Miscellany: 11/30/09

John Kerry's Obsession with OBL and Tora Bora

John Kerry just can't let it go, years after the 2004 campaign, when he charged that President Bush's inept leadership as Commander in Chief let Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden get away in December 2001, just 3 months after 9/11. A few US soldiers unknowingly came within mere yards of Osama Bin Laden hiding in an Afghan mountain cave in Tora Bora near the Pakistan border; Bin Laden was able to make his escape into the lawless areas of western Pakistan. The current politically-motivated Senate Foreign Relations report absurdly and oversimplifyingly blames this unlucky scenario for resulting in the current state of affairs, with an unstable western Pakistan and a strong Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

First, let me make myself clear: I want OBL brought to justice, dead or alive. If the US military or intelligence agencies find him and arrest him (or kill him), I'm fine with Obama taking all the political credit. My issue is with the polemical nature and hypocritical analysis of this self-serving report.

The often-repeated allegation is that Iraq was a distraction from the "real" war in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Let's get a few things straight. Pakistan has been a traditional American ally, more as strategic balance against India, which once had close ties with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, there have been known ties between Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence and radical Islamic groups like Al Qaeda and Taliban (which, in fact, US military leaders asserted as late as last March still exist). Former Pakistan President Musharraf claims that Secretary of State deputy Richard Armitage (remember the Valerie Plame leak?) threatened him in the aftermath of 9/11, a charge Armitage disputes; Musharraf says that he war-gamed the idea of breaking with Washington over the alleged ultimatum to join in the alliance against terrorism. There has been anti-American sentiment in Pakistan over being seen as America's puppet and the belief that Pakistani civilians are paying the brunt of the price for the American war on terrorism. (What's that, you say? You haven't heard Obama berated (like Bush) for "breeding a new generation of terrorists" due to military actions under his command? I haven't, either....)

Second, the lack of state control over the western part of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan did not result as a consequence of the post-9/11 events; it was a preexisting condition. Similarly the Taliban's presence in Afghanistan and the radical Islamic religious schools in Pakistan predated 9/11; ask Indians about terrorist attacks from groups based in Pakistan--events that occurred before 9/11. Also, remember that the Taliban in Afghanistan wasn't so much defeated in military battles during the 2001 war with the Northern Alliance; rather, they retreated from the cities, reorganizing as a guerrilla force.

The point is, the world is complex. There are a number of facts explaining the current state of affairs, none of which involve the professionalism, competence and valor of American soldiers under two presidents,  including issues of national reconciliation in Afghanistan, inconsistent government services, and well-documented corruption and incompetence. The idea that stopping Bin Laden years ago would have resulted in the collapse of  international terrorism is not credible; it is sheer wishful thinking. One could just as reasonably argue that the "martyrdom" of OBL would have been the rallying cry for a new generation of extremists.

The fact that former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was grappling with some of the same issues Obama and Gates are wrestling with--in terms of trying to balance military operations with the minimization of politically counterproductive collateral damage--points out the arbitrary nature and superficial analysis underlying the Senate analysis.

Let's hope one day Obama, Kerry, Geithner and other Democrats will stop whining about the hand they've been dealt and exercise some constructive leadership. If they don't want to take responsibility, they should get the hell out of the kitchen and let other people serve in their place: might I suggest they study Palin's resignation speech?

Obama: A Top Global Thinker?

Fed Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a former economics professor known for his research on the factors underlying the Great Depression, was named Sunday by Foreign Policy as #1 on its Top 100 Global Thinkers for allegedly preventing Depression #2. This sounds impressive, until you learn that they picked Obama #2 for "reimaging America's image in the world". Say what? The Obama Apology Tours, the prematurely announced Gitmo closure reimaged America in the eyes of the world? What specific accomplishments? Bush announced a schedule to leave Iraq before he left office; the CIA chief announced the end of the use of enhanced intelligence techniques (in Gitmo, applied to only 3 detainees, high-ranking Al Qaeda members) in 2006; Obama is widely expected to announce an intermediately-staffed surge in Afghanistan later this week. What has Obama fundamentally said differently apart from all the Democratic contenders for the 2008 nomination? What innovative foreign policy successes has he achieved towards resolving the Middle East Israeli/Palestinian dispute? Iran's race for nuclear weapons? North Korea's ongoing destabilizing moves in Southeast Asia?

I'm not revisiting the absurd awarding of Nobel Peace Prize for Obama's potential accomplishments (the principal criterion of which he is not George W. Bush). I don't have unrealistic expectations for Obama's ability to reconcile decades-long disputes in a short period of time. Here's what I do know: Obama doesn't have any professional foreign policy expertise or diplomatic experience. Whereas there's a lot to be said for certain symbolic gestures (the most notable of which comes to mind is Nixon's "ping pong diplomacy" with mainland China), I do not confuse symbolic acts with substantive accomplishments or innovative diplomacy.

Political Cartoon

Lisa Benson reminds American taxpayers before they buy this turkey of health care "reform" by the Democrats, they had better find out what the back room politicians have packed and hidden inside the bird. I have a feeling Americans are going to find them hard to swallow, never mind digest...

Christmas Music Interlude: Dolly Parton & Kenny Rogers "Once Upon a Christmas"

One of two Kenny Rogers' duets in my countdown. Rogers termed this during their holiday television special several years ago a "standard", and I agree; in fact, I think the song is one of the best (if not the best) songs Parton has ever written. I love the entire arrangement: Kenny Rogers' spoken introduction, the vocals and harmony, the orchestra,  and the choir. I purchased their album TWICE, based primarily on this song (I couldn't find my first copy after a move).

The Hannity-Palin "Book Tour" Interview

Last weekend I thought about checking to see if CWTV had put the latest episode of The Vampire Diaries online, I flipped through the cable channels and saw that Sean Hannity was interviewing Sarah Palin. (No necessary connection there, but Alaska does have some long nights...) I didn't catch the start of the interview, so maybe he did kiss her ring... (It wouldn't surprise me...)

One thing you have to admire (or despise) in Sarah Palin: she sticks to her talking points, no matter what. There were a variety of familiar items previously discussed in my posts, and I don't really want to repeat myself. But she says a number of incredulous things, and Sean Hannity never pushes her on her talking points.

The Couric Supreme Court Decision Question

What is amazing here is that a year after the interview question was given, Sarah Palin doesn't seem to understand where Katie Couric was going with the question (or at least how I would have interpreted the thrust of her question) of Supreme Court decisions (other than Roe v. Wade). For example, as a working mother, did she have a position on the Ledbetter decision? As a Christian, did she take a position on the school prayer decisions in the early 1960's? What about the 2003 University of Michigan Bollinger decisions on the role of affirmation action in university admission? But, and this is the one I would have begun with, there was the unconscionable Kelo decision which dramatically extended the scope of eminent domain beyond traditional Fifth Amendment constraints. The point is, Katie was really giving Sarah an opportunity to express her key political values, how they have been affected by the Supreme Court, the current balance of the Supreme Court, and what qualities Sarah Palin would like to see in a federal judge.

Instead, Sarah Palin told Hannity that of course, she was well-aware of Supreme Court decisions and should have mentioned the Exxon-Valdez decision from June 2008. That is a fairly surface-level reaction to the question--Katie really wasn't trying to play the one-on-one version of Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

The Couric Newspapers and Magazines Question

Sarah Palin  made an admission I've heard before, that she deliberately refused to respond the question, which had more to do with her perceptions of the motivation beyond the question (i.e., "anti-Alaskan") and seeks to reassure Sean Hannity and the American people that in fact she does read, is well-read on current affairs and traverse the Internet. She does admit that answering the question the way she did wasn't a politically savvy move.

Again, this is a fairly surface-level response to the question versus what I think Katie Couric intended. I'm not that impressed with her initial reference  (to Hannity) of newsmax.com, a pop conservative outlet. For example, I myself subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and have subscribed or continue to subscribe to magazines like BusinessWeek, US News & World Report, and the National Review. I will regularly check for new columns by articulate conservatives like George Will, Thomas Sowell, David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer. I also like to check on what the opposition is thinking (e.g., Chris Matthews podcasts, Slate or Huffington Post). I'm not a politician; I would like to think that people in public service are at least as well-read as I am on  business, economics, and political issues. The point, however, isn't so much whether you read newspapers and magazines as explaining your approach to keeping up to date on topical issues.

The David Letterman Kerfuffle

Once again, Sarah Palin, despite have accepted an apology extended by Letterman, insists that the ill-fated, lousy joke in question was deliberately aimed at her then 13-year-old daughter Willow, whom attended a Yankee game, something that is patently absurd to any reasonable person. Sarah Palin is well-aware and taking full advantage of that the Letterman staff inexcusably failed to fact check which Palin daughter attended the game, assuming it was 18-year-old unwed mother, Bristol, and her smear of Letterman as a pedophile is unethical, unprofessional and unconscionable behavior, totally inexcusable and reprehensible. Furthermore, her justification for refusing an invitation to the Letterman show so he could apologize in person, saying that he was out to exploit the occasion for ratings is yet another departure from reality; Sarah Palin herself was responsible for overreacting to a lame "joke". David Letterman twice had to directly address the issue during his show, something I don't think he or any late show comedian has ever done with respect to any joke.

I have not really analyzed the joke before in a post, and I think I have a quick wit and good sense of humor. I just don't get the joke, but I really haven't been following Alex Rodriguez's career and life that closely, unlike Yankee fans. (My relatives come from a distant suburb of Boston and consists of Boston Red Sox fans.) What I know is that Alex Rodriguez had notorious rumored or actual extramarital relationships with pop singer Madonna and a stripper. A joke involving a brief encounter with Bristol Palin during the seventh inning stretch might work only if several pieces of information were true: Alex Rodriguez and Bristol Palin were sexually promiscuous; Alex had a history of chasing barely legal young women; and Alex had a reputation for short-lived sexual performances.

Bristol Palin was just a high school girl like many others, whose boyfriend pressured her into sex. She made a mistake, and she responsibly chose to bring a beautiful baby boy into the world. That hardly puts her in the same league as a 32-year-old stripper or a middle-aged celebrity singer whom once published nude photos of herself.

Even though Letterman's staff fact-checked Bristol's age doesn't mean that the joke was acceptable; they were making the governor's daughter out to be a slut. That was unfair, heartless, and mean-spirited. If Bristol decided after her pregnancy, she wanted to counsel other young couples against making the same mistake, that's honorable, not something to be ridiculed. Even if it was David Letterman's staff which came up with the joke, David Letterman is responsible for putting it in his monologue. What kind of professional judgment did he show after over 25 years in the business? He's a parent himself, for God's sake. He likes to keep his home life private; why didn't the governor's family deserve the same consideration?

I understand why the Palins are upset at how their daughter was getting treated. But I don't think it's wise for a politician to pick a battle with a late-night comedian (it gave a bad joke unnecessary exposure), and Sarah Palin's ill-advised escalation of the situation, insisting to this day that the joke was about statutory rape and accusing Letterman of being a pedophile. Not only did she lose the moral higher ground, but she raised questions about her judgment and her professional demeanor.

The Scandals

Sarah Palin is in a state of denial. Calling the numerous complaints "frivolous" is wishful thinking. In fact, the independent investigator of Troopergate concluded that Palin had abused her power. An investigator of her Alaska Defense Fund agreed with a complaint that it violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. In response to another complaint, Sarah Palin agreed to reimburse the state for thousands of dollars in travel expenses claimed for her children.

It does seem that a female former state employee (Ms. McLeod), a registered Republican allegedly unhappy with the fact that the Palin Administration had refused to hire her, has been the source for multiple complaints, and it is true that a disproportionate number of complaints have been filed since Sarah Palin's selection as McCain's running mate. However, Sarah Palin, who had built a reputation as a reformer taking on her own party and further added symbolic touches like putting a state plane up for sale and doing without certain staff positions at the state residence, seemed imprudent in other respects. Why was her unelected husband being carbon-copied on state-relevant emails and given access to state facilities, phones, etc.? Why was she using commercial external email accounts (e.g., yahoo.com) instead of secure Alaskan state email, certainly in appearance (if not fact) a possible workaround to relevant state sunshine/transparency laws? Why was she wearing a jacket in public, promoting one of her husband's snowmachine racing sponsors? Did she attempt to get reimbursement from the state of Alaska for legal defense of allegedly frivolous complaints and/or address the issue with the state legislature before establishing a legal defense fund? Did she get any legal advice on whether setting up a legal defense fund could violate existing Alaska law and/or did she proactively report any contributors to her fund whom were individuals or companies doing business with the state of Alaska?  Presumably the fact that most of these charges were dismissed suggest that the violations were not deemed material or the complainant had not met the burden of proof.

But for someone whom built a career on combating corruption, Sarah Palin seemed remarkably oblivious to things like the state picking up the tab for her family's travel expenses; I mean, I've seen fellow consultants sometimes have their wives or families join them while on assignment, but jump through hoops to ensure the company or client were not charged for any expenses beyond their own.

The Attacks on McCain Campaign Staffers

The fact that Sarah Palin named her book Going Rogue seems to suggest she is far more comfortable fighting Republicans or campaign staffers than promoting a positive, substantive agenda. The media conservatives (like Bill O'Reilly) think there's nothing wrong with candidate Sarah Palin publicly questioning campaign strategy (e.g., ceding Michigan or robo-calls), griping about staffers encouraging her performance during the national interviews, the questions being asked by Katie Couric, the moderator's questions during the Vice-Presidential debate, etc.; however, when McCain staffers suggest, off the record, that Sarah Palin is high maintenance (say it ain't so, Joe!), it's a "PERSONAL ATTACK" on Palin; Bill O'Reilly and others allege that those staffers are trying to "scapegoat" Sarah Palin for a losing effort and question John McCain's manhood in not publicly rebuking the allegations...

Let me see a show of hands of all people whom think a fight between a sitting governor/VP candidate and a campaign staffer is fair--how many campaign staffers have gotten a $5M advance to air dirty laundry? How many of them have appeared on Oprah, Barbara Walters or the Fox News primetime lineup to give their side in a "fair and balanced" report on the dispute? Oh, that's right: apparently a few comments in obscure news stories get as much coverage as Palin's interviews with and endless negative talking point commentaries from Bill O'Reilly... Does Bill O'Reilly have a clue as to what left-wing websites were saying about Sarah Palin and her family, and does he believe minor gripes from McCain staffers are comparable? Does he think Sarah Palin had a blank check to treat staffers however she wanted? How many people think if Sarah Palin was treating the staffers like the professionals they are, with all due respect and common courtesy, you would have heard all this drama?

Sarah Palin, in writing her book, could have taken the high road, refusing to address petty disputes in practicing her Christian faith. She could have taken responsibility for her abysmal performance--it wasn't the fault of John McCain, the staffers, the national interviewers, or the debate moderator. She could have been a team player and gone with the flow.

Political Spin

"The liberals, their heads are just going to be spinning...." No, dear Sarah. Conservative heads are spinning, just hearing you praise Hillary Clinton: "Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America."  What's not to love about a progressive with less than a 10% lifetime ACU voting record? No doubt Sarah Palin realizes, in saying that, what great affection conservatives have for Hillary stemming from her husband's years in the White House and her notorious first stab at health insurance "reform". And how about Sarah Palin's response to Letterman's unconditional apology to her and Bristol for the Alex Rodriguez' seventh-inning quickie joke. "Of course it's accepted on behalf of young women, like my daughters, who hope men who 'joke' about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve." Sarah Palin is adopting feminist/politically correct rhetoric in responding to an apology for a joke (admittedly in bad taste) that implies consensual sex between adults (not necessarily in public). Everyone knows how much conservatives love political correctness...

The Resignation

I want to say to anyone whom believes Sarah Palin's spin on why she resigned from office, there's a Bridge to Nowhere I would like to sell you. You know, the one she supported building during her 2006 campaign but canceled several months later after learning the costs had doubled--and then told the country she had told the Congress they could keep their money for the bridge (when, in fact, the Alaskan legislature had already spent the money on other things, which the Congress had allowed).

No, it's not the "spurious" ethics complaints, that she had accomplished all she intended to accomplish as governor or that governors are honor-bound to resign just as soon as they decide not to run for reelection (I guess, after all, the state administration and public service work comes to a halt after a governor decides not to run for reelection, a governor doesn't make appointments or other executive decisions, no longer has to promote the state's economy or direct emergency services, the National Guard is on auto-pilot, etc.)

Maybe the fact that Sarah Palin had earlier resigned in 2004 after less than a year as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission should have been taken into consideration by Alaskan voters as evidence of her professional commitment to the citizens of Alaska... "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me..."

Miscellany: 11/29/09

The Breast Exam Kerfuffle: A Contrary Opinion


I briefly touched on this topic in an earlier post, but I'm very irritated at both sides of the political spectrum shamelessly demagoguing the issue. (Being "against" breast health is like coming out against Mom, pie, and Chevrolet.) The Democrats are claiming their very rationale to "control costs" is based on preventive medicine, exactly the kind of thing yearly exams are designed to detect--moreover, they argue findings like these just play right into the hands of "evil" health care insurers, whom allegedly will now use the relaxed standards as an excuse to short-shrift women's health. The Republicans and media conservatives are using this as basically a harbinger of what's to come under the rationing of government-run health care.

Enough! I've had it with this anti-intellectual/scientific populism which doesn't even begin to address what the task group was discussing. Let me quote Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (I'm sure the Democrats didn't see the word "preventive"):

We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does saves lives. But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully.

What's that you say? "Serious negatives or harms"? [How many demagogues over the past 10 days have addressed what the task group actually said, never mind the results were based over politically-neutral FACTS and sophisticated mathematical modeling, based on medical breast health histories of hundreds of thousands of women?]

Very simple: In up to 10% of cases, mammograms result in false positives: that is, women are falsely diagnosed with breast cancer and under aggressive treatment undergo disfiguring biopsies, surgery, radiation and/or chemotherapy. Ask cancer patients how they would feel if they found out these treatments were done over false positives or innocuous tiny or slow-growing, never life-threatening tumors... [Who's more unethical, Dr. Kopans? Might I suggest someone whom is knowingly willing to push an imperfect technology at the expense of the physical and mental health of women whom have been wrongly diagnosed? Is the Hallmark "sorry" card you send going to make up for putting them and their loved ones through a needless living hell?]

The study points out blanket testing at 40 would correctly diagnose less than 1 woman out of a 1000, but 470 would receive a false positive and some 33 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy. Why did the study recommend biannual versus annual exams after the age of 50? Did they simply pull this out of the thin air? No. It was based on scenarios played out using computerized mathematical modeling; they would get 81% of the benefit of early detection while cutting half of the false positives.

None of last Sunday's talk shows provided a "fair and balanced" picture of the situation:

Petitti said the panel was not influenced by the reform debate or cost issues. A spectrum of women's health advocates, breast cancer experts and public health researchers praised the new guidelines...Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, a Washington-based patient advocacy group,[said,] "Women deserve the truth -- and the truth is the evidence says this is not always helpful and can be harmful."

The bottom line: The recommendations are based over women as a whole and do not apply to known at-risk groups, which require more stringent preventive care (e.g., women whom have a family history of breast health issues). And women should bring to the attention of their personal physicians any troubling new symptoms (and not simply ignore them, hoping they will go away).

The problem of misdiagnosed cancers or radical preventive measures (e.g., young women with healthy breasts having them removed) is not restricted to breast health; for example, there is a current British case where a woman had one of her legs amputated over a diagnosed malignant cancer tumor--confirmed by three other well-respected physicians--only to discover there was no cancer in the amputated limb.

As to my conservative critics, might I suggest that when they argue against the unnecessary costs of defensive medicine due to the sky-rocketing costs of medical malpractice insurance, why would they be against more cost-effective, humane preventive care of breast health? Breast exams cost billions a year. Democrats are talking about scaling up preventive care (whether funded or mandated); is it possible we are seeing just one example of obtrusive, unnecessary preventive care which adds needlessly to aggregate health care costs, ultimately paid by all of us?

My maternal grandmother died from complications of colon cancer while I was a toddler; the wife of one of my best friends underwent treatment for cancer. The high school best friend of one of my little sisters died two years ago from breast cancer. Cancer is a terrible disease, and I suspect anyone reading this post knows someone whom has gone through it.

For me, economical liberty, educational leadership, globally competitive business growth investment, income tax and regulation policies and related issues (e.g., immigration reform) are more than political bumper stickers; those are the seeds that have been responsible for American superior health care quality and  innovations and will result in the more rapid emergence of life-changing technologies.

More on the AIG Bailout


I was just reading Peter Wallison's Friday Wall Street Journal column "Lack of Candor and the AIG Bailout". It just struck me that Mort Zuckerman's discussion of correlated issues (mentioned in yesterday's post) could in fact reflect the influence Democrats' nebulous justifications for regulatory empire-building.

There are a couple of salient points I want to pull from Wallison's piece. First is the disclosure that the AIG bailout was not based on then NY Fed President Geithner's belief that an AIG bankruptcy would set off a series of cascading failures to the other parties of AIG's derivatives transactions. Second is the fact that whereas Obama and Geithner have shamelessly attempted to blame the crisis (after Bush, of course) on "predatory lending", when in fact two-thirds of the 26 million gimmick mortgage loans were held by FHA, the GSE's Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and four banks under pressure to make the loans as a condition for desired mergers and acquisitions. Let's flesh that fact out a bit: Obama and the Congressional Democrats are trying to blame the private sector financial service sector for the housing bubble and collapse, when in fact the government had direct or implied power over the majority of the problem loans. How about that sage advice to doctors: "Physician, heal thyself!"? Before Obama and his crony progressive allies start attempting to micromanage the commercial financial services industry (after all, the government did such a great job with its own oversight over the FHA and the GSE's...), how about "Government, reform thyself!"?

Political Cartoon


Steve Breen reminds all of us no matter how you look at Democratic health "reform", it isn't a pretty picture...

Christmas Musical Interlude: Trans-Siberian Orchestra "Christmas Canon Rock"

What more can I say? Pachelbel's "Canon in D" (which I first heard at a religious retreat and often played at weddings) meets electric guitar, strong female vocals, simple, powerful lyrics, and tight harmonies. GLORIOUS! (I licensed a copy of the original hit version, featuring children's vocals.)



merry christmas
merry christmas
merry christmas
merry christmas

(add the new stanza at the end of the first time)

(2.)
the hope that he brings
the hope that he brings
the hope that he brings
the hope that he brings

(together)
brings...

(1.)
this night
we pray
our lives
will show
this dream
he had
each child
still knows

(simultaneously - add a new stanza each second time)

(2.)
we are waiting
we have not forgotten

(3.)
on this night
on this night
on this very christmas night

Miscellany: 11/28/09

George Bush the Conservative (?)

One of my favorite economists, Thomas Sowell, has recently published a book, The Housing Boom and Bust, excerpts of which have recently been running exclusively at IBD/investors.com. In Friday's edition, Sowell reviews the fact that the former President himself pushed for subsidizing down payments for lower-income Americans and for low-rate/no-down-payment FHA terms. The housing market went from about 57% traditional down-payment, long-term, fixed-rate mortgages in 2001 to just over half that by the end of 2006; in the meanwhile, the favorite whipping boys of media conservatives (i.e., Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) made the new gimmicky loans the focus of about 40% of their purchases (i.e., $1T) during 2004 to 2006. In the meanwhile, home-equity loans became the rage, putting additional risk into the market.

Question: what's in common when people don't have the vested interest in a down payment/equity in their house, if the banks know they can make loans (say, more profitable sub-prime loans) knowing government insurance will cover their depositors, or if investors can buy or sell financial instruments (e.g., derivatives) without the same types of margin requirements required, say, with certain stock market transactions? You end up with speculative, manic markets; there was something clearly wrong when housing prices were outpacing the ability of families to pay for them under traditional criteria. Much of that was due to an artificial surplus of buyers, fueled by gimmick loans, pushing up prices.

I can almost hear progressives question a principled conservative talking about a "free market" out of control. That's not a valid interpretation of what I'm saying; economy liberty requires an infrastructure underlying fair transactions, just like the prospective homeowner, in order to make a fair offer, needs to know whether undisclosed problems of a house (e.g., an unstable foundation, toxic health risks (e.g., asbestos, mold), etc.) distort the true costs of the home. The issue occurs when government fails to be consistent (say, across risk-based financial transactions), when it adds to the complexity and redundancy of multiple regulatory authorities which discourages accountability,  or when it introduces disruptive policies, upsetting the equilibrium of the market (e.g., easy money policy, nontraditional loans, sharp rises in deposit eligibility for government insurance, and political pressure on the secondary market to purchase nontraditional mortgage notes). In short, the government is the problem, not the solution. The first step of the solution is to reform government itself.

The bottom line is that the risks of the housing market were essentially passed on from homeowners, banks, and the secondary market to the federal government. Methinks the Democrats doth protesteth George W. Bush too much; how many progressives, in their wildest dreams, could have dared hope that a "conservative" President would push for no down payment house loans, a nearly 80% increase in education funding his first 5 years in office, the biggest expansion in Medicare entitlements in decades, the Department of Homeland Security, the largest increases in discretionary spending since LBJ, and the infamous TARP legislation?

Zuckerman: "Finding the Right Fix for 'Too Big to Fail'"

Mortimer Zuckerman, editor of US News and World Report, wrote an interesting Wall Street Journal op-ed this past Wednesday. (I subscribe to both publications.) I disagree with his implicit assertion that Glass-Steagall Act repeal in 1999 exacerbated the "too-big-to-fail" concept (although Mr. Zuckerman clearly distances himself later from those progressives whom want to reinstate the Depression-era act, which prohibited the concept of combining commercial banks and investment banks). Disallowing a "one-stop-shop" financial conglomerate hardly seems to be in the interest of global competitiveness and leadership in the financial services market. More to the point, the companies which failed during the economic tsunami were not relevant financial conglomerates; the failures were more focused companies that failed to prudently control for risk.

I am intrigued by Mort's suggestion that there was a failure of regulators to go beyond their piecemeal perspective and focus on the larger-scale correlated picture. I do agree that the kind of bailouts that occurred reflect a government cost which should be, on an ongoing basis, allocated in some commensurate way to relevant market participants, much like how the costs of FDIC insurance are passed on to banks.

I do think that there was a broad-based failure of the Fed and government regulators to proactively assess the risks of an asset bubble and address those concerns in a more timely manner; I mean, when I was seeing late-night infomercials advocating get-rich schemes of condo flippers and the like, I knew that was the result of easy money enabling market speculation, not people looking for a place to live and settle down.

I do think that the Fed has been more knowledgeable and effective than big government politicians and bureaucrats in dealing with major crises; does anyone really believe that politicians liked 20% interest rates under Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which essentially broke the back of inflation stemming from the 1970's?

However, I do think Zuckerman really has a more subtle agenda when he says "should Congress undermine the Fed"; I think it's really aimed at HR 1207 / S 604, Congressman Ron Paul's initiative to audit the Fed, which I support. (I don't think Mort is really opposed to auditing the Fed, but he is probably worried that the audit legislation is just the stalking horse for the real aim: to rein in the Fed's influence over monetary policy and its flexibility in responding to financial crises.) I do support the Fed's independence; my support for the Ron Paul legislation is simply consistent with the concept of the rule of law and the ideals of transparency, particularly when we are dealing with something as politically salient as sound monetary policy. However, I am opposed to politicizing monetary policy itself. We should not pick doctors based on a state of denial, on  what we want to hear about our health, and I think the Fed cannot afford to be seen as a tool of politicians refusing to accept responsibility for their fiscally irresponsible policies.

Political Cartoon

One of my favorite cartoonists, IBD's Michael Ramirez, turns the tables on the immigration debate, reminding us we were all once immigrants... What would Lou Dobbs say?

Christmas Musical Interlude: Jim Brickman's "The Gift"

The talented pianist features a duet between talented guest vocalists Collin Raye and Susan Ashton in a beautiful, nontraditional Christmas song that reminds us the best gift is not a train set or even a diamond bracelet...

THE GIFT (Jim Brickman)

Winter snow is falling down
Children laughing all around
Lights are turning on
like a fairy tale come true.

Sitting by the fire we made
You're the answer when i prayed
I would find someone
and baby I found you.

All I want is to hold you forever 
All I need is you more every day
You saved my heart
from being broken apart
You gave your love away
and I'm thankful every day
for the gift.

Watching as you softly sleep
What I'd give if I could keep
Just this moment
if only time stood still.

But the colors fade away
And the years will make us grey
But baby in my eyes
You'll still be beautiful.  
(My improvisation: "You'll always be beautiful.")

All I want is to hold you forever
All I need is you more every day
You saved my heart
from being broken apart
You gave your love away
And I'm thankful every day
for the gift.

(instrumental)

All I want is to hold you forever
All I need is you more every day
You saved my heart
from being broken apart
You gave your love away
I can't find the words to say
That I'm thankful every day
for the gift.

Miscellany: 11/27/09

AIG Bailout Revisited

Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal wrote an article yesterday entitled "The Ugly AIG Post-Mortem". Yesterday I briefly touched on my disdain for the fact that Goldman Sach was made whole on their AIG swap transactions. (Doesn't anyone remember how, months ago, how the Obama Administration played hard ball with the auto company creditors, settling for pennies on the dollar, while providing their lower-standing union cronies equity stakes?) Jenkins doesn't explicitly bring up the Obama Administration's obsession with financial institution executive pay ex post facto, but he makes his contempt known for the johnny-come-lately national media finally questioning why Goldman Sachs and other creditors were made whole on collateral calls (triggered by credit rating drops on AIG), given the fact that the government was already standing behind AIG. He criticizes TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky's half-hearted scapegoating, mostly at the expense of credit rating agencies and correctly argues that the attention paid to the swaps is penny-wise, pound-foolish in comparison to the underlying mortgage securities themselves. He notes the real story of the bailout is that the federal government itself is responsible for the crisis because of its scalable intervention in the credit marketplace; the correct policy response is not to increase intervention, but to scale back the federal government's involvement. (This sage advice is falling on deaf ears among Democratic progressives, as they push for "more and more money", increasing scope of FHA loans, federal coverage of student loans, etc. And this doesn't include scope creep elsewhere in the federal budget, e.g., increasing the eligibility of Medicaid, SCHIP, etc.)

No, Moody's and S&P are not the cause of this policy failure—yet Mr. Barofsky's half-articulated choice to focus on them is profound. For the role the agencies have come to play in our financial system amounts to a direct, if feckless and weak, attempt to contain the incentives that flow from the government's guaranteeing of so many kinds of private liabilities, from the pension system and bank deposits to housing loans and student loans.

The rating agencies' role as gatekeepers to these guarantees is, and was, corrupting, but the solution surely is to pare back the guarantees themselves. Overreliance on rating agencies, with their "inherently conflicted business model," was ultimately a product of too much government interference in the allocation of credit in the first place.

Obama's Approval Numbers

PollingNumbers.com notes that Mitt Romney, a leading contender for the 2012 GOP nomination, still about 10 points down from Obama. Given the fact that Romney has essentially faded from public view since he withdrew from the race to last year's nomination, I don't think that Obama should be all that confident. The below Poll of Polls shows disapproval at over 40% of the American electorate--not even a full year into his first term.

Now, to some extent, that's to be expected; we are experiencing the longest recession in decades and still-climbing unemployment numbers. We must not underestimate Obama's considerable charisma and personal charm and his ability to distance himself from his own unpopular policies,  and it's unlikely that the recession will span beyond his term in office (and I have no doubt if and when it does, Obama will somehow try to claim credit for ending it--in particular, allege it was a result of his so-called stimulus bill). I think, unlike Bush, Obama is more sensitive to his steep drop in approval numbers and will attempt to window-dress a concern for conservative issues like the deficit and reach out to the GOP in symbolic, but not substantive ways.

I've already written some posts discussing how I would approach the 2012 election. As much as I admire John McCain, he was absolutely the wrong candidate for the Republicans to be running when the economic tsunami hit; whereas his judgment is prescient when it comes to matters of military and defense policy, he misplayed his vice presidential pick, the unilateral suspension of his campaign was impulsive and easily and predictably fended off by Congressional Democrats, and he missed a golden opportunity to identify with the public backlash against the Bush-Democrat alliance on TARP legislation. The reason I'm mentioning this is not  to bash John McCain, whom I deeply respect, but basically to set the stage for a winning campaign in 2012.

What the Republicans are going to have to do is to present themselves as pragmatic in nature, willing to deliver on what Obama has promised but failed to deliver: real bipartisanship. I want to see more of a focus of bipartisanship and a positive, constructive agenda and less of a red-meat/negative ad campaign, which turns off moderates and independents. Second, I want the Republicans to focus like a laser beam on a pro-business growth message, frugal but administratively competent government, shared sacrifice, a plan to pay off the massive deficit and shore up the dollar, and a willingness to tackle big issues like entitlement funding and rainy day reserves head-on. Third, we need to stop rerunning the election of 1980 and foster a more inclusive campaign; we already know where the majority of Republicans stand on traditional moral values and the right to protect one's family. Finally, Republicans cannot mount an effective campaign where the opposition outspends it several dollars to every one dollar like in the last election.

I think Mitt Romney is the logical front-runner for Republicans heading into 2012 election under the framework I just outlined (although Huckabee could make his own case based on his more extensive gubernatorial experience); Romney not only has extensive private-sector executive experience and is fully literate on economic issues, but he has shown an ability to draw political support in blue states. He also "looks the part" of a Presidential candidate.

What Romney has to avoid in 2012 is the more polarizing campaign style which did not work in 2008 (and in fact resulted in a loose alliance of McCain and Huckabee supporters against him). He can anticipate that his potential rivals for the nomination are going to try to use the Massachusetts health care program passed while he was governor against him, tapping into conservative anger against Democratic health care "reform". He needs to compare and contrast his approach versus the national Democrats' and address the red ink issue.

As for Obama, a double-digit lead against Romney can hardly be comforting; Pollingnumbers.com also reports that the incumbent's net support among independents has largely collapsed. I think what Romney needs to do in attacking Obama is to criticize his administrative inexperience, his legislative priorities in a weak economy, his indecisiveness (e.g., Afghanistan),  his tendency to announce decisions before ironing out key details (e.g., the Gitmo closing),  and his weak performance jawboning his own Congressional leadership (e.g., earmarks in the omnibudget bill, a flexibility in considering a public option trigger on health care reform, etc.)

State	Pollster	Updated	Date	Approve	Disapprove
NAT'L AVG	X	X	X	47.6%	46.0%
National	Democracy Corps	11/24	11/12-16/09	50	44
National	Gallup Daily Tracking	11/23	11/20-22/09	49	44
National	Rasmussen Reports	11/23	11/21-11/23	45	54
National	Fox	11/19	11/17-18/09	46	46
National	Quinnipiac University	11/19	11/9-16/09	48	42

Courtesy of pollingnumbers.com

Political Cartoon

Scott Stantis reminds us that there are real-life consequences to not responding in a timely fashion to an enemy's changes in tactics. When Obama noted that he would pursue the "real war" in Afghanistan and attacked Bush's static pre-surge Iraq strategy for chewing up American casualties, who would have ever guessed that we would be repeating the same scenario in Afghanistan, where Obama seems more interested in scoring diplomatic points and placating his progressive flank than in listening to his own handpicked military expert. Rumor has it he'll approve a scaled-down version of the recommended troop surge. Mr. President, stop playing gameswith the lives of American troops; if our military strategy requires a strong ground presence, make sure that you send in enough soldiers to get the job done.

Christmas Musical Interlude: Faith Hill's "Where Are You, Christmas?

I mention in my recent Bee Gees selection one of their other songs, "First of May". The leading verses and chorus are:


When I was small, and christmas trees were tall,
We used to love while others used to play.
Don’t ask me why, but time has passed us by,
Some one else moved in from far away.


(chorus)
Now we are tall, and christmas trees are small,
And you don’t ask the time of day.
But you and i, our love will never die,
But guess we’ll cry come first of may.

There's an endearing wistfulness of those lyrics which brings back the sheer magic and joy of youth and Christmastime. I remember singing Christmas carols with my younger siblings in the car as my folks drove from Otis AFB to the Fall River area for family visits. I remember the pungent smell of Christmas trees (alas, my folks later made the more cost-effective decision of durable, safer artificial trees). My folks did everything they could, given an enlisted man's pay, to give us the Christmases they never had (my mom talks of the gift of one doll growing up during the later days of the Depression and war years). I used to love the annual television specials (including the longstanding Bing Crosby and Andy Williams family celebrations).

Something changed as I soon found myself, especially after leaving academia, getting caught up in work and heavy business travel, immersed in things like database and software upgrades when application users were off the system (e.g., on company holidays). To me in particular, it was Christmas 1998. I was then commuting from Chicago to a gig in the Baltimore suburbs; with my new boss' approval, I arranged to schedule a brief holiday visit home, flying home from BWI to San Antonio through Atlanta; when I got into Atlanta, I found my flight to San Antonio was canceled due to weather conditions and had to stay at an airport hotel until the next morning. Sure, there was holiday music blaring through airport loudspeakers and the obligatory Santa hats or beards worn by fellow passengers--but it suddenly hit me that I had not played a single CD or LP in my considerable holiday collection at all that season nor seen any of my beloved seasonal movies and specials. Where were you, Christmas? Somehow the magic of the season had been lost in the daily grind of a bachelor without any kids.

As a Christian, of course, I know the "reason for the season", and that never went away. But we are also celebrating hope and the promise of a better future for our children, true gifts from God. Faith Hill's song from a 2000 movie remaking a classic Dr. Seuss story and holiday cartoon special speaks to me. I licensed a copy of the song and often put it on an auto-repeat cycle. Great song and performance by a gifted vocalist...

"Where Are You Christmas"

Where are you Christmas
Why can't I find you 
Why have you gone away 
Where is the laughter
You used to bring me
Why can't I hear music play

My world is changing
I'm rearranging
Does that mean Christmas changes too?

Where are you Christmas
Do you remember
The one you used to know
I'm not the same one
See what the time's done
Is that why you have let me go

Christmas is here
Everywhere, oh
Christmas is here
If you care, oh

If there is love in your heart and your mind
You will feel like Christmas all the time

I feel you Christmas
I know I've found you
You never fade away
The joy of Christmas
Stays here inside us
Fills each and every heart with love

Where are you Christmas
Fill your heart with love

Miscellany: 11/26/09

Taxpayer Bailout v. 2
 The Dodd/Frank Special Edition
Now with Even More Taxpayer Money 
and More Chances to Win When You Lose!
Endorsed by Goldman Sachs, George Soros 
and Progressives Everywhere
Forward by Pres. Barack Obama:
 "How to Spread the Wealth"
Caution: May Be Hazardous to your Morals!

One can only hope that the concept of "too-big-to-fail" doesn't extend to the overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress, whom refuse to deal with the political opposition because they can, in next year's mid-term elections. The Wall Street Journal Monday discussed the upcoming related proposals by Senator Chris "Countrywide Loan" Dodd and Representative Barney "Let's Roll the Dice (with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!)" Frank. Apparently the biggest lesson from last summer and fall's economic tsunami was not that we bailed out companies that took on too much risk, but that too many foolish parties were left out of picking our grandchildren's pockets! Economic liberty includes the risk of failure; when progressives and government bureaucrats attempt to micromanage risk through misguided, heavy-handed rules and regulations, the result is investment flight in search of greater rewards--and, for America, lost jobs and tax revenues.

It's time to stop enabling dysfunctional businesses and their short-sighted management and tell the Democrats in Congress and the White House they have to live within their means and stop mortgaging America's future. Do the Democrats have any shame? This week, the dollar fell to a 14-year low against the Japanese yen. The Federal Reserve is caught between supporting a fragile economic recovery and fighting ruinous inflation, while the Democrats dither on unnecessary climate change and health care legislation and run up the tab on "the other guy's" tab and young Americans' futures; there isn't a lot of room for error. It's time for Democrats to think more about the national interest than trying to ram through a pent-up tax-spend-and regulate political agenda while they still have overwhelming numbers in the Congress and the White House. That would be risky business in a strong economy; in a weak economy, it's a death wish.

Maybe if Goldman Sachs wasn't able collect on some of their AIG derivative transactions courtesy of the American taxpayer (I'm sure they realized that AIG had mispriced their swaps and took full advantage of  the situation), they wouldn't be in a position of awarding obscene, insensitive record bonuses at a time when official unemployment exceeds 10%. I have little doubt if and when these new rules are enacted, Goldman Sachs will find some way to exploit the new rules and regulations at the expense of taxpayers and for the benefit of their stakeholders.

Happy Thanksgiving!

I'm thankful for my parents whom gave me the gift of life and six younger siblings, raised me with faith, morals, and traditional American values (e.g., the importance of family, the example of a strong, respectful, loving, durable marital relationship, and self-reliance, hard work and persistence). I'm grateful for the uncomplaining professional men and women whom sometimes sacrifice their lives or health protecting Americans at home and in the streets, from criminals and foreign adversaries intending to do us harm. I appreciate the mentors I've had in life, nonjudgmental, positive, helpful and unfailingly patient with me, people like Sister Mary Christine Morkovsky and my dissertation chair, Richard Scamell. (Now don't blame them for my shortcomings; I myself am responsible for those!) I'm grateful for true friends whom have stood by me in difficult times, people like my Navy buddy Joe, professor Jane, my doctoral officemate Bruce, and former work colleagues Ray and Rahul. I value legitimate, principled, courageous, inspirational national leaders like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani and gadflies like Congressman Ron Paul. But most of all, I'm thankful to Almighty God, from Whom all things are possible, and the Gift of Christ Jesus.


Political Cartoon


Cartoonist Gary Varvel reminds us of the good old days (before the progressive legislators and bureaucrats tried to regulate health insurance (for our own good, of course), what we can do or say (political correctness), and how much allowance they'll let us keep from our paychecks). We should be thankful for all the attention the progressives are paying to us; it must be so exhausting trying to run everyone else's lives; you have to wonder when they can find time to mind their own business.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Orleans Song

Best known for their hit song "Still the One", Orleans had a follow-up song which reminds us all of the distinction between lust and love. Real men act from integrity and are respectful and patient in their relationships; be worthy of the woman you love.

For anyone interested in this blog feature (on my tastes in popular music), I will be presenting some of my favorite Christmas (not just "holiday") songs over the next few weeks, starting with my favorite over the past decade featuring the great vocals of beautiful Mrs. Tim McGraw.



LOVE TAKES TIME
Orleans

I saw a twinkle in her eye
It lit a fire deep inside
But it burned so wild and strong
I knew it wouldn't last for long

'Cause love takes time
And it's hard to find
You gotta take some time
To let love grow

I saw a shooting star go by
It blazed a path across the sky
But the beauty did not last, no
some things just happen all to fast

But love takes time
And it's hard to find
You gotta take some time
To let love grow, whoa

Well some think love's a game
You play for a night or two
But I think that's a shame
'Cause I know that in the end
They're bound to lose

Love takes time
Yes it's hard to find
You gotta take some time
To let love grow

Oh love takes time
I said that it's hard to find
Oh, just take your time
And love will grow
If we really want our love to grow
We gotta take it slow, whoa

Love takes time
Yes it's hard to find
Baby love takes time
Yours and mine, whoa 

Miscellany: 11/25/09

Happy Anniversary, Mom and Dad!


Sowell Looks at the Politics of the FHA and FDIC

Regular readers know that I've been a persistent critic of the FHA (e.g., here and here). One of my favorite economists, Thomas Sowell, has a new column out where he reviews a recent news item example loan by 3 young men whom put together a down payment of about $33K--on roughly a million dollar home. Why did the bank make the loan? It's guaranteed by the FHA. I bet my grand-nieces can figure out how much a traditional 20% down payment on a million dollar home goes for and whether the guys were paying enough--or whether the American taxpayer is being left with all the risk in the transaction. HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING FROM THE S&L CRISIS, THE HOUSING BUBBLE BURST OR THE ECONOMIC TSUNAMI? Thomas Sowell reminds us of the moral hazard of ever-increasing government guarantees on transactions and deposits, which is all but an invitation for financial institutions to engage in riskier transactions given the implicit (or explicit) government guarantees. He points out progressive Democrats like the infamous Congressman Barney Frank is aiding and abetting this form of government-enabling speculation.

Don't get me started on Barney Frank; he represents Fall River, the birthplace of my folks. My mom and I can't figure it out, but we know relatives whom actually vote for the guy (let's face it: somebody had to). Before you get judgmental on me, I might suggest that you, too, may have some skeletons in your family tree.

By the Way, Did Anyone Notice Maine Voters Reaffirmed Traditional Marriage Election Day?

On November 3, Maine voters voted to restore the traditional definition of marriage as yet another liberal state defeats political correctness really designed to undermine the fundamental concept. I don't feel "threatened" by gay "marriage"; I think it reflects a certain insecurity of progressive gays in their own identity and there are psychological reasons for their need to adopt a heterosexual institution, which has a history of thousands of years, not unlike the desire of certain people to have cosmetic surgery (e.g., maybe men will find her more attractive if her breasts were enhanced). Adopting other people's physical or institutional characteristics in a compulsive need to find social acceptance just doesn't work. (There are legitimate reasons for cosmetic surgery, including things like congenital defects and disfiguring accidents.)

Political Cartoon

Hey, Mr. Taxman, your reaction is over the top. By the way, her eyes are up there. Cartoonist Steve Kelley gives us a pointed example of what you can expect from a tax proposed by a bunch of boobs.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite John Stewart Song

The late John Stewart was a member of the famous folk group The Kingston Trio during the 1960's and is probably best known for two singles, a huge hit for the Monkees called "Daydream Believer" and a 1979 solo hit "Gold" from an impressive album I purchased called "Bombs Away Dream Babies". (I also really liked "Lost Her in the Sun".)

My first professional data processing job was at a San Antonio-based insurance company; I taught myself a computer language called APL, The initial manager hire for my work group fell through, and the company replaced him 3 months later with an internal candidate without a college degree (or APL knowledge) whom was paranoid I (with a Master's degree) was out for his job. (My successor was a friend still pursuing his BA taking night classes at UTSA.) I impressed the Houston branch manager for STSC, at the time the leading APL computer timesharing company (the industry essentially disappeared during the 1980's, mostly due to cheap computer processing on newly introduced PC's).

STSC had headquarters in Woodland Hills, CA (a Los Angeles suburb). I had always heard stereotypes about people in California, but I never really believed them until I met this blond female trainer from headquarters whom visited our branch early in my employment. She was really upset to be away from home on her car's birthday, so she mailed it a birthday card from Houston. (Pardon me if you hear me laughing in the background.) I thought she was putting me on, until I visited headquarters a few weeks later. Somehow I found myself in her car riding shotgun during my stay when she pointed out the birthday card hanging from her dashboard mirror. I swear to God this happened in real life, and I'm not making it up.

What does this story have to do with "Midnight Wind"? On the plane trip to Los Angeles, this song was in heavy rotation on the audio channel I selected, and I bought the album based on this song alone. You will immediately recognize the distinctive backing vocals of Stevie Nicks (frilly lace, have mercy! No, not on this video...), one of Fleetwood Mac's best singer/songwriters, and fellow Mac veteran Lindsey Buckingham's brilliant guitar work.

Miscellany: 11/24/09

Nominal Catholic Congressman Patrick Kennedy Confronted Over Abortion

As a traditional Catholic Christian, I am repulsed by a long list of disingenuous, abortion-enabling Catholic "in name only" politicians whom have sold their soul for an unworthy career: Nancy Pelosi, Mario Cuomo, Joe Biden, John Kerry, etc. (In fact, only 1 of 17 Catholic Democratic senators (Bob Casey)  is reliably pro-life.) Nancy Pelosi and others have materially misrepresented the brief periods in Church history when some scholars held that early abortion was not necessarily considered murder (but still gravely sinful), primarily due to the scientific influence of ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, whom hypothesized a staged development process of the fetus, considered human only at the point of ensoulment (roughly speaking, the quickening). In fact, the Church has always considered the act of voluntary abortion gravely sinful and inconsistent with Christian values. The relativistic viewpoint, particularly espoused by Cuomo at a notable Notre Dame commencement in the 1980's, that one can be "personally opposed" to abortion as murder but will not impose his morality on others, is morally incoherent, not unlike saying I am personally opposed to racism, but I'm not going to impose my beliefs in racial diversity on other people. You cannot triangulate a core moral value. As a civilized people, we impose moral standards in our laws all the time, e.g., prohibitions against child abuse, rape, etc.

Bishop Thomas Tobin's public chastisement of Representative Kennedy and request for him not to receive the sacraments is righteous and long overdue. A number of progressive Catholics who have somehow reconciled themselves to the evil of abortion are troubled by the public nature of the rebuke, as if more discreet approaches by bishops to nominally Catholic politicians over the past four decades have been fruitful. It's about time some of our prelates find meaning in the example of John the Baptist, whom was not satisfied with morally insensitive kings refusing to confront their consciences. John Kerry and others have put the god of their politics above Yahweh.

And while we're at it, and I will address this issue more substantively in future posts, it is time for Catholic Christian conservatives to push back on the indulgent morally self-superior promotion by Christian progressives of government programs (euphemistically identified as "social justice") which, in fact, undermine the moral and spiritual development and self-reliance of the actuated citizen. The audacious idea that somehow facilitating a dependency on government handouts morally outweighs the inconvenient, intentional deaths of preborn children, the height of progressive Christian arrogance, must be exposed as morally bankrupt.

Various Terrorist Trials

News reports this week that Major Nidal Hasan, the alleged Ft. Hood mass murderer and an Army psychiatrist, might plead insanity, and that at least one of the coming 9/11 show trials in New York City might include a defense of justifiable homicide are sorely testing my patience. Attorney General Eric Holder has snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory; the show trial defendants wanted to plead guilty at a military tribunal. With a nearly $2T budget deficit, Holder wants to give the terrorists a soap box and possibly spend millions of dollars in additional security costs for exactly what reason? To prove terrorists are as guilty in a civilian court as they would be in a military tribunal? What's left that could make this any worse? Maybe taxing the settlements made to 9/11 victims' families to pay for the show trials? Recruit the prosecutors from the OJ Simpson trial? (I shouldn't give the Obama White House any ideas; they just might go for it...)

Political Cartoon

Lisa Benson reminds us that the devil is in the details of health care "reform" and some organizations have sold their soul, forever losing their credibility with the American people.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Amy Grant Song

I have loved this song, a 1982 Christian music #1 hit,  from the very first time I heard it on an Amy Grant The Collection CD I bought in the 1980's. (This is a great album; I also love the songs "Thy Word" and "Father's Eyes".) Amy Grant has since recorded a number of crossover pop songs as well.




El Shaddai:                    God Almighty
El-Elyon na Adonai:       God Most High, O Lord
Erkamka na Adonai:       I love you, O Lord

Miscellany 11/23/09

The Real Democratic "Dithering"--A Pro-Business Growth Agenda


Dithering goes beyond Obama's analysis paralysis on Afghanistan deployment (whether to adequately staff the "real war"). The idea that Democrats are finally thinking of taking a second look at an economic package after spending months trying to "fix" (with various "revenue enhancers") climate change and health insurance reform--things that, by definition, actually impede recovery and job growth by adding business costs (including labor costs) The only positive thing is the recognition that adding another $15 or so to the family paycheck has not had the economic miracle grow effect they initially thought. What the Democrats really had a golden opportunity to do was the unexpected (like anti-communist Nixon's unexpected reopening diplomatic channels to mainland China)--say, for instance, a return to JFK's tax cut agenda. They need to focus on what affects job formation--and that's a return to sound conservative economics. I'm not holding my breath.


Media Conservatives Attacking Fact Checks on Palin's Memoirs

Regardless of how you stand on Sarah Palin, she is certainly not your average politician--a former small-town mayor whom bucked the GOP establishment, denied the incumbent Republican governor and longtime US Senator his renomination, and then defeated a former Democratic governor, despite a funding disadvantage. She forged a bipartisan coalition, passing significant political reforms, and gave birth in office to a special-needs child versus choosing the path of eugenic abortion. At one point, she had approval ratings far above even Obama's honeymoon 70%.

Why did McCain choose the second-year governor to be his running mate? This is a decision I myself have criticized in multiple posts; initially, I didn't think he would pick Palin because it seemed that he would essentially be contradicting his own experience argument against Obama and because the Troopergate scandal had already broken out; I didn't think he wanted the governor's political problems to become an issue during the closing weeks of the campaign. Why did he pick her? I think it was because she was a kindred spirit, a reformer, a bipartisan dealmaker and a maverick; I also think he saw her as a Washington outsider, whom might play well in a change election--and I think he also delighted in the fact that his choice caught the opposition completely flatfooted, which instantly reaffirmed McCain's legendary maverick reputation. Finally, I thought the fact that McCain chose a female governor also sent a message that this was not your grandfather's GOP.

I have to admit that Palin initally wowed me based on her first two public speeches, remarkably well-delivered, on accepting McCain's invitation to join the campaign and the nomination. By any objective standard, Obama misplayed his hand by not picking his chief nomination rival, Hillary Clinton, and in fact confounded his own change election message by nominating a white male first elected to the Senate before Obama became a teenager.

The fact is that McCain never really saw her as a strident conservative whom would appeal to the base; I think the fact that Sarah Palin had a special needs child really appealed to the pro-life activists, and this base began to expand as progressives unconscionably overreacted to the surprise nomination, i.e., the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I don't think Sarah Palin ever intended to become the darling of the conservative base. She was worried that playing the traditional attack dog role of the VP candidate would undermine her approval ratings in Alaska, which indeed happened. She was also ill at ease with some of the conservative attacks during the campaign, for instance, criticizing the robo-calls. I think what happened was political opportunism--she was aware of the fact that her own rallies were attracting more people than McCain's, and she knew that former vice presidential candidates (e.g., Nixon, Humphrey, Mondale, GHW Bush, Dole, and Gore) were subsequently able to attain their own nominations for the top spot on the ticket. She decided to build on her accidental appeal to the conservative base, reflecting a chivalrous reaction to the left's attacks on her. By doing so, she destroyed the bipartisan coalition she had nurtured in Alaska, eventually resulting in her eventual resignation with an utterly unconvincing rationale. Any hint that her political support in Alaska was collapsing (e.g., a reelection defeat or narrow victory in a very difficult economy) would have undermined her national aspirations.

There is no doubt that there has been extraordinarily interest in Sarah Palin and her memoirs, further fueled by her distinctively unique life story, some in-fighting among McCain campaign staffers towards the end and aftermath of last fall's election, the Letterman controversy and her unexpected resignation. The book has been hyped for some time, with pop conservative magazine websites like newsmax.com and townhall.com promoting the book for free or at sharply discounted prices.

The chivalrous media conservatives are upset about the double standards by the fact that the AP did a fact check on the Palin book. I disagree; Palin has not ruled out a 2012 run, and she has frequently placed among the top 3 or 4 candidates in preliminary polls. In many cases, candidates will write a book outlining a message for a subsequent electoral campaign, and Palin reportedly sounds out some general themes. So I'm not surprised there was a fact check done on the biggest non-fiction title in months. As someone who has written journal articles and book chapters under peer review, I've always double-checked my sources. In fact, I am so detail-oriented that one of my articles was accepted on condition that I cut my bibliography (from over 400 entries) in half. Palin had to know whatever she wrote would be scrutinized and contradicted, certainly by her adversaries. You need to support your facts, avoid sweeping generalizations and separate your beliefs and opinions. If Sarah exaggerated her case beyond what the facts yield, it's her fault and responsibility, not an issue with fact checkers. Media conservatives, you do her no favor by not letting her accept responsibility for what she put in print; she's a big girl: she can take care of herself.

In fact, the AP fact check was more balanced than the conservatives implied; for instance, they confirmed in many cases Palin did stay in comparably lower-priced hotel rooms. Other points seem more polemical, e.g., criticizing Palin's claim that FDR's economic policies, if anything, prolonged the Great Depression. (That is a common assertion by many conservative economists); I think a fact check should have focused more on items directly involving Palin himself than an ongoing dispute between economists. (That being said, I would have normally qualified an opinion on this matter, noting that I have not done statistical research on Depression-era data, Instead, I would have probably relied on anecdotal observations like the admission of FDR's Treasury Secretary himself, frustrated that no matter what they had tried from a fiscal standpoint didn't seem to be working, years into FDR's Presidency, or pointed out the facts of stubbornly high unemployment until WWII.)

Political Cartoon

Chip Bok expertly gets at the core of Attorney General Holder's irresponsible decision to put 9/11 mastermind KSM in a civilian trial, which puts us in the horns of a dilemma of having to choose between prosecuting a war criminal (conferring ex post facto citizen rights on an international terrorist) and national security. When is the Obama Administration going to put American security above scoring political points with progressives?

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Josh Groban Song

I remember blaring "Alla Luce Del Sole", on a CD given to me as a Christmas gift, each day in my car as I commuted to a DBA gig in the Williamsport, PA area during the fall of 2003. The David Foster arrangement is inspired, and Josh's vocals are impeccable.



Lyrics (translated):

Darkness lies outside me, here,
And a bit inside as well...
How absurd is this desert city!

I can't even explain how,
But this is not my dimension,
And my mind gets never comfort,
It is always somewhere else.

But you... where are you? Where's your voice?
What about me if I don't have you,
If I don't get your help?

Everything will look better,
Under the light that will come from the sun!
This night will be gone,
Darkness will fade out!

Hills will be seen,
I will go on looking for you.

Away from this melancholy,
Envy or rage alike.
I don't want these words anymore
To be here in my heart

But you... where are you?
Where's your smile
What about me if I don't have you,
If I don't get your love?

Everything will look better,
Under the light that will come from the sun!
This night will be gone,
Darkness will fade out!

And under the light of that sun
I will go on looking for you.

Everything will look better,
Under the light, under the sun,
Silence will die,
People there will feel confused.

And under the light of that sun
I will go on looking for you.