but he is OUR crook’). But conservative Democrats took the insult personally and, out of the blue, Murtha’s safe seat suddenly becomes competitive . In 2004, the ‘broken glass conservatives’ were generated by, what conservatives felt, media bias in that veterans who served with Kerry were never had the spotlight shown (which they resorted to their own ads which became the ‘SwiftBoat Ads’) as well as Dan Rather and the forged memos.
In 2008, there are more phenomenons of the ‘Broken Glass Conservatives’ than I have ever seen…
-Conservatives believe the media has been outrageously fawning over Obama and doing everything it can to protect him. This has enraged them even more than in 2004.
-Obama’s comment of people in rural areas were nothing more than ‘bitter clingers’ who cling to guns and religion have caused lingering outrage at him. This comment, alone, is one reason why Pennslyvania turned on him.
-The Bail-Out Bill enraged many and was when conservatives finally abandoned Bush. But Bush is not on the ticket anymore so that doesn’t matter. Rather, the enragement is aimed at Pelosi and Reid, the leaders of the House and Senate.
-Media treatment of Sarah Palin generated many ‘Broken Glass Conservatives’ and even overlapped to the Hillary Clinton supporters.
-Joe the Plumber. At first, Joe the Plumber recieved much amusement and delight of the electorate since it was funny to watch the presidential candidates refer to some citizen and even talk directly to ‘him’ on the camera. After the debate, naturally the press put up photos of the ‘conversation’ between Joe and Obama in amusement as well (amusement in how this citizen somehow ended up as the topic in the third debate). Then, Obama and Biden mocked joe the Plumber and said plumbers could never earn $250,000, and this followed with news came out about Joe’s salary, his marriage, his driver’s license, his taxes, his lack of a plumber’s license, and him ultimately being fired by the plumbing union. This enraged people like I have never seen before. Joe the Plumber became the ‘John Galt’ icon. I heard stories of visible Obama supporters being rattled by this such as SoCal voters peeling off their bumper stickers and uprooting their Obama signs.
-Socialism. People who are over 50, who either fled a socialist country or was in the military to help liberate socialist countries, find the thought of any presidential candidate, even ‘warm’ on the ideas of socialism, to be deemed ‘unelectable’ and are outraged it took to the Joe the Plumber incident to discover what, they believe, Obama’s true motives are.
On why McCain will win PA:
Pennslyvania has been grossly misreported on this election cycle. During the Democrat primary, union bosses approached Hillary Clinton and said, “Promise us you will not put Obama as your Veep and you will have our support.” The moment Obama become the nominee was when he lost Pennslyvania. Obama has been spending money like a drunken sailor in the state, blasting the state full of advertising, but it isn’t working. The famous Philly machine won’t be at Obama’s disposal as the governor, Rendell, is a Clinton supporter , and he has been hinting at Pennslyvania going red by the mysterious leak of the Obama internal campaign poll of PA being +2 a couple of weeks ago and publicly asking Obama to come back to the state as well as saying that things are ‘tightening’ there. The evidence that PA is going red should be with how the safe Democrat seats are becoming suddenly competitive. Rendell is a Democrat and doesn’t want to lose house seats which is another reason to ask Obama to come back.
Pennslyvania is not a New England state, it is a mid-atlantic state. It is mostly a rural state. Obama likely thought Philly and Pittsburgh would be enough to carry the state (Obama is relying on cities to swing entire states his way). But Kerry could barely hold the state even with the Philly machine and the Democrat base on his side. And McCain and Palin are far more popular, campaign wise, than Bush and Cheney were in 2004.
Obama does not have the Democrat base solidified behind him. In states that massively swung to Clinton, such as Pennslyvania, a sizable number of Hillary Clinton supporters are voting for McCain under the banner of ‘Party Unity My Ass’ or ‘PUMA’s. In McCain Campaign offices throughout Pennslyvania, manning their phone banks, are DEMOCRATS which voted for Hillary Clinton. An unholy alliance has developed between senators McCain and Clinton. Both are friends to one another. Both have a framed picture of the other in their offices. The PUMA story is the biggest one not being told about in this election.
On Palin political appeal.
Palin is appealing to conservatives due to the ‘fire in the belly’ where she is expressing what conservatives want, what they wished their conservative politicians would say and fight back against, in their perception, is a hostile media to them. Palin does not articulate conservative philosophy in her speeches as she appears more populist. Palin is not a female Reagan, but a Truman in a skirt. I’ve been reading much on Truman lately, and I’ve been struck with the similarities. Truman was an ardent outdoorsman, one from a small town and related extremely well with the rural population. Taft, among others, thought Truman was below them and kept referring to him as ‘filth’ and a ‘redneck’. Famously, Truman alone believed he would win his election when everyone else said he wouldn’t and traveled across the country visiting various farms and other small towns. The reporters traveling with Truman noticed that everywhere he went, there were large crowds. The electorate referred to Truman more by his first name, ‘Harry’, with the common phrase of ‘Give em Hell, Harry!’ Truman was not a wordsmith, but he had a fire in his belly and, most of all, his speeches held warmth. At every stop, Truman praised the rural people there and often talked about something in the locality. Truman, by his biographers, is most remembered for his constant energy, how his appearance was always ‘fresh’, how he always looked ‘rested’, and appeared in high spirits most of the time. Truman was constantly made fun of by his rural pronounciation and his non-intellectual demeanor by the press, yet those things endeared him to the rural electorate. In all my life, I have never seen a Vice Presidential nominee out-pull the Presidential nominee or steal his spotlight. Win or lose, Palin will likely have a long shelf life.
On Palin and the Republican Reformation:
McCain’s choice of Palin and push against ‘Socialism’, since the nominee is head of the political party, has swung the party back into the control of the conservatives rather than Republicans. Most of these ‘Republicans’ tend to reside in the Washington loop, and have been there since Reagan, while others are ‘moderates’. The Obama Campaign with its psych-ops of ‘landslide’ polls, have made conservatives giddy in that it is flushing out the Washington Republicans and moderates from the party. For example, Colin Powell, who is pro-choice and for affirmative action, who appeared to be Republican mostly as Reagan made him a four star general, Bush the Elder put him in charge of the Joint Chief, and Bush the Younger put him as Secretary as State, is now forever blacklisted after endorsing Obama. George Will, longtime columnist who has been in Washington for a long time, wrote against the Iraq War (which already put him on thin ice), but now he will be flushed out. Peggy Noonan, long time Washington person since the Reagan years, is now flushed out. Parker, ditto. From the conservative side, they are celebrating as they consider these Republicans to been in Washington too long and are no longer connected to the people. The point is that Palin has become a Conservative Touchstone that, like a wave, has flowed through the party and is revealing who is and who is not a conservative. And these non-conservatives will not be well recieved anymore. (In the case of women, such as Peggy Noonan, I suspect some old fashioned female jealousy going on as well. Remember, Pelosi wanted Hillary Clinton to lose because she wouldn’t be the dominant female in Washington anymore. This might seem strange to guys, but only women exist in women’s world.)
On the campaign.
It is said that at the end of a presidential campaign, the candidate who is campaigning on the enemy’s turf in the final days becomes president. The stories that say “Obama is campaigning in final days in Bush states’ is getting it wrong, of course. Obama has no choice but to campaign in Bush states since there is no other way for him to get to 270. McCain can lose some Bush states and still win. In political analysis, novices measure the election by states. Experts do it by counties. The counties McCain and Palin are visiting, be it Pennslyvania or even Ohio, are democrat counties meaning they went for Kerry the other time. Obama keeps staying in safe urban areas and other Democrat strongholds. Obama’s strategy doesn’t appear aggressive to me (he appears to be getting angry, even emotionally melting down. Such as when he got angry when trick-or-treating. Even today, he gave McCain the middle finger). When we look at the candidates themselves, we see McCain confident and laughing and Obama… being a little theatrical (”I will change the world!”). OK, candidate comparison is a matter of opinion. But there is a tradition that the campaign in the lead tends to share their internal poll numbers in the closing of an election. I’m hearing much about internal McCain polling, however, this might be the campaign’s way to provide an alternative to the way off public polls.
Again, please read it all.
HT: Strata-Sphere
Prediction: McCain wins PotUS
I just voted. Turn out I believe will be high.
I believe McCain will wins for the following reasons.
Major Factors:
1. Obama is a socialist. America will not vote for a socialist.
2. Palin will induce a high turn out for McCain. The base is excited like never before.
3. PUMAs will vote for McCain in substantial numbers, enough to win it for McCain.
Minor Factors:
1. We remain at war against terrorists. McCain will be viewed as better than Obama.
2. Obama's luster will not rub onto the independent.
3. Independence are independent because they do not trust the MSM. The fact that the MSM has been in the tank for Obama will help drive the independent voters toward McCain away from Obama.
Non Factors:
1. Obama's race. Yes most African-Americans will vote for him, but they always vote Democratic anyway. I suspect the increase in turn out for his race will be offset by the increase in turn out against his race.
2. That McCain is defending red states is irrelevant. Because Bush won in 2004, the only way any Democrat can win is to contest enough red states to win. But despite the hype, that will not be as easy as we are led to believe. Not only that, McCain is also contesting blue Pennsylvania.
3. The polls may show that Obama leads, but most of the polls are actually within the margin of error. That means statistically, the race remains a tie.
I believe McCain will wins for the following reasons.
Major Factors:
1. Obama is a socialist. America will not vote for a socialist.
2. Palin will induce a high turn out for McCain. The base is excited like never before.
3. PUMAs will vote for McCain in substantial numbers, enough to win it for McCain.
Minor Factors:
1. We remain at war against terrorists. McCain will be viewed as better than Obama.
2. Obama's luster will not rub onto the independent.
3. Independence are independent because they do not trust the MSM. The fact that the MSM has been in the tank for Obama will help drive the independent voters toward McCain away from Obama.
Non Factors:
1. Obama's race. Yes most African-Americans will vote for him, but they always vote Democratic anyway. I suspect the increase in turn out for his race will be offset by the increase in turn out against his race.
2. That McCain is defending red states is irrelevant. Because Bush won in 2004, the only way any Democrat can win is to contest enough red states to win. But despite the hype, that will not be as easy as we are led to believe. Not only that, McCain is also contesting blue Pennsylvania.
3. The polls may show that Obama leads, but most of the polls are actually within the margin of error. That means statistically, the race remains a tie.
20081103
Obama contradicts himself
This is why he cannot be trusted. He says whatever it takes to appease his audience. He promises whatever he can to gain votes.
He is a sophist at best, a demagogue at least.
Troopergate: Palin Cleared
from Powerline Blog:
Now, only hours before the election and after endless nonsense in the press, the investigator appointed by the Alaska Personnel Board has cleared Governor Palin, concluding that "there is no probable cause to believe Palin or any other state official violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with the firing." No kidding. Given that the investigator, Timothy Petumenos, is a Democrat who contributed to the campaign of Palin's opponent, Tony Knowles, in 2006, this should finally put the silliness of "Troopergate" to rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)