RIP Murtha and Abscam 2010...

Rep. John Murtha, Iraq war critic, dies at 77

I am no fan of Murtha. He represents to me the worst of local interests subverting the needs of the nation. Although the passing of any indivudal is a cause for grief, this may have been his only honorable exit.

Crossing the line...

I run the header of Day by Day Cartoons by Chris Muir because I like his art, generally agree with the premise of the cartoon and have actively supported his work financially. I am not, however, very fond of the most recent strip detailing salacious attributes to Obama political appointee Kevin Jennings.

Claims made by various pundits on media outlets, like FOX and CNN, have been proven to be incorrect and exaggerated. Media Matters details the pivotal issue around a self reported event by Mr. Jennings which occurred early in his teaching career. This is a baseless measure for pursuing his resignation. Whether he is qualified to hold the post by virtue of academic or experiential qualifications is a different matter.

A person’s sexual orientation should generally be off limits. There are boundaries – pedophiles are clearly a category in which orientation should be considered disqualifying.

What concerns me is the role these “czar’s” play in policy development. Having known a number of political appointees, I have found them to be a mixed bag. In areas requiring highly specialized knowledge, they tend to be well qualified and provide value to the nation. In roles in which their position is simply to maintain the administration’s philosophy, I have found them to be negative influences on their organization, and by extension the nation.

I would like to see more accountability from our government and much better transparency. I trust the government to act in my best interests and spend my money wisely, both for today and tomorrow.

Where's your messiah now...

Make no mistake, I admire and respect our new Commander-in-Chief. I disagree with many of his social policies and am shocked at his inability to rein in a wanton Congress. But he clearly has a grasp of international necessities. So far, his actions seem to be aligned with the continuing ideology of the United States as the sole super power with a moral obligation to act decisively in support of international freedoms and rights.

Most recently, President Obama dispatched United States Navy warships to the South China Sea to escort the unarmed USNS IMPECCABLE. That ship is being harassed while conducting legitimate surveillance near the main Chinese ballistic missile submarine base. The United States has always been a staunch supported of the law of the sea and spends a great deal of time and energy protecting its use an avenue for commerce and trade.

The latest moves by China are classic cold war brinksmanship. This national bravado, much like the launch of the “peaceful” satellite by North Korea, is par for the course for opponents to US policy. Anyone who fails to see the North Korean effort for what it is, a test launch of an ICBM, is likely living in a vegan commune in Oregon. This is now, ironically, in range of North Korean weapons systems.

President Obama has found that the harsh realities of the post Cold War world are complex, extremely volatile and can not be handled with verbal diplomacy alone. Iranian drones have been shot down by US aircraft over Iraq. Detainees released from Guantanamo have shown up in Afghan battlefields, Russian forces are illegally consolidating their holdings in South Ossetia and Haiti continues to be fertile ground for backyard instability. And this is simply the open source list of possible threats to global and US security.

This picture paints a precarious one for the United States and the world. As the present economic uncertainty continues, the globe is more vulnerable to shocks from natural and manmade calamities. A capable organization or nation which seeks to further destabilize the world would have any number of choice options to act. It is imperative that free world forces are deployed to counter these threats and that the United States takes the lead in action against individuals, groups and nations that seek to undermine law and order.

President Obama has continued the necessary work. I am optimistic that my new boss will maintain a healthy pragmatism when deciding on national security issues. He certainly has abandoned that in the financial realm.

Political will...

Congress has a lot of ideas, some of them are even their own and a couple are good ones. The following is neither. At the behest of large unions, notably Andy Stern's SEICU, Congress is proposing the worst labor legislation ever. The most notable aspect is the elimination of the secret ballot for determining representation. What is more disturbing is the shortening of the time for decisions about organizing, which hamstrings business' ability to offer a counter campaign.

There are many reasons in some industries to organize. However, union organization rarely results in improved flexibility or innovation. Most of the very troubled industries in the United States (auto makers, transportation, textiles and heavy manufacturing) were clobbered by burdensome union demands and a lack of flexibility. As a consequence we have seen a mass exodus of these industries form the United States and those that remain are (in some cases) barely functional.

Unions have had a profound and positive effect on the nation's workforce. There is no doubt that they played a critical role in the development of strong worker safety rules and the elimination of child labor. However, like many institutions, they have stagnated and become political elements unto themselves. They are less concerned about the welfare of their constituents and more focused on amassing political power and setting agendas in line with their worldview.

I work daily in a unionized setting. My relationship with the union leadership is good and I respect their commitment to the coworkers. However, I know that their non-union counterparts enjoy more opportunity and benefits along with the same protections and security. Unionizing will not stop a plant form closing or a business from leaving the country. It may, in fact, accelerate the decline of that business in the global arena. If you are so inclined, I urge you to comment on this issue to your elected representatives.

The Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate today. Despite Senate Democrats' failure to secure 60 votes in favor of the bill, the battle over EFCA has begun. And as we have heard from so many of you, our economy can not afford a defeat. As you know, union leaders want to change the rules of how unions are recognized by encouraging legislators to do away with the proven practice of holding free and fair secret ballot elections. H.R. 1409 was introduced in the House moments ago and will drop in the Senate soon. Our efforts have been successful so far, causing the bill's delay. In addition, this weekend Sen. McCaskill acknowleged that support in the Senate for EFCA is diminishing. Tell your Senators to vote against cloture on the bill. A vote for cloture--to limit the amount of time to consider the bill--is a vote in favor of EFCA. It's apparent that our opposition to this bill is gaining traction, and your input is more important than ever.

No to EFCA...

Folks should take some time to educate themselves about the EFCA. This is a dangerous, union developed, piece of legislation which will effectively eliminate any privacy, discussion and freedom regarding an individual's right to organize. Imagine your workplace placed under the bargaining agreement of a union, without a fair hearing or vote. Think it can't happen? Take a look at some of the targets outlined by the AFL-CIO, SEIU and others.


From: chamber_list@mailmanager.net [mailto:chamber_list@mailmanager.net] On Behalf Of Bill Miller, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:32 PM
Subject: Action Alert: No to EFCA - the Time is Now

The time has come. The Employee Free Choice Act is here. As Roll Call reported this morning, labor unions are staging a theatrical event on the Hill tomorrow, and EFCA is expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives this week. The preliminaries are over, this is the main event--and as we continue to hear from you--our economy can't afford a defeat. Union leaders want to change the rules of how unions are recognized by encouraging legislators to do away with the proven practice of holding free and fair secret ballot elections. By forcing workers out of the voting booth and subjecting them to a public 'card check' scheme, the bill would take privacy, power, and choice away from America's workers. Save the Secret Ballot, Save the Economy. Join our Virtual March on Washington, and join the fight. Write to your Congressmen now and tell them to say No to EFCA and protect secret ballots for America's workers.

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.

An ill wind...

I get a lot if ideas for posts, and then something comes along to distract me, like my real job.  I enjoy blogging, it’s a one sided conversation that I feel like I win every time I post.  For those few readers who know me in “meatspace”, I am a bit argumentative.  I have been known to take an opposing view just for the sake of the argument. 

 

Yes, I was a debater in high school.   It is an extracurricular activity which would benefit every young person, in my opinion.  But I want to talk about an extracurricular activity which would be a detriment to the nation as a whole.  That is Rep. Charlie Rangel idiotic legislation to reinstate the draft.

 

Rangel is a leading Democrat from New York who was a decorated Korean War veteran.  He vehemently opposes the Iraq conflict and believes (erroneously) that lower income people bear the burden of military service and thus service.  Rangel’s original legislation was thought to provide a social commentary about the disproportionate level of service in the nation.  I do agree with this argument to some degree.  There is too much disconnect from the military to the general population.  However, this is true for many careers.  Most people do not know a farmer personally.  They do no know an investment banker or a politician.  This makes for an increased lack of understanding of this person’s role and impact on society.

 

The American public has become used to a no risk, push button military able to deliver stunning victories with almost zero loss of life.  The conflict in Iraq is an overwhelming success on any military measure.  In the past six years, the number of casualties is staggering low.  It is often argued that no conflict is worth an American life, to that I counter the arguer believes that America has no value.

 

The American military is the second largest in the world.  It is the most professional and sophisticated.  It is the most honest and able of ANY military service.  A recent GAO report put forth the following;

 

The active duty force has undergone several demographic changes since

the end of the draft and the advent of an all-volunteer force in 1973. It

has become older and better educated, it has experienced increases in

the representation of minority and female service members, and a greater

proportion of its service members are married and have children.

Recognizing that a family’s satisfaction with military life can influence

retention, Congress and DOD have responded by establishing and

increasing support services for military families. However, opportunities

exist to further improve benefits in this area.

 

The military has grown, improved and continues to shape itself to meet the needs of the changing world.  I do not believe any serving member, when asked directly, would want to serve alongside someone who is there against their will.  We, as Americans, value individual liberty (rightly, I believe) above all other rights.  It was Milton Friedman, President Nixon’s economist, who correctly labeled the draft as "slavery".  Rarely will you find a direct link to an antiwar site, however, the point is critical. 

 

Rangel, a descendant of slaves would have our nation burdened with a slave class again. 

 

Be sure to let him know how you feel.

 

 

 

 

None dare call it Conspiracy...

My good friend (okay, she’s a blog –bug) Lana Walker has made good on a little wager we had in February.  During the cold, dark winter of the primary season our wager consisted of her assertions that the media was “blocking” information on Ron Paul and that once the election was over a huge public backlash would ensue.  Who would have guessed that the global economy would be on the brink of collapse due to actions taken by the Carter administration in 1977?

 

Well, I simply made the assertion that no conspiracy existed.  I follow a simple rule, no secret can exist which is known by more than one person.  The alternate corollary is that the ONLY way to keep a secret between two people is to make sure one of them is dead.  In the interests of fair play, and full disclosure, my predictions are here.  What was my killing line? 

 

“There is a real risk the economy will improve”

 

I think I need to return my MBA.  Clearly, I don’t know what I am talking about.  But enough about me, let’s talk about conspiracies.

 

These are the stuff of legend, whether it is the uncaring gods, toying with our lives, or the hidden puppet masters of a clandestine world government, we love to imagine someone has got their hand on the tiller.  The internet is a rich feeding ground for all the various fantasies of the population of the planet.  You can find conspiracies about almost anything.  There are Coca-Cola plots, sinister “chemtrails” saturating our atmosphere, Lemurian myths, Big Pharma (or oil, or the military industrial complex, or the RIAA, or anyone!) working to suppress the “true” nature of whatever it is someone is supporting.

 

There are NO areas exempt from good on a little wager conspiracy theories.  I would submit that most organized religion is an extrapolated form of conspiracy theory.  However, that’s beside the point.  The reality is that conspiracy theories are just that, guesses and predictions to explain circumstances and situations.  They may be driven by a kernel of truth or they may simply be paranoid delusions brought about my mental illness.  What has proven itself time after time is that they simply don’t exist. 

 

Some more astute readers will Google various “true” conspiracy theories and present them, smugly, as fact.  The CIA’s MKULTRA mind control experimentation is credited by many to be proof that these things exist.  The reality is far from compelling.  It represented a small program, sanctioned by the government, in which individuals were subjected to LSD and other drugs in the quest for a perfect truth serum or mind control chemical.  The project was indeed secret, however, its overall influence was small.  Finally, its eventual discovery and exposure eliminates the underpinning framework that conspiracists promote, that these programs are “undiscoverable”.

