Miscellany: 3/31/10

Obama Attempts to Triangulate Energy Self-Sufficiency

Remember $4.50 gallon gasoline and nearly $150/barrel oil back in 2008? Sarah Palin's campaign tagline, "Drill, baby, drill"? Candidate Obama tried to finesse the issue, trying to placate his environmentalist base, staunchly opposed to any change in the status quo of drilling off either coast while America's maturing oil and gas properties continue to peter out, increasing America's dependence on foreign oil and gas supplies, while other countries like China and Brazil have aggressively explored offshore, announcing giant oil field discoveries. He clearly implied that flexibility on offshore drilling would be counterproductive against any alternative energy initiative and then claimed any action on drilling wouldn't provide any short-term price relief.

This, of course, demonstrates a conceptual misunderstanding of basic energy economics. If I know that I have a limited quantity of widgets, others aren't making any new widgets, and the price of widgets is rising, I may keep some of my widgets in inventory. This contributes to high current widget prices. If I think a lot more widgets may be hitting the market soon, or the circumstances of high widget prices is temporary (we are in a widget bubble), I may want to sell all my remaining widgets at the current price. It is true that opening areas to exploration today doesn't translate into gasoline at the local service station tomorrow, and it's unlikely we can quadruple our domestic supplies necessary for oil independence--but the relevant issue is supply/demand  given a finite external oil supply and growing foreign competitive demand for those supplies. But let's keep in mind (those of us whom remember the oil embargoes of the 1970's), what steps have been taken over the last 30 years to alleviate the economic threat posted by our dependence on foreign energy supplies? The same arguments have been used over the past 20-30 years in maintaining a moratorium on drilling, and dithering today doesn't reduce our dependence on energy imports tomorrow. Our dependence on external energy supplies aggravates our trade imbalance and adversely affects our currency. That means higher prices. Every new barrel of domestic oil from new oilfields mitigates the high energy prices of tomorrow.

So, two years after Congress moderated its stance on oil and gas exploration as citizen screamed over unprecedented energy price hikes, we have been waiting for Godot. President Bush had come up with a plan, but it was set aside when Obama assumed office. Guess what? Although the recession and weak economic recovery have mitigated the demand for imported energy supplies, Obama's energy policies to date haven't materially changed the need for such imports, particularly disheartening because renewed domestic oil exploration would also have a favorable impact on domestic jobs, tax revenues, etc.

Obama today announced certain areas open in principle to exploration--off the East Coast up to roughly Delaware, perhaps some areas of the largely unexplored eastern Gulf of Mexico (but not within 125 miles of shore), none off the West Coast, and not within Alaska's Bristol Bay. (Is it merely a coincidence that the coastal areas excluded from prospective lease sales are all blue states?)

Make no mistake where I stand on this. First, this is a half measure; Obama's decision to exclude some of the most promising areas from oil and gas exploration is purely political, basically a sop to his core special-interest environmentalist supporters. The fact that we are not self-sufficient for oil and gas supplies is an economic and national national security issue and deserves more consideration than Obama trying to split the difference between the majority of Americans whom favor expanded oil and gas exploration and his environmentalist supporters. Second, the earliest we are likely to see leases issued is 2012, and it might take up to 10 years before we see the new oil supplies in refineries.

A Matter of Civility: The Right to Worship and Grieve in Peace

Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder

An American Hero

Rest in Peace

The Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps, holds that our nation's dead and wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan is God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality. This group has resorted to picketing funerals of American soldiers, carrying such signs as "God hates the USA", "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God hates [gay people]", and a recent church press release included at the bottom "Thank God for IEDs" (an Iran-supplied weapon used by insurgents to kill and maim our brave peace-keeping young men and women).

The church picketed the 2006 funeral of Matthew Snyder, an Iraq casualty, and Al Snyder, Matthew's father, sued the church, in 2007 winning damages in the amount of $11M (later reduced to $5M). The Fourth Circuit overturned the verdict on First Amendment grounds and ordered Mr. Snyder yesterday to pay the church's legal fees of nearly $16,500. The US Supreme Court agreed 3 weeks ago to review the case; I'm hopeful that this is indicative of a likely reversal of the circuit's unjust decision.

I do not believe intimidation of family members and attendees at a funeral, disrupting the decorum of a singular religious or cultural event, constitutes constitutionally-protected "free speech"; this makes no more sense than saying an anti-noise ordinance or disturbing the peace citation violates the same. In fact, I believe that the church infringed on Snyder's freedom to worship, which is a First Amendment right.

I took the Civility Pledge, which I mentioned in Monday's post, and the third element of that pledge is "to stand against incivility when I see it".  The church's obsessive, judgmental, disrespectful rhetoric against gay people is fundamentally unacceptable; there is strong evidence that homosexual behavior occurs in natural settings across different species. If one day I was to discover one of my relatives or friends was gay, I know it wouldn't change my acceptance of him or her as a person and as a gift from God in my life. As a Catholic, I reject Mr. Phelps' theology, which I consider a perversion of Christ's message of accepting and loving ourselves and others as a true prayer, an an expression of one's love for God.

For those with a Facebook account, please consider, along with over 59,000 and counting (including myself),  joining the group supporting Al Snyder in opposition to Westboro Baptist Church.

Political Cartoon

Mike Lester raises the issue of moral hazard with respect to the Democratic Party Health Care Bill.

Quote of the Day

If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
Abraham Maslow

Musical Interlude: Neil Diamond Miscellaneous Songs

"Morningside" (greatest song nobody knows)

MORNINGSIDE

Written by Neil Diamond

Morningside
The old man died
And no one cried
They simply turned away
And when he died
He left a table made of nails and pride
And with his hands, he carved these words inside
'For my childen'

Morning light
Morning bright
I spent the night
With dreams that make you weep
Morning time
Wash away the sadness from these eyes of mine
For I recall the words an old man signed
'For my children'

And the legs were shaped with his hands
And the top made of oaken wood
And the children that sat around his table
Touched it with their laughter
Ah, and that was good

Morningside
An old man died
And no one cried
He surely died alone
And truth is sad
For not a children would claim
the gift he had
The words he carved
became his epitaph
'For my children'

"He Ain't Heavy; He's My Brother"

"Done Too Soon"  (great video)

"If You Know What I Mean"

"Be"

Miscellany: 3/30/10

Congressional Abuse of Power: 
Waxman Intimidates Corporations Over Health Care Bill


Unbelievable! Is it really a surprise that a slew of companies (e.g., AT&T, Caterpillar, and Valero) have had to announce to the market that the newly passed Democratic Party Health Care Bill has provisions that materially affect their liabilities and expenses? Congressman Waxman's attempts to intimidate corporate executives clearly reflects political embarrassment over the Democrats' misleading smoke and mirrors accounting, the delusion that you could add a new entitlement at virtually no cost to economic growth. As explained, in an earlier post, the GOP-led Congress, in devising a new Medicare prescription drug benefit during Bush's first term, provided employers with existing retiree prescription drug plans an incentive to retain their plan, including a tax-exempt status. The progressive Democrats, seeking funding sources for the new entitlement, decided to end the tax exempt status of these subsidies, in an attempt to generate $4.5B in revenue. Towers Watson, a benefits consultancy, has estimated this may cost corporations up to $14B in US corporate profits. The whole reason for the tax-free subsidy from the get-go was to keep Medicare drug benefit expenditures low, to provide companies an incentive not to drop their existing relevant retiree benefits. If the corporation is at the 35% level, it is now losing $1 of every $3 of the subsidy. The cost of the benefit has jumped, and I have no doubt, if the Congress doesn't restore the subsidy, at least some companies will drop their plans. That means not only do projected revenues go down, but Medicare expenses will go up. Progressives are bad at math...


Contrary to assertions otherwise, corporations did register objections over the plan. THEY ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DISCLOSE MATERIALLY RELEVANT EVENTS; these disclosures are not politically motivated to embarrass the Democrats. Policies have consequences--and so do elections. After Obama and his follow progressives repeatedly stated everything about the bill had been talked to death--whoops! I guess that must have been one of those hidden surprises Speaker Pelosi was talking about. Imagine that--$500B of new taxes on businesses, individuals and the job creator class might actually have an adverse effect on the fragile economic recovery and the job market. Who knew? Well, besides every single Congressional Republican and the average American whom has been saying, for months now: "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!"...

The President's Health Care Hype Bluff Gets Called

Obama pushed his luck just one time too many, in a Today Show interview with Matt Lauer this morning calling the recently passed Democratic Party Health Care Bill "middle of the road, centrist approach" and then claiming that "in terms of the exchange...that originated from The Heritage Foundation." The conservative think-tank's President, Dr. Ed Feulner, forcefully responded:

The President knows full well...we and most others support...a market mechanism to enable families to choose their health insurance. President Obama's exchanges, by contrast, are a vehicle to introduce sweeping regulation and federal standardization on health insurance.

The President has made a habit of using conservative talking points when trying to sell a liberal ideology...The President's health care plan also raises premiums, taxes, and costs while lowering quality and expanding Medicaid. These are not conservative ideas. And let's be clear, these are not ideas Heritage has ever, or would ever, support...We remain fervently opposed to the President's partisan plan, and urge its immediate repeal. 

Moscow Subway Tragedy


I fully support the President's statement yesterday regarding the unconscionable terrorist acts on innocent Russian civilians:

I send my deepest condolences to the people of Russia after the terrible loss of life and injuries resulting from the bombings on the Moscow Metro.  The American people stand united with the people of Russia in opposition to violent extremism and heinous terrorist attacks that demonstrate such disregard for human life, and we condemn these outrageous acts.  My thoughts and prayers go out to those who lost loved ones, and I wish all who sustained injuries a succesful recovery.

The multiple female suicide bomber attacks killed at least 38 people and injured over 100 others. The US, in response, upped its own ostensive security presence at New York City subway and Washington DC Metro systems. Having been a frequent passenger on the Chicago Metra rail and, more recently, the DC Metro lines, I've always been worried about the potential security issues. For example, after 9/11, I recall riding into Chicago Union Station, where you often see streams of hundreds of passengers going to and from Union Station during rush hours. I have stood in packed Metro rail cars with no room available. I'm sure there are security operations I didn't see or notice, but I rarely saw security personnel during my own commutes. I always check out any unusual behavior by fellow passengers, packages left behind, etc. We must always be vigilant and not be lulled into a false sense of security. We need to ensure the Moscow tragedy never happens again--in Russia, the US, or any other civilized country.


Political Cartoon


IBD cartoonist Michael Ramirez succinctly summarizes Obama's incoherent foreign policy: reach out to rogue nations, bully your allies... No doubt Obama's next tome will be entitled "How to Make Enemies and Influence Their Tactics".

Quote of the Day



Beginning today, treat everyone you meet as if they were going to be dead by midnight. Extend to them all the care, kindness, and understanding you can muster, and do it with no thought of any reward. Your life will never be the same again.
Og Mandino 


Musical Interlude: Neil Diamond Early Songs


"Solitary Man"



"Holly Holy"



Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show



Brooklyn Roads (great autobiographical song)

Miscellany: 3/29/10

First, We Barely Knew Megan Meier;
Next, We Hardly Knew Phoebe Prince

15-year-old Irish Immigrant Phoebe Prince
Victim of Statutory Rape and Bullying
Suicide, South Hadley, MA  1/14/10
Rest in Peace, Sweet Angel Girl

Remember the case of Megan Meier? The sweet 13-year-old young lady become the target of a hoax perpetrated by the mother of a former friend; the mother, Lori Drew,  invented a character, Josh Evans, whom befriended Megan, exchanging messages daily, building a rapport over better than a month (the private information gained from Megan would later be circulated to humiliate her)--when Josh abruptly ended his relationship with Megan, over things he heard about Megan's cruelty to others (i.e., allegedly spreading gossip about Drew's daughter): "Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you." Twenty minutes later, Megan ended her life, after having replied: "You’re the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over." Cyberbullying is just one form of bullying, and we need to ensure that public awareness and policy reflects our goal of more respectful, safe learning and social environment for young men and women.


I cannot even begin to imagine how difficult it must have been for a young Irish immigrant girl like Phoebe Prince to fit in, starting a new life away from her lifelong friends and native country and culture. Phoebe, a South Hadley High School freshman, drew the attention of the Mean Girls for "not knowing her place" in briefly dating a senior football player. Those girls and their male allies engaged in nonstop physical abuse and harassment (even by cellphone at home and cyberbullying, on Twitter, Facebook, Craigslist, and Formspring), ethnic and other slurs ("Irish slut" and "whore"), stalking, and intimidation. The final straw was when one of the Mean Girls pulled up in a car next to Phoebe walking home, throwing a Red Bull (energy drink) can at her and calling her names. Like Megan, Phoebe hung herself (in a stairwell). What's particularly heartless over what these young people did, over and beyond torturing her living years, was what they did after her passing: intruding on her Facebook memorial page, publishing snide comments.

Nine teens were charged today (including 2 males with statutory rape) by Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel. Ms. Scheibel also disturbingly noted that school administrators were aware of the abusive conduct and did nothing to stop it. Kudos to the Massachusetts legislature and Governor Deval Patrick for recently taking a long-overdue first step in mandating an anti-bullying program and related reporting requirements for high school administrators.

I do not know what to tell the grieving Prince family, which laid Phoebe to rest on her native soil, or the people of Ireland and other countries, whom have sent us their sons and daughters in good faith. This unconscionable behavior does not reflect our founding ideals and culture, the original melting pot which celebrates the America of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I regret that Phoebe never got to know the silent majority whom celebrate her all too brief life and mourn her untimely passing, that she was never alone, that she had the honor, respect, and support of all those whose opinions really matter.

What happened to these young ladies is unforgivable and unforgettable; the world is a slightly uglier place for the tragic loss of two promising, beautiful young women. Tomorrow it could be our own sister, daughter or niece.

Bonus Video: Billy Joel's "You're Only Human (Second Wind)"
Let's prevent teenage suicide....



The Civility Project

I encourage all readers of this post to visit the Civility Project website and affirm the following:

Take the Civility Pledge

• will be civil in my public discourse and behavior.
• will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them.
• will stand against incivility when I see it.

Political Cartoon


Mike Lester knows that President Obama must be pleased at ObamaCare's condescending endorsement from the Communist dictator of Cuba. (Next thing you know, he'll endorse Obama's economic policy.) You have wonder why people have literally died trying to leave this health resort and worker's paradise for an America without ObamaCare.

Quote of the Day



The two terrors that discourage originality and creative living are fear of public opinion and undue reverence for one's own consistency.
Ralph Waldo Emerson 


Musical Interlude: BJ Thomas Songs

"The Eyes of a New York Woman" (dedicated to my first girlfriend, whom was from NY)



"Don't Worry, Baby"



"Whatever Happened to Old-Fashioned Love" (all-time favorite)



"I Just Can't Help Believing" (another all-time favorite)

Miscellany: 3/28/10

The Unmitigated Gall of the Obama Presidency Continues


“I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government." That's what Obama said in making 15 controversial recess appointments, mostly notably a union lawyer (AFL-CIO and SEIU) Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. All 41 Senate Republicans signed a letter urging Obama not to make a recess appointment of Becker, whom they do not believe will be an honest broker in labor-management disputes that come up before the board. Recess appointments are limited by their very nature, and appointees will only serve through the end of next year. Recess appointments have a bipartisan history, with Clinton appointing nearly 140 and Bush over 170. On one level it seems this is simply more of the same; note, however, that in these cases neither predecessor had 59 or 60 Senators to carry the vote.

The President had misled the nation, promising a departure from politics as usual. Instead, we have one of the most brazenly partisan Presidents in American history whom has spend less time negotiating with the Republicans than with America's adversaries. Laughingly, the mainstream media attempts to turn the argument on its head, claiming that near-unanimous votes against partisan measures proves that the GOP is highly partisan. Say WHAT? The Republicans won 3 consecutive high-profile elections, replacing Democrats whom had held the same seats through multiple cycles; nearly every major poll showed that the public is deeply concerned about the escalating federal debt and remains strongly opposed to the Democratic Party Health Care Bill--and yet Obama goes on, his progressive statist ambitions unfettered and unabashed.

The National Labor Relations Board needs genuine problem solvers, not a political payback from Obama to his special-interest union supporters. Obama could and should have nominated individuals independent of unions; he himself has introduced partisanship in the nomination process, not the Republicans. America deserves better than a White House dominated by Chicago-style politics.

Why the Progressive Dems Settled for the Corrupt Senate Health Care Bill

Charles Krauthammer points out that effectively Obama and his crony progressive Democratic allies have effectively turned the health insurance companies into utilities. If you do not let insurers charge according to risk (e.g., if you require insurers to accept people whom wait until they are already ill to take out a policy, if you do not allow insurers to pass along their costs to policyholders because the rate exceeds a more politically popular smaller rate, etc.), you are no longer in the insurance business: you've become a middleman between the government and providers. And sooner or later you will see EXACTLY the same game that Obama and the other progressive Democrats are playing with respect to student loan or (say) Medicare Advantage.

For example, Obama is misleadingly trying to portray a federal grab for private sector market share for student loans tucked away in the recent budget reconciliation as a "giveaway" to bankers. In essence, about 64% of student loans have been financed by the private sector; the federal government has been able to leverage its resources by assuming the risk of student default and interest rates. Most likely the nature of private-sector lenders will focus on servicing niches (e.g., loan collection or students unable to obtain sufficient federal financing). The idea of the federal government insourcing functionality outside its core competencies, lacking the market experience and expertise, the natural incentive to cost containment, and the efficient utilization of resources is anathema to any conservative; the private sector did not make up the rules for the federal subsidy program. (No doubt the private sector has been able to arbitrage the difference in market interest rates during a sustained period of historically low interest rates, but the issue has more to do with underlying legislation and a related lack of expertise in the sector.) Does anyone seriously believe that if and when Treasury interest rates rise, the government will respond by cutting labor costs and raising student loan rates?

Similarly, Medicare Advantage has been a way for the private sector to participate in the Medicare program; generally speaking, it's more of a managed care concept with supplemental benefits (e.g., low or no-cost preventive care, lower out of pocket costs, simplified administration, etc.), with a subsidy of 12 to 15% over traditional Medicare cost. Obama, once again, oversimplifies the program, seeing the subsidies as a way, for instance, of paying for the doc fix. Nationally, nearly 1 of 5 Medicare enrollees are in an Advantage plan, and it is so popular in states with large retiree populations like Florida, that the infamous "Gator Aid" perk of Senator Nelson (D-FL) attempted to protect 800,000 Advantage enrollees from Obama's Advantage cuts in another states. (Original Senate health care bill deal Gator Aid, like the Cornhusker Kickback, got eliminated in the House budget reconciliation bill.)

So don't be surprised if the progressives suddenly "discover" this health insurance utility is subsidizing health insurers, not unlike it sees student loan companies being subsidized, and hence "cuts costs" by cutting out the middleman--leaving us with a nationalized health care system by default....

Halleluyah! Obama Finally Achieves a Bipartisan Consensus in the House:
Against His Policy on Israel

A bipartisan majority (337 members) signed a letter to President Obama, critical of the administration's high-profile counterproductive kerfuffle with the Israeli administration. No doubt the White House Propaganda New Media office will spin it as Nobel Laureate Obama bringing Americans together on his foreign policy...

A Conservative Political Era is Inevitable

I've been looking at a number of polls since the President's victory in ramming a defective partisan health care bill down the nation's throat. Any impartial view of the evidence makes it clear the long-term political future for conservatives is bright--it's basically baked into today's numbers.

I'm not referring to the mid-term elections, although I think we will see some relevant elements surface. It looks as though prospective Senate candidates Rossi (Washington) and Thompson (Wisconsin) have lost their initial leads, races have tightened in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but GOP hopefuls have picked up a bit in California. Obama and health bill support was boosted temporarily by its passage--which I attribute more to closure regarding the health care kerfuffle than acceptance of the bill, but a follow-up Washington Post poll shows virtually the same year-long net-disapproval public split.

[Democrats are still in a state of denial regarding the unpopularity of the health care bill, which they attribute to "distortions" by the opposition. No, it really deals with Americans not believing the phony accounting and worried about unintended consequences of a 2700-page law on their own health care. Nobody really argues with people in need getting access to health care, of families not having to file for bankruptcy over catastrophic health care expenses, and with necessary reforms in dealing with the small business and individual coverage markets. The question has more to do with the cost/benefit trade-off: not to mention that what Obama is doing to fund this bureaucratic power grab as at the expense of the job creator class, which doesn't help with sticky high unemployment rates.]

No, I'm pointing to other things--things that the Democrats can't spin: the fact that credit raters are openly hinting at a downgrading of US Treasury debt (which means that interest payments will have to increase); interest payments are already threatening operational expenditures. Already companies like Berkshire-Hathaway, Procter & Gamble, and Lowe's are selling debt more cheaply than the Treasury. This is a profound development; Treasury notes have long been regarded as the gold standard of debt. In fact, the legendary safety of Treasury debt is considered to be a premium pricing factor.

We have seen unions in California beat down Governor Schwarzenegger's tentative attempts to address the unsustainable public pension problem, where retirees in their mid-50's are promised most of their highest-earned salaries (retirement benefits more than the median actively working household income) for the remainder of their lives. But the Democrats are absolutely breathtaking in disregarding moral hazard and the law of unintended consequences; just like Obama's ludicrous promises to college students: at a time when the existing federal employee base is excessive and hugely expensive, with average pay and benefits far exceeding the average household, Obama is promising generous loan forgiveness terms to those whom join the federal workforce (apparently the higher pay and benefits than comparable work in the private sector aren't enough incentives!) In the meanwhile, the percentage of American households which do not pay a penny of federal government operations costs continues to increase while the Dem-agogues relentlessly push upward income eligibility for various federal programs (e.g., SCHIP and Medicaid). At the same time, they come again and again to rob Peter: increase income/investment taxes on the higher-income earners--higher taxes, lower deductions, etc., utterly clueless of the impact on business investment and growth.

It is inevitable that the Big Government tax and spend bubble will burst. We cannot continue to maintain over $40T in unfunded entitlement mandates, with Obama and the Democrats just adding a new major one. One can predict certain austerity measures; for example, a no-brainer is doing away with replacing pensions with 401K/403B style programs for new government employees; greater cost share of health care costs; deferred retirement eligibility; capped payments; means eligibility; privatization of operations not core to government competencies, etc. A first step of what I believe will be become the first step of what we'll eventually see on a local, state, and national basis is what we have been seeing under New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: he is aiming to reduce the budget 9% year over year and to reduce staffing levels throughout the state--not the usual Congressional Dem games of cutting the rates of increase or gimmicky PAYGO schemes with more holes than Swiss cheese.

Bonus Video: Legendary Investor Warren Buffett Channels His Inner Axl Rose



Political Cartoon


Gary McCoy points out that American voters in competitive districts and states will not accept politicians with preexisting votes for the corrupt Democratic Party Health Care Bill this fall.

Quote of the Day



A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.
John A. Shedd


Musical Interlude: More Tear Songs

Journey, "Who's Crying Now"



The Rolling Stones, "As Tears Go By"



Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, "The Tears of a Clown"



The Spinners, "Living [Just] a Little, Laughing [Just] a Little": click here for a track link

Living A Little Laughing A Little lyrics

Laugh everyone at the clown
He’s the best one in town, ummm ummm
Ride on his merry-go-round
Spinning faster than sound
Uuuuh huh uuuuh huh

Laugh as the funny man cries
Though his makeup is smeared
Uuuuh huuuh
Laugh at his funny pictures
As he [paints out the years? ]
Uuuuh huh uuuuh huh

Livin’ just a little
Laughing just a little
Ain’t easy, uuuuuh huuuuh

Livin’ just a little
Laughing just a little
Ain’t easy

Laugh everyone at the fool with his heart in his hand
Uuuuh huuuh
Mmmmm, he can’t quite understand that he’s less than a man
Uuuuh huuuh uuuuh huuuh

 there’s an ember of pride
Uuuuh huuuh
Watch how he tries hard to hide that he’s dying inside
Uuuuh huuuh
Uuuuh huuuh

Livin’ just a little
Laughing just a little
Ain’t easy, uuuuuh huuuuh

Livin’ just a little
Laughing just a little
Ain’t easy

Livin’ just a little
Laughing just a little
Ain’t easy, uuuuuh huuuuh

Livin’ just a little
Laughing just a little
Ain’t easy

Miscellany: 3/27/10

Quote of the Day 
I have always been dissatisfied with my gifts.
Sigmund Freud

The Reyes Inter-Faith Divorce Case: Some Comments

I have Jewish friends whom will probably disagree strongly with my point of view here; the reason I'm discussing this case has more to do with the ludicrous way a Chicago county judge is handling a faith-based dispute between a divorcing inter-faith couple and the religious upbringing of their 3-year-old daughter.

I myself am the oldest of 7, raised by conservative Catholic parents. (By "conservative", I don't mean traditionalist, but my mother is a strictly by-the-book Catholic: her only sibling is a retired priest, and her late dad was an active parishioner and a member of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul,) Although my mom still wants me to find a nice Catholic woman to marry, she never said a word (that I'm aware of) over the fact that only two of my in-laws were Catholic (although all my nephews and nieces were raised Catholic); the other non-Catholic in-laws were raised in other Christian denominations. (My two sisters-in-law converted to Catholicism several years into their marriages.) I believe that some of my relevant nephews and nieces have, on occasion, attended non-Catholic services.

Joseph Reyes, a Catholic, converted to Judaism around the time he married his wife, Rebecca. They agreed to raise their now 3-year-old daughter in the Jewish faith. The couple decided to divorce, and Joseph has reverted to his original faith. The couple has agreed that their daughter will be free to choose the faith of her choice when she is of age. On at least one occasion, Joseph has brought his daughter with him to church while in custody of the daughter and had her baptized, sending his wife pictures of the event. This infuriated his spouse, whom insists on her right to veto her daughter's attendance of any Catholic service while Reyes has custody of his daughter, because any such attendance would "confuse" the child. Unbelievably, the judge has ruled that Reyes cannot take his daughter to church with him on Easter Sunday.

Catholics, unlike a number of other Christians, believe that baptism should occur early in the life of a child; this has to do with a belief that if the baptized child dies, his or her soul is prepared to be received into heaven. Unlike other sacraments, a baptism can be performed by a lay person, e.g., Joseph could have done it while giving his daughter a bath. There are missing pieces to the reported story. I find it puzzling that a priest would have performed the ceremony without the knowledge and consent of the mother; the Church normally wants assurances that the child will be raised Catholic.

[I will say this: parents often take pictures at significant occasions of their children's life. But there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Reyes had blindsided his wife with a fait accompli, and he had to know, given their agreement to raise the child Jewish, this would be extraordinarily provocative. It's not right for a child to be put in the middle of a religious dispute between parents. I understand why Mr. Reyes wanted his child baptized, but I don't like how he handled the situation.]

Mr. Reyes is disputing that the couple agreed on the religious upbringing of their child, and I do not believe him; I think the fact he converted to Judaism during the relationship attests to that commitment. I believe that the child should be brought up in the Jewish faith, but I don't see anything wrong with the child learning about and being respectful of her father's faith. Let me get this straight: a child can go to the zoo or a playground with her dad, but a judge is forbidding her from going to church with her dad on the most significant day on the Christian calendar? As far as I'm concerned, it's never too early for a child to learn to be tolerant of people's differences. It's clear that both Joseph and Rebecca Reyes have failed to learn that lesson, and I have no doubt that the child is going to pick up on this mutual antagonism. This matter should never have gotten to the point of a judge's attention--but it's even more difficult to understand how once put in that position, a judge rules a child cannot be exposed to her parent's faith.

An Unpopular Conservative Opinion: 

Health Care "Reform" Imprudent but Not Unconstitutional

Let me state at the offset that I am empathetic with the libertarian argument that the government should not mandate the purchase of a particular good or service and that the federal government should not override traditional state-based regulation of health insurance. I am also empathetic to arguments on equal protection issues (adjusted for regional/local cost differences). However, I have doubts that the 13 state attorney generals challenging the reform on constitutional grounds will be successful (although it's possible that the Supreme Court could directly address certain aspects of reform, specifically, individual mandates and traditional state regulation).

From the standpoint of a non-lawyer like me, it's intuitively obvious: where do you draw the line in terms of restricting the scope creep of the federal government if any and everything can be abstractly if not directly tied to the commerce or general welfare clause and the federal government trumps state and local governments by the supremacy clause: whatever became of the ninth and tenth amendments, the concept of the Bill of Rights?

In my view, the government could legitimately argue its right to tax to recover costs ensured by mandated access to emergency or catastrophic care. And certainly if the government maintains a policy of guaranteed issue, the government needs to have some means of covering the risks of individuals seeking to socialize preexisting condition costs. Money is fungible; it may be the courts will not distinguish between a tax in the form of a user fee or penalty or an indirect tax in the form of a mandate.

In my judgment, the issue is more one of implementation versus principle. There are some inherent practical limits to human liberties; for instance, I have the right of free speech, but I do not have a right to made damaging, false statements about others. (That is not the same as, say, my political opinions regarding the President's competence. If, however, I claimed without well-vetted evidence that Obama had sold out American security for financial gain, that would be a different story.) I should have reasonably wide discretion to do what I want to do on my own property, but I have to maintain a properly maintained property which does not create a fire hazard for surrounding neighbors or various health hazards, disturbing level of noise (particularly overneight), etc. I should  have reasonable freedom of movement, but I don't have a right to spread a communicable disease in public places. Of course, the devil is in the details, with progressives pushing the limits on various intrusive rules and regulation.

Clearly, the federal, state and/or local government are in the health care sector already (over 46% of sector spending and climbing). There are Medicare and Medicaid programs which operate in all the states. Similar constitutional claims have been made over these programs; however, there are no mandates to participate in these programs
.
One can always hope that the justices will not genuflect at the altar of bad precedents and add to the casuistry of convoluted constitutional law at odds with the founders' intent, which defies the very ideal of the rule of law and  seems to be crying for what Thomas Kuhn would call a paradigm shift. There are some hopeful glimpses in a few Supreme Court decisions which note limits to the commerce clause. One would hope that the judges would recognize the fact that health care has been traditionally regulated at the state level, and this legislation usurps that authority: if the Court does not recognize that tradition, what becomes of the very concept of federalism. There is no balance of power when HHS can unilaterally dictate certain benefit mandates to various states.

Obviously we know how this story ends: look at anemic economic growth and sticky high unemployment from statist Europe; look at how Greece in crisis is having to slash its budget, including popular programs, pensions, etc. We need to take steps many in Europe are already starting to do--privatize unnecessary government functionality or delegate to states and local government, restrict program eligibility on a need basis, streamline government operations, etc.

If the Supreme Court refuses to intervene in this power grab by a partisan federal government, then I will gladly support constitutional amendments to prohibit individual mandates or respect the historical authority of states.

Political Cartoon

IBD cartoonist Michael Ramirez notes that it took phony crises of the uninsured, Bernie Madoff-style accounting and snake oil promotion tactics to pass the corrupt Democratic Party Health Care Bill into law: Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were willing to sacrifice whatever the cost for this latest unwarranted statist expansion: the only endangered species environmentalists aren't worried about: conservative and centrist Democrats.

Musical Interlude: Tear Songs

The Rolling Stones, "Out of Tears"

Barbra Streisand/Donna Summer, "No More Tears"

Roy Orbison, "Crying"

Boy George, "The Crying Games"

MIscellany: 3/26/10

Quote of the Day 
Never anger a heathen, a snake, or a pupil.
Talmud

For Crying Out Loud, Obama: Grow Up!

There are a couple of recent news items which really call into question the mature judgment of our Nobel Laureate President. First, Barack Obama decides to make the third high-profile diplomatic incident with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu this month by basically walking out of their meeting to have dinner with Michelle and their daughters. (No doubt settling a sibling dispute between Sasha and Malia has higher priority over Israeli-Palestinian negotations...) Obama's boorish behavior seems to be his way of expressing displeasure with Netanyahu's position on home construction in Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem. While Obama has repeatedly attacked Bush for allegedly destroying America's image abroad, what is the approval rating of Obama in one of America's strongest allies, Israel? According to a recent poll in today's Jerusalem Post, just 9% of Israelis consider Obama to be pro-Israel, versus 88% for George W. Bush. It leads one to wonder just how coherent is Obama's foreign policy: whereas Obama won the much coveted praise of American adversary Communist dictator Fidel Castro for ObamaCare this past Thursday and last summer a valued present of an anti-American screed (Galeano's  Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent) from Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, shouldn't he spend at least as much due diligence with America's closest allies? Who will ever forget that special touch Obama showed in gifting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a set of DVD's in a format that doesn't play on British players and then last September turned down 5 times Brown's request for a meeting around the time of the G20 summit (while, of course, Obama had time to meet with leaders of China, Japan, and Russia)?

The second incident involves Obama's schoolyard taunt "Go for it" at a recent self-congratulatory rally to Republicans, promising to run on "repeal and replace" the partisan health care bill/law in this fall's election. Isn't it refreshing that all those progressives whom had castigated Bush for the provocative message to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to "bring 'em on" know whom the real enemy is--namely, Republicans? Listen, Mr. Obama: someone has to clean up after your mess. Someone is going to run to against counterproductive "soak-the-rich"/business/investment (and job) crippling tax increases, smoke and mirrors accounting (with phantom Medicare cuts and grossly underestimated costs and exaggerated revenues), progressive entitlement Ponzi schemes that make Madoff look like an amateur, rampant government hiring (at an average wage far above the median American earner)--especially for several new platoons of America's favorite bureaucrats: the IRS, just to make sure you are buying health insurance approved by progressive bureaucracies (instead of traditional state regulation)... Maybe instead of shoving an unsatisfactory, unpopular corrupt partisan bill down the nation's throat, you could have engaged in LEGITIMATE bipartisan negotiations, instead of this nonsense of trying to peel off one or 2 GOP votes or cherry-pick a couple of minor, watered-down GOP ideas and deem the result "bipartisan".  Let's see, who was that national candidate whom once said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig"?

ObamaCare Is Already Hitting Corporate Financial Statements

As if anyone needed any further proof of the utter economic incompetence of the progressives in Congress and the Obama Administration, take into account the wave of write-offs hitting Wall Street, including $1B in health "reform" costs in the first quarter for telecommunication industry leader AT&T (i.e., Southwestern Bell).  Now when the Bush Administration in its first term pushed through the new Medicare entitlement (prescription drugs), there was a desire to hold down costs; many corporations (including AT&T) had existing retiree prescription drug benefits. Let's say, for purposes of simplification, that the cost to the government for Medicare drug coverage was a net burden of $1200 per beneficiary. In effect, the government was willing to provide tax benefits and/or subsidies of up to $600 per retiree to maintain its existing benefit program: a win-win for both parties: even if the government was paying $600 per retiree, it was still saving $600 per person if that same retiree applied for the Medicare benefit, say, if the corporation simply dumped its retiree benefit on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Now the progressives are in power, and in their  omnipotence, they view corporate tax-advantaged benefits as "loopholes": they think that they can take back the incentive to corporations and the corporations will have no alternative but at the expense of their stakeholders to both pay more taxes and pay for a cost burden that the government is assuming for other non-company retirees.

Take a wild guess as to how this scenario is going to play out: businesses and the government made a deal several years ago. The government, now dominated by progressives, decides to renege on the deal. This is the equivalent of unilaterally increasing labor costs. The companies now assume total cost burden of what the government assumes for enrolled retirees. That will now change. Money is fungible; maybe the company will sweeten other retiree benefits to compensate for dropping their share of the benefit. But now the government will assume the full cost burden for all retirees. Progressives are lousy at math--and they've just added to the $38T unfunded Medicare mandate.

Political Cartoon

There is a play on words in Dana Summers' cartoon. We taxpayers, the next generations, and the states are going to have sticker shock over the Democratic Party Health Care Bill. But with a nearly $3T budget deficit (BEFORE health care "reform"), the progressives' hyper tax-and-spend agenda constitutes political malpractice, and there's no company, no other country (e.g., China), with the resources to provide taxpayer coverage at any price.

Musical Interlude: Tonight Songs

Bob Seger, "We've Got Tonight"



Rod Stewart, "Tonight's the Night"



Bay City Rollers, "The Way I Feel Tonight"



Elton John, "Can You Feel the Love Tonight?"

Miscellany: 3/25/10

Quote of the Day 
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
Albert Einstein

Give 'Em Hell, Eric!

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) gave a brief press conference today, noting there had been a recent gun shot at his Richmond home office (in the early hours of Tuesday morning, when the office was unoccupied: the bullet struck one of the Cantor office windows but did not penetrate the blinds) and that there have been other threats directed at him (because of his Jewish heritage), which he has not made public for fear of fanning the flames (e.g., copycat crimes) and possibly impeding FBI investigations; in particular, he lashed out at how certain Democrats were dishonorably attempting to politically exploit the recent reported threats, their implying, if not directly asserting that Republican rhetoric on the Democratic Party Health Care Bill had instigated purported threats against some pro-life/centrist Democrats whose late-deciding votes put the bill over the top. I made a related set of remarks in yesterday's post, pointing out that progressive harassment and threats against the Stupak household before he decided to support the bill Sunday had gotten little airplay in the mainstream media (I don't recall Speaker Pelosi earlier calling for progressives to cease and desist, or Minority Leader John Boehner blaming House Democratic leaders for inciting threats or violence against members opposing or leaning against the bill.) Eric Cantor was spot on: let the FBI do their jobs, and stop using threats against members as a political weapon.

The Reconciliation Bill Passes

Given the corrupt Senate health care bill has been signed into law, the reconciliation package has become almost a sideshow; it passed with Senate with minor procedural changes 56-43 (one ill Republican not voting, 3 Democrats, Nelson (NE) and the Arkansas senators voting against). The myth of bipartisanship was amply made apparent, with Republican amendments routinely tabled (indirectly voted down); the Senate parliamentarian sustained two GOP points of order, thus requiring a follow-up vote by the House of the modified bill, which passed this evening 220-207.

Some of odious corrupt deals were removed in the reconciled bill, e.g., the Cornhusker Kickback, while others, like the Louisiana Purchase, supported by Obama, remained. (Obama's justification, that Louisiana deserved its fix in the current bill because of Hurricane Katrina 5 years ago and Hawaii because of past earthquake activity, is unpersuasive.)  I was more interested in the first point of order the parliamentarian rejected, which has to do with Cadillac health taxes: it is expected that companies and unions will reconfigure compensation avoid the tax, essentially shifting money from benefits to pay, which would increase payroll taxes for affected workers.  The House (for obvious union reasons) wanted to push back (until 2018) the Cadillac tax. This delay would likely have an adverse effect on social security revenues. I agree with the GOP position on merit. I haven't seen a discussion of the parliamentarian's decision reasoning; for example, it might reflect modeling assumptions of social security collections, materiality of the amounts in question, or uncertainty of Cadillac tax effects on compensation. The GOP has run on equal protection tax benefit for health insurance, and the Cadillac tax is a mechanism to address an existing tax loophole in compensation.


Ann Coulter and the Canadian Lecture Kerfuffle

The University of Ottawa recently canceled a lecture by acerbic American media conservative columnist and author Ann Coulter, as hundreds of progressive students protested, in part emboldened by a university official whom warned Ms. Coulter that her provocative opinions (particularly involving Muslims) could run afoul of Canada's hate speech crimes. I listened to a recent Megyn Kelly interview with Canadian columnist Susan G. Cole. Ms. Cole notes that there is no comparable First Amendment rights in Canada (and refers to us whom believe in it as "absolutists"). She furthermore defends the decision to cancel the invitation (in response to student protests on the night of the speech), arguing there were other places for Ms. Coulter to speak (e.g., private lecture halls) vs. state-supported institutions.

First of all, I categorically reject Cole's mischaracterization of Ann Coulter's views as "hate crimes". It is true that Ann Coulter is an acquired taste, and her biting sarcasm and strident views are provocative. (I myself strongly disagree with her adverse views on independent/centrist Republicans and immigration reform.) In effect, Cole is assuming the role of a de facto censor, where opinions counter to those to her and other progressives are arbitrarily classified as "hate crimes". Second, perhaps this is because I've had an academic career, but we have a concept of "academic freedom". At the core of academic freedom is the right to teach, research, and express oneself independently of vested interests. In my view, if there is one place where Ann Coulter can and should be addressing her conservative ideas, it's in a university where we should compete in the free market of ideas.

This incident reflects poorly on Canada and Canadian values. It validates the wise decisions of my French-Canadian ancestors on both sides of the family, whom immigrated to New England in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Social Security and Medicare Funding:
A Rude Awakening for the Dem Crown Jewels of Entitlements


Steven Gass, chief actuary of social security, says this year we will be running in the red, years earlier than projected, meaning that the trust fund will start to cash in some of the $2.5T reserve to make up the difference between payroll tax inflows and beneficiary payments. This is largely driven by the fragile economy (including high official unemployment of 9.7%) and certain older workers, unable to find work and eligible for at least early retirement, deciding to retire early. We have unfunded liabilities of about $5T for social security and $38T for Medicare. Where exactly is the federal government going to find the billions it needs to redeem the Treasury notes from the trust fund? Can you say PUBLIC DEBT (or PRINT MONEY)?

Oh, as others wax enthusiastic over Obama's "big win" (i.e., Pyrrhic victory) on health care "reform", as he for a solid year talked about the clear need to shrink the uninsured as his key top priority, where were social security and Medicare (other than robbing Peter to pay Paul)? Since when are over $40T in unfunded existing entitlement mandates a lower priority than a $1T health care bill?

Political Cartoon

Dana Summers shows "Average Joe" citizen going to his doctor. Fortunately, he still has his private-sector health care plan. I suspect after the mid-term elections some FORMER Democratic legislators will need to visit their physicians to dislodge the Democratic Party Health Care Bill shoved up a different orifice. (I wonder how many physicians will accept THEIR health care plan...)

Musical Interlude: Letter Songs

Joe Cocker, "The Letter"



Peter Frampton, "Signed, Sealed, Delivered"



The Beatles, "Please, Mr. Postman"



Bay City Rollers, "Rock 'N Roll Love Letter"

Miscellany: 3/24/10

Quote of the Day 
I've always tried to go a step past wherever people expected me to end up.
Beverly Sills


"Memories...Like the Corners of My Mind"

How often is it that one of my former employers makes the national media? We have the following student, Robyn Foster, arrested for disorderly conduct, removed from an anthropology class (see embedded video below); the kerfuffle seemed to have been in response to the wording of an exam question, and Ms. Foster reportedly rejected the professor's invitation to discuss the matter out of class. Ms. Foster allegedly escalated the situation, throwing a water bottle at one of the other students in class, apparently backing up the professor's request.  (Discussion continued below.)



I had never, in my own experience as a college student, seen or even heard of disruptive student behavior. I'm not going to write a sensational post here, but I've had an occasional sexually aggressive coed student (I've never dated a current or former student). As a single white male in politically correct institutions, I was always mindful of my vulnerability to spurious allegations, I always tried to make sure I was never alone or, at minimum, my office door was open when meeting with a coed. [But to give an example, while I was teaching a COBOL class in Houston, a student with her friend came in during my office hours, requesting help with her computer program assignment. While I was poring over her program printout, I suddenly felt a bare foot digging its way up inside my left pant leg. I decided to ignore it, but after the students left my office, I overheard the coed laughingly tell her friend, "Did you see me turn on the teacher?"]

During my second year at UWM, I had assigned a COBOL textbook which came bundled with vendor PC software supporting a new COBOL standard (which supported structured programming constructs). The business college was unhappy with me because they wanted me to require use of the Microsoft COBOL compilers licensed in the computer labs. I verified that Microsoft hadn't yet upgraded their compiler consistent with the new standard. There was a lot of resistance, in part due to the fact that computer lab assistants were not familiar with the new constructs (although I had posted office hours and was flexible about scheduling outside of office hours).

One day, about 2 weeks before the first assignment was due, a group of 5 or 6 students came to my office hours and demanded an extension for the initial due date. I really didn't want to start a precedent; I had basically spaced out 4 assignments with roughly 3-week intervals. I noted that the due date was still days away, they could raise assignment issues in lecture or during office hours until then. If I felt there was a general problem with the assignment on the due date, I would address a request for an extension at that time. The students weren't satisfied with my response and bluntly threatened me that if I did not back off the initial due date, there would be (unspecified) consequences. I stood by my decision.

The first assignment came and went, with no notable problems (everyone submitted their assignment on schedule), and for the most part, I had forgotten about the incident. I won't go into specifics here, but the malcontents bided their time and then launched a surprise multi-front attack against me, their abusing university procedures, no due process, and the business school and the senior faculty dishonorably failing to support me. I left the next academic year--and the reason I'm mentioning this is what happened the last night as I finished clearing out of my university office. One of the MIS doctoral students took the COBOL classes that year, and as I stepped into the elevator with the last of my boxes, the floor of the elevator was covered with student computer assignment printouts, apparently the result of some malcontent student expressing his displeasure with the lecturer and/or the class--a signature memory summarizing my years at UWM.

But perhaps the incident I experienced of a similar nature to Ms. Foster occurred at UTEP. I had a clearly defined academic honesty requirement in my database class syllabus. Homework assignments made up about 10% of the final grade (and there were multiple assignments). On one of the assignments I discovered that two of the students had clearly copied from each other; the evidence was compelling. (I had been tipped off by a highly unusual solution to one of the problems.) I started the next lecture by reminding the students of the academic honesty policy and noting that I had been grading their assignments and there was a violation. I did not identify the parties in question or give any more specifics. