The Oath!

Health "Insurance" isn't insurance at all

2009-07-22T21:51:00.004-04:00

It's more of a cost shifting mechanism, writes The American Thinker, and rightly so:

It is no more practical to have "health insurance" to pay for prescription drugs and routine doctor visits than it is to expect your auto insurance to pay for your oil changes and tire rotations.

I tend to agree that the larger issue is the creeping of the entitlement culture, and tonight's comments from Obama only confirmed that, and the role of Obamacare (C)(TM) in worsening the problem:

"I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health care costs, and they ask me can you help," he said.

If you think that's what insurance is, the government moving money from one pocket to another to make things more affordable, you're going to have a tough time when your car gets rear-ended. That's why the car insurance analogy is so fitting - we've come to expect that the routine be subsidized, insured and cost-mitigated, as if its not that - routine, and so expected that we could easily budget for it ourselves and pay less than the health insurance premium. In fact, that most people with employee sponsored coverage can afford their employee health insurance premium seems strong evidence that they could afford the routine medical costs themselves. What they couldn't cover, and what insurance was supposed to alleviate, was unexpected health care costs and incidents.

The problem here is that when people say "insurance," they mean "I want something for nothing (or substantially less)." Routine, maintenance healthcare is not cheap, but simply bundling the costs does not eliminate the fact that somebody has to pay them. By creating a system where payment at the point of the transaction is lessened (or removed, in a socialized system), the illusion of zero cost allows the average person to ignore the increased taxes, and inevitable burden on businesses and "wealthy individuals," required to pay the costs. Hiding them doesn't fix the problem, but it does make people feel better.

Sometimes they say it best...

2009-01-28T12:05:00.003-05:00

In case you had any reservations regarding what the stimulus is really about, President Obama accidentally gave it away - from Yahoo!:

"But I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people's business"

Inaugural aspirations, his and mine

2009-01-27T11:02:00.004-05:00

At last, the pageantry of the inauguration has begun to fade, and although the media's chanted refrains ("historic!," in case anyone alive, anywhere, had yet to be informed of the history-making going on) continue to echo across the morning talk show spectrum, we are finally beginning to see what sorts of policies will actually come from the Obama Presidency. Thus far, it has been a decidedly mixed bag. While I have been pleased to see the President backing off of "cut-and-run" campaign promises vis-a-vis Iraq, I can't begin to describe how ironic and condescending it is for Democrats to demand tax increases for the rich, and then to nominate and confirm a rich, tax-evader to oversee the IRS. Ah, yes - not those rich.

I am realistically inclined to believe that the next 4 years will not be kind to the small-government, free-traders amongst us, but I think there are a few possible outcomes we might reasonably hope for:

Honor the legacy of Dr. King, and complete the civil rights revolution, by ending race based preferences in education and hiring: "A man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a sacred oath," the President declared, and proud we should rightly be. Yet, with the election of our nation's first minority President (or, as I have argued, with his very nomination), the politics of race and the grievance-based culture of victimization have been necessarily marginalized. What can be more farcical than claiming that our system still requires separate rules for certain groups of people, when that very system is led by a member of one of those groups. Mr. Obama should declare that if his election has any meaning beyond the political, as so many millions believe it does, than he, and our nation, can no longer tolerate a government that is not blind to race. While probably a long shot,Obama has indicated that he has warmed to the idea, particularly when discussing race-based versus means-based preferences.

Enact meaningful economic reforms without doing more damage: In his inaugural address, President Obama promised "...not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth," signaling early and sizable action to counter-act the current recession. Yet, thus far, congressional democrats have continued to propose outdated Keynesian experiments that will do little to address the current crisis, and much more to address their wallets, and their special interest constituents. Rather than pump tax-payer billions into congress's pet projects (Condoms? Really?), President Obama should propose a comprehensive plan based on marginal tax cuts and pro-business incentives. As the Wall Street Journal argues, any stimulus to individuals and businesses need to be in the form of incentives to produce and spend, rather than temporary, lump sum payments. Only by changing the marginal incentive structure will government effect consumer and supplier decision-making on a semi-permanent basis. Infrastructure spending is an important priority, but hardly an effective way to stimulate the economy, and federal subsidies to bail-out state budget deficits and fund state-level infrastructure are a bad idea, aside from doing diddly for the economy (University of Chicago Nobel Laureate Gary Becker makes a strong argument here that it could even hurt the private sector). Again, there is growing clamor for a tax-oriented stimulus, and President Obama has met with congressional Republicans to discuss the topic.

Moreover, and perhaps more important to the long-term vitality of the economy, we must not return to an era of over-regulation, nor should we demonize the products and tools that were abused in the lead-up to this crisis, rather than those who abused them. The ability to spread and exchange risk, represented in such now-demonized products as sub-prime mortgages and credit default swaps (CDS), is vital to a thriving economy and continued capital investment. Onerous regulation and government intervention, while pacifying to reactionary populist sentiment, will only hurt those it intends to help.

Secure victory and a successful transition out of Iraq: There can be little doubt that America is tired of Iraq, and has been for some time. But with the gains of the last 12-18 months becoming more evident with every passing day of media silence, it would be folly on a grand scale for the President to rush to withdraw our troops, and leave our fledgling democratic ally underdeveloped and ripe for relapse. Just as one-time stimulus payments have little long-term effect because consumers know they are temporary (see 2008, stimulus check of), so too security gains can be squandered if Iraq's enemies know they must simply wait for a hasty American withdrawal to strike. For our endeavor in Iraq to be a lasting success (and make no mistake, it can very well be), we must ensure a functioning Iraqi military and security force that is not only capable of maintaining relative peace, but is also actively doing the job that coalition troops are now, that of rooting out remaining al-qaeda militants and securing the country's porous borders. Luckily, President Obama has begun to back pedal on his aggressive withdrawal timeline, and has been in active discussion with the Joint Chiefs and leaders on the ground. A victory in Iraq is more feasible now than any time since the invasion, and a pragmatic approach could ensure a successful draw down on Obama's watch.

Of course, only time will tell if President Obama will actually turn out to be the pragmatic centrist he claims to be, or if he will cave to left-wing special interests and the lures of a complicit congress. Let's hope for the former, as its the best we can get.

Caroline Kennedy for Senate..

2008-12-16T22:23:00.004-05:00

...because, you know, her last name is Kennedy. And her dad was JFK (no, not that one). And her Dad had a dream once, and that dream was Barack Obama. Or maybe it wasn't.

Did I mention her name is Kennedy?

(in related news, Mary Joe Kopechne was unavailable for comment.)

Was it ever about race anyway?

2008-11-10T16:47:00.000-05:00

In the days following the election, several interesting trends have begun to manifest themselves, according to my (admitedly non-scientific) observations. First, staunch Obama supporters seem reluctant to admit to themselves that its over, they won, and the man who billed himself as a grass-roots, hip and alternative "movement" must now assume the mantle of mere earthly politician. I've noticed a surprising number of people around New York City still wearing Obama buttons; not simply on bags or attached to some accessory where its presence could be forgotten, but displayed prominently pinned to the front of their clothing. At the Knicks game on Sunday, several people brought signs referencing the president-elect, and someone held up a full-sized newspaper declaring Obama's victory. That this election was an education in the cult of personality is no new observation, but this is a bit much.

Second, Obama's administration is already being hailed as a success, the primary criteria being that it will happen at all, and one group is actually lobbying for a national holiday to recognize his election (!).

Most fascinating of all, and perhaps somewhat responsible for the previous two, is the renewed discussion of the future role of race in politics now that America has elected a black president. In today's Wall Street journal, Juan Williams writes a lengthy editorial, detailing the sad history of racial politics in America, ending with the hopeful prognosis that peddlers of racial tension will be marginalized by the landmark election:

"The market has irrevocably shrunk for Sharpton-style tirades against "the man" and "the system." The emphasis on racial threats and extortion-like demands -- all aimed at maximizing white guilt as leverage for getting government and corporate money -- has lost its moment. How does anyone waste time on racial fantasies like reparations for slavery when there is a black man who earned his way into the White House?"

Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan declared the election a success, but warned that the (apparently ingrained) racism in America would continue, and perhaps even worsen as a result of Obama's victory(!) What this discussion (if you can call Farrakhan's comments part of a dialog) ignores, or takes as a foregone conclusion, is the role of race in this election. Ironically, I believe that the latter concludes the former, in so far as this election was never, primarily, about race at all. What's more, to the extent it was a factor, it probably helped.

In retrospect, 2008 was a year that was all but tailor made for Democrats to begin with, given the President's approval ratings, the shaky economy, and a sticky public opinion of the Iraq war (despite recent gains). From that perspective, the more important race was really the Democratic primary. While Clinton and Obama struggled to diffrentiate themselves, they were both selling a similar product - bigger, more involved government, an exit from Iraq, and an end to Bush fatigue. Much has been said about the achievement of electing a black man to the Presidency, but I think the fact that Obama was able to defeat Hillary is the more telling indicator of the state of race relations in America, primarily because so little seperated the candidates other than their arbitrary racial differences. By prevailing in a contest where most all else was equal, Obama suceeded on the basis of his skills as a politician (principaly an orator, given the dearth of specifics that has marked his campaign), and proved that race was no longer a factor in seeking the presidency. Choosing amongst apparent equals, voters had no problem selecting a minority. Being able to choose whether or not to elect Barack Obama based on his policies and differences from John McCain, not the outcome of that choice, was the truly historical moment.

Evaluating the results of the general election on the basis of race seems largely irrelevant, given the incredible downturn in the economy, the vastly improved (and underreported) situation in Iraq, and the myriad philosophical and practical differences seperating McCain and Obama. There are simply too many other differences between the candidates, and confounding political variables, to claim that Americans cared much at all about race. True, I imagine there may have been some fleeting number of potential Hillary supporters who couldn't stomach pulling the lever for a black candidate. They would likely have been outnumbered by those who were motivated by the desire to achieve a historic election, merely for the superficial satisfaction of it having been done. Voting for Obama in a way even became the perfect form of progressive bona fides for some ("I'm race blind, except when overtly making note of race proves how race blind I am"). These effects were probably marginal, at best, however. Most of Obama's supporters were probably going to vote for him anyway, and likely would have voted for Hilary instead given the option. And that's just the point - Obama won, in the end, because he ran a better campaign, in a more sympathetic environment, against an opponent who never had it all together. Its that simple. His sucess in the general election tells us much about the dissatisfied American electorate, and the marketability of outdated, populist nonsense in shiny packages, but little about race at all. And more importantly, his defeat (despite the dire prognostications) would have told us equally little.

Either way, as Williams' editorial notes, it appears we have at last transcended the era of race as a limiting factor in politics. Maybe now we can stop hearing about it.

The sun also rises

2008-11-05T10:00:00.000-05:00

What a time to be an American, some will say, and they'll be right of course. While he was not my candidate, Obama will be my president; that is the essence of democracy, and a courtesy that many of my contemporaries refused to extend to President Bush (more on that later). And while I did not vote for him, and am disappointed so many did, the election of Barack Obama nevertheless represents a historic moment for America, and a grand opportunity for both parties in Washington.

Last night's election was closer than many expected, despite the eventual electoral count, and I am heartened that even in a year as bad as 2008 (for Republicans), McCain still had a sporting chance. That said, it is essential that those of us on the right re-examine the direction of the conservative movement in America, and where it has fallen short. There will be plenty of time to make such reflections, and I plan on doing just that as I resume blogging, but for today, I wanted to point out a few opportunities for optimism:

It appears that the Democrats will not gain a 60 seat super majority in Congress. A hollow victory, maybe, but the four remaining races still called "tossups" are all leaning republican. The ability of the republicans to prevent shenanigans on an unprecedented scale will do much to temper the coming ideological hairpin in Washington.

On that note, its razor thin, but Al Franken looks like he will remain a bad Limbaugh wanna-be.

Several important, and contested, ballot referendums passed last night, notably Nebraska's bid to end race-based preferences in government and higher education. Colorado's similar measure remains too close to call. That such important initiatives would pass in this election is even more meaningful, and signals even more decisively the post-racial state of the American voter. A number of referendums on gay marriage appear to have passed, and while I am begrudgingly in agreement with most of them (for lack of any "its all civil unions to the government, gay or otherwise, and churches can call it how they see it" options on the ballot), I am more pleased that such decisions are being made at the state level, where they belong. Local and state policies can and will differ, but ought well to be decided at those levels anyway. Sadly, right to life initiatives did not fare as well last night.

The Democrats have nowhere to go but down, and nobody to blame but themselves - Bush will soon be a memory, and Democrats control both houses of congress. Charged with the mantle of leadership, rather than opposition, the spotlight will quickly become uncomfortable, especially when the disastrous policies being handed down have the Pelosi/Reid seal of approval. The opportunity will be ripe for a 1994 replay in 2010.

Republicans can finally regroup as a party. McCain finally had his day in the sun, and at last the lingering bitterness over 2000 has been vanquished. With nothing to lose, once again conservatives can turn their attention to fiscal responsibility, sound foreign policy, aggressive free-trade promotion, and a new generation of leadership. Good riddance Ted Stevens, make way for Bobby Jindal.

Perhaps, and this is just optimism speaking, there will be some turning of the tide against bitter partisanship; nothing angered me more than the disgraceful way people behaved toward President Bush, and it will not soon be forgotten. Disagreement is important, but disrespect for the man, and the office, was both enraging and pathetic. Republicans will do well not to take such an approach toward Obama - the American people deserve that, and will take notice of it.

Only the coming months will tell the damage, and the opportunites, this election has yielded. For those on the right, don't lose heart - we can, and will, be competitive again, and there is opportunity aplenty for a strong Republican minority to stem the tide of wasteful spending and backward policy flowing from Washington. And for those on the left, celebrate, but mind your words. America is a wonderful, and peculiar place, and the tides of politics quickly change course. Govern with responsibility, or be prepared not to govern for long.

Obama vs Economics

2008-05-04T20:56:00.003-04:00

The Wallstreet Journal editorial page scolds Obama today for his temper-tantrum response to energy companies and oil & gas prices. Among the better gems:

You may also be wondering how a higher tax on energy will lower gas prices. Normally, when you tax something, you get less of it, but Mr. Obama seems to think he can repeal the laws of economics.

I remain at a loss as how Obama, or Clinton for that matter (she also supports the windfall profit pyramid scheme), plan on lowering the cost of gas to the end consumer by imposing an increased marginal cost on the supply side of the equation. An increase in the tax rate on oil companies means they get less money for selling the same gas at the same price - somehow this is supposed to either flood the market with supply, or magically lower the price, rather than have the predicted effect: companies lower supply and invest elsewhere, or increase price. As the WSJ article points out, we've tried this sort of thing before, and it had the predictably negative effect of lowering supply from domestic producers.

As an added bonus, gasoline demand appears to be relatively inelastic historically, meaning that if domestic suppliers are increasing supply and/or decreasing supply, the excess demand will have to come from the very tyrannical foreign oil meanies we all seem so worried about. The journal ends with the tragically poignant rhetorical, "And these people want to be President?" - but the real sad part, via instapundit, is that one of them probably will be.

Glimpses of Eloquence and Heroism

2008-04-09T20:06:00.007-04:00

Bush today awarded The Medal of Honor to Petty Officer Michael A. Monsoor, a Navy SEAL who fell on a grenade to save his fellow servicemen while serving in Iraq. Bush's words are brief, but eloquent, and his emotion is clear and moving as the video shows. Among the more memorable lines, he quotes:

One of the survivors puts it this way: "Mikey looked death in the face that day and said, 'You cannot take my brothers. I will go in their stead.'"

A full transcript of his remarks is available on the Whitehouse website (link). I only wish those who so easily deride the President's character along with his politics could see more videos like this one. Condolences to the Monsoor family; we need more men like their brave son.

The GOP's 18 Billion Dollar Gorilla

2008-03-18T19:56:00.000-04:00

As predicted, Jim DeMint's amendment placing a 1 year moratorium on earmarks failed handily last Thursday, demonstrating once again that the GOP has less short-term memory than Barry Bonds. Last year, earmarks totaled more than $18 Billion, or enough to buy at least 75 Bear Stearns. Despite recent gains, the level of fiscal irresponsibility in Washington is mind-numbing, and yet Republicans, once the party of fiscal restraint, voted against the amendment with the same fervor as their Democratic counterparts. How quickly the anti-tax-and-spend party has cast aside the very identity that vaulted it to power some 14 years ago! The Wall Street Journal reports that, in all, 71 senators voted against the moratorium - what is going on here?

Are Larry Kudlow and I the only ones who remember that the 2006 midterm elections were won on the back of voter uneasiness over corruption and spending? With an alarming number of seats vulnerable this year already, what does such a failure indicate about the GOP's sincerity in both convictions and desire to compete in November? In reality, few expected the amendment to pass, but the wide margin by which it failed is certainly indicative of a fiscal malaise on the part of the Senate. Once again, senators have provided fuel for their own pyre by refusing to take a tough stance that will ultimately endear them with the electorate, and vindicate lofty campaign promises and rhetoric.

In addition to harming GOP senators' chances for reelection, will the failure of the fiscal restraint refrain prove an asset for McCain (who supported the amendment), or simply a tool for pointing out his lack of support from party? With the public perception of McCain as causing strain in the party already the accepted consensus amongst the editorial class, it's not hard to envision claims that he lacks his own party's support on key issues. On the bright side, both Obama and Clinton also supported the amendment (albeit probably to prevent a future attack from McCain). Hey, at least they can agree on something!

Remembering the Grand Wagoneer

2008-03-06T15:28:00.003-05:00

Car Lust posted today on remembering the Jeep Grand Wagoneer, the original SUV. My favorite passage:

In stark contrast to today's posh car-based SUVs, the Wagoneer was a demon off-road, tough as nails, and so solid that it was seemingly hewn from granite. It was so tough that my parents skipped out of their high school homecoming dance to go snowdrift-busting during a blizzard in one of my grandfather's early Wagoneers. Evidently this is what passed for fun in 1968 South Dakota.

I have fond childhood memories of the Wagoneer, which was certainly the toughest car I've ever ridden in. I can vividly recall careening off-road along a creek bed in the dead of winter, the Jeep bounding over rocks and stumps on our way to some Boy Scout related quasi-emergency - true childhood bliss. Read the whole thing. (Via Instapundit)

Bill Gates at the U of Chicago

2008-02-21T14:46:00.000-05:00

I managed to snag tickets to Bill Gates' talk at the Graduate School of Business yesterday through a nifty online lottery for students. Annoying seating corral-gals aside (what's with that - people in business school can't seat themselves?), the talk itself was pretty interesting. He spoke for about 30 minutes, primarily on the topics of rapid technological growth and how it will impact education, health care and the human machine interface, although he did touch on what what he termed at Davos "Creative Capitalism." A video of the talk can be had here (WMV, 76 MB)

Some of the highlights:

He opened the talk by replaying his hilarious farewell video that originally aired at CES - celebrity appearances include Jay-Z, Steve Balmer, Bono, Clooney, Obama, and more. Even funnier in person.

A brief discussion of the evolution of software and hardware industries - he posits an interesting theory that the spread of personal computers, cell phones, etc. works in a positive feedback loop with the growth of software companies - thoughts on this later

The Future of Interaction - Natural User Interface. This was the part I found the most interesting. He discussed how the shift taking place already with the iPhone and Microsoft Surface will eventually transform how we interact with machines. The next iterations will involve touch, speech and visual recognition, and natural writing implements. Cool.

Technology and Healthcare - another cool point, where he demonstrated Microsoft's HD View, being used in conjunction with Harvard to create ground-breaking brain imaging. He stressed the idea that technology should be accesible, so that it enables innovation in a variety of fields, rather than hinders it. He also stressed the applicability of Machine learning and AI to solving puzzles like the AIDS virus.

During the question period, he also addressed a variety of applications of both technology and "Creative Capitalism," particularly in terms of improving inner-city education via charter schools and accountability testing, eradicating malaria and other diseases, and enabling biological research.

My Thoughts:
I think Gates is on to something when he talks about the ability of non-government, privately funded agencies to address certain market failures - particularly the collaboration of the Gates Foundation with GlaxoSmithKline to share the substantial financial risk involved in developing a malaria vaccine. I'm more skeptical, however, when he tries to replicate these successes, and this approach in general, in situations where the markets appear more efficient - for example, his ongoing project to raise African coffee farmer's wages. Improving productivity and efficiency is a good target, as they have done with a separate Indian farming program, but simply seeking to inflate wages a la Fair Trade Coffee isn't.

CUBA LIBRE (?)

2008-02-19T03:33:00.003-05:00

Castro Resigns! What's next? More to come, when I'm awake of course...

Re-examining McCain

2008-02-14T14:49:00.002-05:00

Now that the nomination on the GOP side seems all but locked up, it's time for those of us who supported other candidates in the primaries to examine the relative merits of presumptive nominee John McCain. The AP, in typically unsourced fashion, published a list of "Main Reasons Conservatives Oppose McCain" (link) that serves as an excellent jumping off point for weighing his shortcomings, and for re-examining what may turn out to be some of his better, more conservative principles. While several of the critiques ("Works with Democrats" and "Kerry Veep") don't really carry much weight, and his fiery temper may well prove an asset, their core criticism are important, and disconcerting. Yet I believe that his overall platform is the best of the remaining alternatives. And while many of his policy positions are in stark contrast to the more "conservative" nominees, upon closer examination actually embody more traditionally conservative values. In many ways McCain may be the closest to a Federalist, small government candidate we'll see in 2008.

As noted by the AP, he opposes the Federal Gay Marriage Amendment. And he should! The Constitution and the Supreme Court have no standing to deal with the issue of marriage (or abortion, or prohibition for that matter), and a true conservative stance is identical to McCain's - he opposes the Federal amendment on principle, but he supports a state-level ban on gay marriage in Arizona. Here McCain mirrors Thompson's unorthodox, but correctly Federalist, stance on Abortion that favors overturning Roe but supports a state-level referendum.

With the important exception of campaign finance reform, McCain's biggest weakness is immigration. The AP writes:

"McCain has been a vocal supporter of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, although he now says he understands the border between the U.S. and Mexico must be sealed first."

Here's where I think conservatives are starting to miss the boat. Economics and small government conservatism both tell us that the government doesn't have much business meddling in the labor supply market. And the fact that so many illegal immigrants are employed only indicates that there is a shortage of labor supply. That so many of the same conservative politicians who decry (rightly, in fact) irrational wage increases and bullying union tactics are so vehemently opposed to more comprehensive immigration reform indicates a dearth of rigorous intellectual analysis in favor of gut-check politics.

The problem, one which McCain has only recently figured out, is that merely legalizing the existing workers only fixes half the problem, and only for a little while. Unless we enact comprehensive reform, including an overhaul of the immigration and visa-issuing process, a stronger focus on cultural blending and assimilation, and a rigorous, funded mandate for real border security, we are only further incentivizing marginal immigrants to come here illegally. Yet where McCain trumps several of his former competitors is the understanding that border security alone does not address the very real question of how to deal with the immigrants already here, and how to fill the demand gap in the US labor market. Nor does it approach the asinine, outdated isolationism that embodies our current immigration program. What possible economic reason could we have for limiting the number of visas we issue to post-graduate degree holders other than protectionist nonsense? And for that matter, why is there even a limit on gardeners and dish-washers coming legally, if we know there is such a demand for them that employers are willing to resort to the black market to fill positions?

I mentioned that immigration is McCain's biggest problem, other than campaign finance - that's because campaign finance was the primary reason I didn't support him in the primaries. While I admire his willingness to follow conviction over party, his refusal to recognize the folly of his vote to limit free speech, a vote that spawned the creation of a PAC army doing exactly what the bill was intended to prevent from happening, still worries me. I hope that he will come to a better understanding of the issue, and its practical implications - he certainly has on immigration. Given the primary landscape, and the implications on our national security this election entails, I think it would be folly not to support McCain at this juncture.

Indiana Jones Trailer is Out!

2008-02-14T14:25:00.000-05:00

Watch it. Now.

My thoughts on the subprime crisis

2008-01-28T14:01:00.001-05:00

Since you've been asking (click for full size):

Remember Iraq?

2008-01-27T17:09:00.000-05:00

Reuters is carrying a story, picked up (and buried) by Drudge, titled "Iraq ready for "final" battle with al Qaeda: PM" - anybody remember when Iraq was an election topic; or for that matter, a news topic?

With the furor over the wide-open Presidential election, one might expect that the 800 pound foreign policy gorilla that is Iraq would be loudly exerting its presence. But, as some readers have emailed, we see quite the opposite - we are instead treated to a series of variously relevant, or intelligible, economy prescriptions. (Warning: Krugman Alert!) Perhaps this is a consequence of recent economic insecurity and recession fears; perhaps talking about people's money is good politics - if the so-called "bipartisan stimulus package" tells us anything, giving people money you don't have remains a sound path to re-election. But I suspect the real reason is already clear from the Reuters article:

Iraqi security forces have begun a "decisive" final offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq to push the Sunni Islamist militants out of their last major stronghold in the north, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Friday...

"We defeated al Qaeda, now there is just Nineveh province where they escaped to, and Kirkuk," Maliki said, referring to another northern city.

Of course, one would expect Prime Minister Maliki to be optimistic about his country's security, but I think it speaks volumes about our own politicians, and our news media, that the current developments and trends in Iraq are being so underreported. Once the rhetorical bloviating over the failed "political benchmarks" (a legitimate, but I believe limited, critique) proved ineffective, opponents of the war and the current strategy instead adopted an attitude of blasé ignorance, and the topic has slipped from the national conscious. Conveniently, this served the dual purposes of both neutralizing the successes as a campaign issue, and cementing public sentiment on the topic before so many positive developments could have influenced it. At this rate, AQI will be gone and there will be nobody there to celebrate - perhaps al Qaeda in Iraq needs its own stimulus package...

What are you listening to?

2008-01-13T19:29:00.000-05:00

On the lighter side of things, I've been discovering (and rediscovering) a lot of good music lately. The return to the studying grind after winter break definitely helped, and you'll find that the common thread in my music for the week is an emphasis on continuity as an album, ideal for playing and forgetting while the pages drag by. Links to the Amazon page are included, but if you're in college use Ruckus - it's free and legal, and the artists get compensated.

Leave a comment - tell me what you think of my picks, and let me know what you have been listening to lately.

Sara Bareilles - Little Voices: With aspects similar to other female musicians arriving lately, as part of the latest resurgence in bluesy influenced pop-piano, what sets her apart are her tremendous vocal work, and the occasionally inspiring depth of her lyrics. It has it's limits, and sometimes the themes seem a little repetitive, but taken for what it is this is a solid, solid album - most importantly it's very listenable. (link)

Alison Krauss & Union Station - Live: Wow. This album is a roller coaster ride of amazing Blue Grass music, complemented by Krauss' positively haunting voice. If you're not a fan or familiar with the genre, this is an excellent primer. If you are, then you will not be disappointed. Several of the instrumental pieces really shine, as do most of the countrier twanged, upbeat melodic tracks, and Krauss' crooning on the ballad numbers is chilling. One of the few albums I've ever come across that immediately captivated, and kept me there from start to finish. I can't recommend it enough. (link)

Kings of Convenience - Riot on an Empty Street: I've been stuck on this one for a while. Kings of Convenience, as described by the person who introduced me to them, "are a mix of Folk, Rock and Norwegian Bossa Nova " (hat tip: GLS). Their unique style of guitar and instrumentation lends itself to a sort of beat-driven Simon and Garfunkel. This album in particular manages to contrast their quicker, funkier side, with haunting melodies and deeper prose of their slower works. The harmony on Surprise Ice will catch your breath every time, and Misread has one of the catchiest beats this genre has produced in a while. Check out "Quiet is the New Loud," their earlier album too - they're both winners. (link)

SC Debate Fallout

2008-01-11T17:23:00.000-05:00

I posted a quick note last night while the candidates were still sparing, but a night to think and read more following the "Brawl on the Beach" have gelled a few clear conclusions:

Fred Thompson won hands down, and delivered a warning shot to the GOP field: A lot of supporters have been clamoring for a strong showing by Thompson, and he finally delivered. A number of solid, assertive answers on immigration, Iran/Pakistan, and fiscal policy put him firmly in control, but the highlight of the evening, and the first cause for raucous applause, was his trouncing of Huckabee on his record of liberal fiscal policy and big government politics. Check out the video below.

Many have complained that Thompson appears "lazy" and "uninterested," but there's no way to deny the was bringing he heat last night. If he can push his way back into the media spotlight, and use his new found fundraising for a successful advertising campaign, he can position himself for a victory and a reshaping of the GOP primary.

McCain, not Huckabee, is the man to beat: While a lot can change, especially following the debate and the media blitz to follow, it is clear that McCain was in control heading into last night. If his cautious, maintainance oriented performance wasn't clue enough, the subtle jab from Rudy about supporting the surge showed that candidates will be targeting the Senator after his victory in New Hampshire. Several polls, finished before the debate, also have McCain swinging to the lead ahead of Huckabee.

Not only do Romney and Huckabee need to step up criticism of McCain's vulnerable record, but if Thompson wants to complete his own McCain-esque resurgence, he'll need light up McCain's record like he did Huckabee's - and keep the pressure on.

Romney needs a win: His first place in Wyoming aside, the fatigue of the media's overreaction to his second place finishes in New Hampshire and Iowa are starting to show. He responded well to Ron Paul's nonsense about Israel, but he could have used it as an opportunity to sieze control of the debate from Thompson with a fiery stump on foreign policy. He didn't.

Moreover, his fate in South Carolina may depend on the Michigan results, and the media spin on those results. If he fades to second there as well, support could start to shift to Thompson or McCain, depending on who's leading SC polls at the time. A win in Michigan, and Romney could be looking at a conservative, southern state with a large number of undecided voters that is ripe for the picking. Other than Thompson, Romney is the most conservative of the bunch, and a win in Michigan will be crucial to capturing a piece of the media pie in the "First in the South" primary.

South Carolina Debate Quick Thought

2008-01-10T23:56:00.000-05:00

[Update!] Here's a better version of the quote/attack by Thompson:

"On the one hand," he said, "you have the Reagan revolution, you have the Reagan coalition of limited government and strong national security. And the other hand, you have the direction that Governor Huckabee would take us in. He would be a Christian leader, but he would also bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies."

Thompson then lit into Huckabee, the former Baptist preacher and Arkansas governor who won the Iowa caucus, for wanting to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for supporting what he called "taxpayer-funded programs for illegals" and for wanting to sign a law restricting smoking.

"That's not the model of the Reagan coalition, that's the model of the Democratic Party," he said.

Fred Thompson just made his move - blasts Huckabee on his liberal record and "Reagan" pandering (paraphrase):

That doesn't sound like the Reagan coalition, that sounds like the platform of the Democratic Party!

After New Hampshire

2008-01-09T12:51:00.000-05:00

Well, so much for Clinton Inc. going down without a fight. With her come-from-behind victory in New Hampshire, and John McCain's media-fueled resurgence, the race is once again wide open. Or is it?

A quick look over at RealClearPolitics.com tells a different story. For the Democrats, Obama may have needed another win to actually pull this thing off. While the media loves to swing elections (John McCain's reappearance act anyone?), they may not be able to stem the tide after Clinton has regained her footing. She leads Florida, California and Nevada by nearly 20 points apiece. The polls for Nevada are from December, though, so that race may change following the Iowa victory. And, of course, Obama is leading South Carolina by at least 10. But a string of losses for Obama, coupled with Hillary's strong super tuesday outlook could spell the end for the senator from Illinois.

On the Republican side, it looks like a game of Primary "Risk." Things are indeed wide open - at least for the next two weeks: Michigan is still leaning Romney, albeit slightly, while Huckabee controls South Carolina and Guliani is commanding Florida and California. Fred Thompson (among the favored candidates at The Oath!) has made South Carolina his battleground, hoping that a strong showing will lead to a surge in support like the one that propelled him to third in Iowa. As for McCain, his future is uncertain. He's polling well, usually second or third, in all of the above races, but will need to make up significant ground. There isn't any new polling out, however, following his victory in New Hampshire, so things may get more interesting in Michigan and Nevada before long.

OLED headed to the US

2008-01-07T13:36:00.001-05:00

The next generation of display technology is finally coming to US shelves, albeit in a small, very expensive package. Sony announced at this week's Consumer Electronics Show that their XEL-1 11" OLED TV will be going on sale in the US - for a mere $2,500 (!). Of course, this is only the first step, and much more promising was the 27" prototype they demoed as well (Gallery here). It's positively gorgeous, and large enough to actually be useful outside the ultra-rich kitchen/bathroom demographic.

Is Duncan Hunter out?

2008-01-07T03:14:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin reports that a big hunter announcement is coming this afternoon. If he drops, will be endorse Fred?

Iowa Fallout - Are we Hucked?

2008-01-04T14:55:00.000-05:00

The results in Iowa, while not a surprise, are indeed indicative of a shift in the primary paradigm. While the big stories are, of course, Obama trouncing Hilary and the "Huckaboom," the real stories lie a little beneath the surface. Some quick thoughts:

Huckabee can't keep it up: I'm going to disagree with the main stream on this one. The big talk after the win in Iowa is whether or not Huckabee is now the front runner. Please. The talk in New Hampshire is all Romney/McCain. And South Carolina is far from decided. While Mike has benefited from the lack of information about his politics ex-religion, that fog will not last indefinitely. With this victory will come increased scrutiny of his policies, and he will soon show signs of fatigue. So don't worry folks - we're not Hucked yet.

John McCain is Back: Outside of the meteoric rise of the Clinton-esque Mike Huckabee, the big slobber line for the media is the return of "Maverick" favorite John McCain. I recently discussed an article highlighting his unorthodox but compelling credentials, but I remain unconvinced. The media love-fest over his reappearance in the campaign only adds to the suspicion. That said, he looks renewed headed to the show down with Romney in NH

Ron Paul has a point: Relax - he won't win the nomination. But the presence of such a radical candidate, and the fact that he is garnering significant support (double digits anyone?) indicates that powerful new ideas outside the so-called "Progressive" wing can still be a force for change in American politics.

Fred Thompson is still alive: Yes, he finished third. But that's better than expected, and he's vowed to stay in the race. Moreover, he holds an ace in the hole that few other candidates have considered - Wyoming. While the caucus carries less significance, it also has the most potential for a strong Thompson finish before the Do-or-Die South Carolina primary. Lynne Cheney is working for the Thompson campaign, and he could really garner some momentum with a win or strong second in Wyoming.

John Edwards is Done: It's been a nice ride for the talking populist hair cut, but he isn't looking good elsewhere. He can savor the .5% win over Hilary, and hope for another VP nomination (although I doubt it).

Thoughts? Leave a comment - I'd like to know how the results struck folks.

The Campus Workers Question

2007-12-18T20:22:00.000-05:00

With the time for renewing campus labor contracts upon us, the usual sympathetic suspects have sprung into action across campus, most notably Students Organizing United with Labor (SOUL). More interesting, and certainly more relevant to the discussion from a factual standpoint, is the smaller contingent of students questioning the rather boisterous claims of the Union/SOUL coalition. By way of background, the union rejected an initial offer in the 2-3% gradual increase range, and then again narrowly voted to reject an offer of 3.5% over the next three years.

In a recent set of dueling editorials blazened across the soiled pages of the Chicago Maroon, the attitude of both sides makes itself subtly, but openly, apparent. Senior Andrew Lees wrote to question the validity of the "4%" demand coming from student groups, and he raises a number of strong points:

The CPI grew at an average annual rate of 2.53 percent in the 12 months ending in October 2007. Inflation measured by the Core CPI—so named because it excludes energy and food, the two most volatile components of the price level—was at 2.37 percent, well below the Union’s 4-percent mark. Both of these numbers, you will note, are below the University’s three percent offer...When questioning SOUL members about the accuracy of the four percent, they insist that the cost of living in Chicago is rising faster than in the rest of the nation. This is also untrue: Headline CPI for the Chicago-Gary-Kenosha area grew at a 2.54-percent average annual rate, and Core CPI for the area estimated the inflation rate at just 1.95 percent.
(Emphasis is mine)

He further lambasted the present campaign for the arbitrary nature of the 4% figure, since it does not correlate to either the empirical data, or the anecdotal assertions also being used to bolster the demand. A week later, a member of the workers union wrote to argue that "Inflation data does not reflect reality." An interesting premise, to say the least, but he makes several claims that demand further exploration, due to their potentially misleading implications:

[The CPI value of 2.53] hides the fact that inflation has been trending upward over the last year—the average over the last 6 months has been 3.51 percent

One has to wonder, then, what the union found unsatisfactory about the 3.5% increase that they voted to reject?

The author also mentions rising property taxes and rent values, both of which are valid concerns - yet the CPI breakdown clearly shows that rent and housing costs are factored into both the national and the regional calculations. Most confusing is his claim that:

[T]he inflation rate for gasoline, now at 26.1 percent, affects us greatly. [This] figures are not reflected in Lees’s figure of 2.53 percent, but they are reflected in our lives.

Hmm, call me crazy, but as I undestand it that is exactly what seperates CPI from Core CPI - the CPI value of 2.53% is higher precisely because it does include the price of fuel, which tends to have a much higher inflation value and raise the entire metric. The author closes with an ad hominem exhortation to consult with the workers about how much of a cost of living pay raise they deserve - a valid request, so long as the workers are consulting with the facts.

Chavez, Putin, McCain and The Heisman - Daily Reading - 12/06/2007

2007-12-07T01:34:00.000-05:00

Today's articles include positive analysis of both Thompson and McCain, as well as a look at college football superstars' shortcomings in the NFL and some continuing coverage on the landmark defeat on Chavez. I hope to have more to say on the Chavez subject in the next day or two, in particular the lukewarm reception the outcome has had in the US press - not that anyone ought to be surprised. Nonetheless, the outcome is historic and encouraging, whether some choose to ignore it or not.

I've made my feelings known on Thompson before, particularly his excellent white paper on tax reform. As for McCain, a reader writes to argue his credentials as an unorthodox and atypical candidate - a position that McCain seems to relish. The reader writes

I personally like his willingness to break with the Republican orthodoxy on issues like immigration, tax policy, campaign finance, farm subsidies, and global warming, as well as his character and judgment.

In truth, an apparent mixed bag. Although his willingness to call a horse a horse when it comes to spending is certainly encouraging, I remain unconvinced of the merits of McCain/Feingold, an opinion the write does not seem to share.

At any rate, a set of excellent reads. More to come - Enjoy.

"A Tale of Two Dictators" - National Review

"The case for John McCain" - The Economist (Hat Tip: AWF)

"Why This Southern Baptist Minister Supports Fred Thompson" - Red State

"Heisman Is No Key to NFL Glory" - Why do so few winners make it in the pros? - OpinionJournal

Daily Reading - 12/04/2007

2007-12-04T18:53:00.000-05:00

What we're reading at The Oath:

"Fred is Dead? Reports are Premature" - Human Events

"Cut Tax Rates, Not the Fed Funds Rate" - National Review

"Sen. John McCain & Sen. Joe Lieberman: It's inexcusable for Congress not to fund troops in Iraq" - The Union Leader

"Venezuelans Rain on Hugo" - Opinion Journal

Sony OLED display unboxed (With Pictures!) - TV Snob (via Gizmodo)

Fred Thompson's Window of Opportunity

2007-12-02T17:41:00.000-05:00

Of all the oddities of the current election cycle, I am most puzzled by Fred Thompson's failure to seize upon the numerous opportunities he has been handed since entering the race. I won't pretend that I am unbiased - he's certainly the candidate I am the most intrigued with, especially in light of his penchant for "straight talk" and sticking to his ideology. More conservative, it would seem, than Giuliani and with more potential for Christian Right appeal than Romney, he has all the makings of the popular candidate. His proposals, moreover, have been by far the most substantial, and carry a broad appeal - see as an example his Tax Reform Plan, which proposes lower corporate tax rates, repealing the AMT, and instating an opt-in flat tax with 10% and 25% flat income brackets. Certainly more food for thought than the usual "Make the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent." The general feeling when he announced his candidacy, in fact, was that people want him to assume the role of the consensus GOP candidate. He just doesn't seem to have done it.

The Times wrote on Friday that Thompson is viewed as lazy and that his campaign events are haphazardly prepared and often surprisingly sparse. While Thompson is quick to point out that this style of campaigning was far more regular in the past, and indeed the norm for Reagan, this is not a typical election cycle. The lack of a clear Republican choice, the deluge of media attention, both new and old, and the particularly partisan state of politics has created an environment that demands incredible amounts of action on the part of any of the candidates.

All that said, it seems like Thompson has been dealt at least one more chance to make a run at a bounce, especially in the South, where he polls the strongest (RCP average here). The combination of a recent, but uncapitalized, NRLC endorsement of his surprisingly Libertarian stance on Abortion, and a strong showing at the most recent debate, mean that he has another chance to seize momentum in the race that desperately wants a front runner. His best strategy - a marketing blitz touting his more common-sense conservative credentials and his strong endorsements, and an increase in his presence in the states he is competitive in. If he can remind people why they wanted him to enter the race, and why so many have quipped that he's the candidate people want to support, he might be able to turn some heads in Iowa and South Carolina, and turn his campaign around.

The war (not so) at home

2007-11-19T18:23:00.000-05:00

Last Sunday's Washington Post featured a remarkably insightful editorial written by a Soldier named William Quinn. After serving a tour in Iraq from 2005-2006, he returned to attend Georgetown as an undergraduate. "The only feeling I've ever had that was more surreal than arriving in a war zone," he begins, "was returning from one."

I find it frustrating that Facebook is a bigger part of most students' lives than the war...I may be prejudiced, but many of my college peers seem self-absorbed. I didn't want to end up like that...

I have lamented in the past about the decline of the American University, particularly Chicago, but Quinn's perspective is uniquely suited to demonstrating its shortcomings. The war in Iraq has no analogue within American History, because it's minimal impact on the civilian population is unprecedented. It is present on campus, but only as an "issue" - an opportunity for self-promoting advocacy and intellectual masturbation - often having the remarkable effect of demonstrating self-delusion rather than the intended inflation of already bloated sophomoric egos.

The fact that the average college student is unaffected by the war is as much a consequence of an increasingly relativistic and self-promoting educational system as it is a side-effect of a technologically advanced military unlike any in the world. It is almost ironic, then, that the very tools by which we are able to prevent drastic changes in the civilian way of life during war (avoiding the draft, incredibly low casualty rates, revolutionary weapon and intelligence technology), have led to a less engaged and supportive civilian populous because of their separation from the conflict.

It shouldn't surprise Quinn, therefore, that the average student is much more concerned with resumes and reactionary politics than self-sacrifice and "the culture of duty" - never before has a population been asked to do so little as part of a war effort. It is only a sad but predictable outcome, then, that they choose to do just that.

Sony OLEDs - At last!

2007-10-01T13:09:00.001-04:00

Now for something completely different - Sony has finally set a release date for their first commercial OLED TV. One of several competing technologies to be the "Next Generation" of HD, OLED is certainly the most exciting, and the farthest along.

The next generation television has a screen with a thickness of just three millimetres (0.12 inches), which was made possible because the organic display is self-luminescent and does not require a backlight.

Such screens, which sandwich a very thin layer of organic material between two plates, use less power and offer brighter images and wider viewing angles than liquid crystal display panels.

The real kicker:

Weighs 2 kgs
Measures 287 × 140 × 253mm
Contrast ratio 1,000,000:1
960 x 450 resolution

While the contrast ratio is drool-worthy, the resolution seems deceptively small. But remember these are only 11 inch screen, and the first product that have released in their OLED line. They demoed a 27 incher at CES last year, so it shouldn't be more than 12 months before we see the good stuff.

Of course Japan gets the goodies first (Official Sony Page here in Japanese), but a US release will certainly follow. For those who have been following, Gizmodo first picked this up early this year, (and later here) and now have a comprehensive post with pictures.

March of the Pigeon Doves

2007-10-01T03:10:00.000-04:00

On a hot tip, I checked out the trailer and media coverage of the forthcoming Redford/Streep/Cruise Drama "Lions for Lambs". No surprises here, of course, but I can't help but be a little more disappointed than usual with Hollywood's "slice like a hammer" subtlety. The plot, which switches excitedly between three simultaneous stories, bludgeons the viewer with the "truth" about the war in Iraq that has been so craftily hidden by its proponents - namely that it is a complete failure (of course), an outright sham, and that our brave soldiers are merely victims of their own deluded patriotism.

First, and foremost, the claims of a supposed lack of volition, and intellectual fortitude and foresight, on the part of our armed forces volunteers is the worst form of soft bigotry. But the most telling and intellectually dishonest line from the trailer has got to be Streep's quip to Cruise that his demands for a continued involvement in the War on Terror are easy for "the man in the air conditioned room." This, of course, from the woman in the air conditioned movie studio, being paid 7 figures to assault a war and an administration that she and her colleagues have opposed since before they began. If one who is not on the front lines of combat is unfit to support the war, than how exactly does one become fit to disparage it? After all, blind support is no match for blind antagonism. As Redford's character laments, "The problem is with us, who do nothing." Except, of course, those of us who make movies.

Ironically, of all the times for this movie to begin its media blitz, it comes in the wake of an upbeat report from General Petraeus, collaborating testimony from the New York Times and an encouraging drop in Iraq casualties to a 14 month low (the fourth month straight of declines). And while momentum for a withdrawal is stalled in the Senate, it seems to be all the rage on the left coast, where a lineup of like-minded cinematic endeavors await anxiously in the wings for their chance at a "limited release", brief box office disappointment, and eventual place in Nancy Pelosi's Netflix queue.

(Hat tip: Acai)

Richardson - Tax and Spend... and Spend?

2007-08-08T19:43:00.000-04:00

It's tough out there for a second tier candidate. In the course of trying to catch up via increased levels of pandering, Bill Richardson managed to discover a novel solution to the "Tax and Spend" label that has dogged Democrat candidates for some time: Spend and Spend!

In a brief piece titled "Money for schools, not for war," MSNBC reports that the long shot candidate, in a speech to the National Education Association, declared:

"We need to get out of Iraq, where precious lives and needed dollars have been wasted ...We could use these resources to improve our schools..."

Say what you will about his understanding of how the Federal Budget works, but at least he knew his target audience. The problem was that he had already spent the money - the same day!

Earlier that day, Richardson had called for universal health coverage, increased Medicare subsidies and boosted preventative medicine, to the tune of $100 + billion a year. And what's more, he declared he wouldn't have to raise taxes to do it. How, then, to finance the latest "Health care Crisis" panacea? Iraq funding of course!

The New Mexico governor said he could provide coverage to the 45 million uninsured without raising taxes. Instead, Richardson said preventive care would save the nation billions of dollars and additional money could be diverted from spending on the Iraq war.

Richardson, Dodd and others are doing their best to stay in the game, but when you're campaign promises start to contradict each other in the same day, you might be getting a little bit desperate to keep up.

Welcome (or perhaps Welcome Back)

2007-08-08T15:41:00.001-04:00

For those who were readers of Maroonblog, you may have some sense from my farewell post as to the intended nature of this forum, but whether you are a faithful reader or first time visitor, welcome.

The quote that sits below the title of this blog, by Jacques-Louis David, conveys nicely the reasons I returned to blogging. I believe it is the duty of any engaged citizen to be in constant analysis of all the world within which he lives.

The name, of course, finds its root in the mythic "Oath of the Horatii," immortalized in the painting of the aforementioned Jacques-Louis David, and seen below. I found it to be uniquely fitting with my goal of returning to the blogosphere to pursue my civic duty, and engage in inspirational, insightful and articulate commentary and debate. Enjoy, and I encourage you to join in.