 

Whatever your take, I would encourage you to apply Occam’s Razor to the posits of anyone promoting an alternate view to current events of contemporary history.  First ask yourself, which is the most likely occurrence?  Second, how likely would the alternate possibility be able to remain concealed from view?  Finally, what motivates the promoter of these views.  A frank and objective answer to each of these questions will guard you against falling for most of the ensnaring hogwash running rampant in our society.

 

Now excuse me, I need to order one of those  free Amish Heaters!

When all is said and done...

The polls are swinging consistently in favor of Obama. The economic crisis has proven the old adage that all politics are local. When people begin to worry about their savings, jobs and ability to pay their bills, they will grasp at any new idea - no matter how flimsy. Ironically, during an external crisis (war, for example) people are unwilling to swap leadership as the risk appears too great. Make no mistake, Senator Obama has no better plan for the economy than John McCain and his economic viewpoint is more at odds with a capitalistic, free-market society than anyone. What will mitigate his approach will be the economic reality on the ground. He can not possibly make fundamental changes with entitlement programs consuming the bulk of his budget and potentially flat revenue.

The next president will have to face down excessive spending, reignite capital movement and (hopefully) foster innovation as a source of growth for the nation. Unlike those on the far left of the spectrum who boldly proclaimed their intention to depart the United States for other lands, I have no intention of doing so. A nation run by Barack Obama will STILL be head and shoulders over ANY other nation on the planet. It will be my civic duty to make sure that the new President doesn't wander into areas I consider unhealthy for the nation (second amendment issues, income redistribution, abandoning free trade, national defense, etc.). At the same time, the new president will have to perform.

We don't live in an era of blind trust anymore. The watershed collapse of that began in the 1960s and has continued through the ultra-transparent years of the internet ascendancy. Individuals who wish to blindly blame the current administration for the financial problems reveal themselves immediately and either uninformed or ideologues. What we have seen is that a 14 trillion dollar economy requires careful handling and something as innocuous as extending the envelope of risk acceptance for capital investment (i.e. dicey mortgages) can precipitate a global catastrophe.

That is a change we certainly could have done without.

The race...

I am very fortunate.  I am able to subscribe to XM radio and benefit from a variety of programming (almost all of it free of commercials).  One of my newest favorites is XM 130.  This is the POTUS (President of the United States) channel.  And before the members of my Chomsky reading fan base chime in, it is NOT twenty-four seven playing of George Bush saying the word "nucular".  It is a great collection of partisan news programs, non-partisan interviews and commentary from great folks in the thick of the campaign process.  It's been on the air almost a year and covers candidate speeches unfiltered from start to finish.  This channel, like sources such as www.factcheck.org, reflect the continuing evolution of real information politics.  It was observed today that by the principal of a focus group company (www.mediacurves.com) that both candidate's negative ads are being viewed negatively by both sides.  What is clear from the voting population is that they want to hear some substantive ideas from either candidate.  This is something that neither side is delivering.  Between Sarah Palin being pinned down by Katie Couric on John McCain's legislative record, to Joe Biden claiming he was "forced down" in a helicopter in Afghanistan, the candidates aren't giving the voters any meat for their political stew.

 

I have set myself solidly down in the McCain camp.  There are many positive reasons and some negative ones.  On the positive front, I think he will manage the economy better.  He is an advocate for smaller government and revising our tax code to favor growth, innovation and investment.  He is far superior in the realm of national security and his personal military experience (and yes, his captivity) give him a unique human perspective on the cost of conflict.  Finally, he is decidedly out of the mainstream in his party with regard to social issues.  Although he claims to be "pro-life" and touts in a 2007 statement that he will appoint conservative judges to the SCOTUS, his past record and actions contradict that.  My sense is that once elected, he will simply walk away from these "distraction" issues and govern.

 

Senator Obama captures my attention for his ambition, skill and rhetoric.  I am very concerned about his pedigree (Bill Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge specifically).  I am deeply concerned about his position on guns.  I do not think his financial plan for the nation is viable.  As one of the "rich" taxpayers he is targeting, I think his approach to revenue generation is flatly socialist and at odds with the foundation of our nation's economic strength.  He is also opposed to missile defense, the single biggest tool in our diplomatic arsenal.  The mere suggestion that we would place units in Poland or Ukraine gained substantial attention from Russia.  The ability to defend Japan or any of the Persian Gulf states from North Korea or Japan is critical to maintaining stability in the region. 

 

I am not vitriolicly opposed to Obama, as many seem to be towards McCain.  And I don't think that Obama's race makes a whit of difference (although I think that Hillary's did to the DNC).  And so onward the race trundles.  McCain's "put your money where your mouth is" move to delay the debate synched nicely with his "country first" message.  

If it walks like a duck...

I am in a heated conversation with Capt Jack in the prior posting.  I contend that Delaware, Sen. Joe Biden's state of residence, is a left leaning state.  He contends otherwise.  I point out that the overwhelming majority of the statewide offices are held by democrats.  I point out that Sen. Biden is ranked as the third most liberal senator in Congress.  I further contend that Delaware is comprised of many commuting citizens who are more kin to their big city neighbors (Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, Washington).  It is less than one hour from Wilmington to New York via train and slightly longer to DC.  The realities of the northeast corridor make commuting not only practical but essential to avoid the onerous costs of living in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland. 

 

The Captain points out Delaware's "free market" tax structure.  There is a reason that Delaware has established itself as an economic haven - otherwise it would likely cease to be a viable governmental entity, unable to sustain it's tax base.  Delaware has a population of about 850,000.  Of these, 637,000 are eligible to vote.  The population centers (Wilmington, Dover and Newark) have 70, 30 and 30 thousand inhabitants respectively.  In the last primary, only about twenty percent of eligibles chose to exercise their right to vote.  Thus, I submit the result of the recent presidential primary;

 

Machine		Absentee	Total	Percent
Votes		Votes	Votes	Votes
PRESIDENT	313 of 313 Districts Reported
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.	2789	74	2863	3 . 0 %
HILLARY CLINTON	39984	776	40760	42 . 3 %
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD	167	3	170	0 . 2 %
JOHN EDWARDS	1116	125	1241	1 . 3 %
DENNIS J. KUCINICH	183	9	192	0 . 2 %
BARACK OBAMA	50467	681	51148	53 . 0 %
REPUBLICAN PARTY
RUDY GIULIANI	1161	94	1255	2 . 5 %
MICHAEL D. HUCKABEE	7577	129	7706	15 . 3 %
JOHN MCCAIN	22228	400	22628	45 . 0 %
RON PAUL	2083	48	2131	4 . 2 %
MITT ROMNEY	16060	284	16344	32 . 5 %
TOM TANCREDO	174	1	175	0 . 5 %

 

Out of a total of 130,000 plus voters, democrats enjoyed a two to one majority.  Support for Barack Obama soundly eclipsed Hillary Clinton and traditional "conservatives", Huckabee, Tancredo and Guiliani, were soundly trounced by McCain and Romney.  Delaware was ranked 21st most liberal state, by virtue of laws protecting women, reproductive rights and homosexuals.  Wilmington ranks 134, versus a national average of 100, for gays and lesbians.  This is a measure of same sex households versus a national average.

 

Given all of these aspects, I believe it is safe to conclude that Delaware is a democrat controlled, left leaning state.  Economic policies notwithstanding, it should remain so for many years to come.

 

Data Sources:

 

http://elections.delaware.gov/results/html/election.shtml

 

http://www.ipas.org/mapping/final_map.asp

 

http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/gayInfo.php?locIndex=9086

 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/10000.html

 

 

Biden his time...

<

Sweet nellie potellie. Joe Biden?

Did I hear correctly?

The eternal senator from Delaware? Posing windbag who had previously said he would never accept a nomination to the VP slot?

Barack, is this a joke?

He may have "strong foreign policy experience", but another way tosay this is that he has presided over a lot of hearings.

I don't think this is going to give him the edge he wanted.

Besides, Biden is at times left of Obama.

Full Disclosure...

Explore The Results How It Works  |  Quiz Comments
PoliticsMatch Your Political Philosophy The below is a way of thinking about your political philosophy by dividing your PoliticsMatch answers into "personal" and "economic" questions.  It is only a theory - please take it with a grain of salt! Personal Questions:  Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers. Economic Questions:  Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers.   Your Score You scored the following on the PoliticsMatch questions:
Personal Score	48%
Economic Score	72%

Where You Fit In Where your Personal score meets your Economic score on the grid below is your political philosophy.  Based on the above score, you are a Libertarian Conservative .
Personal Score This measures how much you believe government should intervene in people's personal lives. Personal issues include health, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars. A high score (above 60%) means you believe in tolerance for different people and lifestyles. A low score (below 40%) means you believe that your standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government.  Economic Score This measures how much you believe government should intervene in people's economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes.  A high score (above 60%) means you believe in personal responsibility for your financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government.  A low score (below 40%) means you believe that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. You believe that government's purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program. Examples The chart below indicates how four "hard-core" political philosophers would answer the questions. From this example, you can see how you fit in with each philosophy.  Your answers are on the left. A "hard-core liberal" would answer personal questions to minimize government involvement, but would answer economic questions to include government intervention. A "hard-core libertarian" would answer both personal and economic questions to minimize government involvement. A "hard-core conservative" would answer personal questions to include government intervention, but would answer economic questions to minimize government involvement. A "hard-core populist" would answer both personal and economic questions with proposals that include government intervention.
= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose
Personal Issues	You	Hard-core Liberal	Hard-core Libertarian	Hard-Core Conservative	Hard-Core Populist
Abortion Is a Woman's Right
Sexual Orientation Protected By Civil Rights Law
Teach Family Values in Public Schools
Death Penalty
Mandatory "Three Strikes" Sentencing Laws
Drug Use Is Immoral: Enforce Laws Against It
Allow Churches To Provide Welfare Services
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose
Economic Issues	You	Hard-core Liberal	Hard-core Libertarian	Hard-Core Conservative	Hard-Core Populist
Require Companies To Hire More Women/Minorities
More Federal Funding For Health Coverage
Privatize Social Security
Replace coal and oil with alternatives
Decrease overall taxation of the wealthy
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
Support and Expand Free Trade
Replace US troops with UN in Iraq
	You	Hard-core Liberal	Hard-core Libertarian	Hard-Core Conservative	Hard-Core Populist
= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose
Issues Not Counted In Philosophy	You	Hard-core Liberal	Hard-core Libertarian	Hard-Core Conservative	Hard-Core Populist
Absolute Right To Gun Ownership
Parents Choose Schools Via Vouchers
More Spending On Armed Forces
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
	You	Hard-core Liberal	Hard-core Libertarian	Hard-Core Conservative	Hard-Core Populist
= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose
Final Notes To ensure balance among political viewpoints, we arranged the wording of the questions so that half the time, the answer involving more government is answered by "support", and half the time by "oppose." Hence, each of the "hard core" philosophers would choose "support" for 3 or 4 of the Personal questions and for 3 or 4 of the Economic questions. There are four questions which are not counted in your political philosophy. Those questions do not fit this theory -- for example, Democrats typically oppose unrestricted gun ownership, while a 'hard core liberal' would support it on grounds of the government not intervening in a personal issue. These omissions ensure that the theoretical definitions match with current-day politics. Many of these statements cross over the line between personal issues and economic issues. And many people might answer what we call a "Personal" issue based on economic reasoning. But we have tried to arrange a series of questions which separates the way you think about government activities in these two broad scales. Political Map and some content from Advocates for Self-Government.
Explore The Results How It Works  |  Quiz Comments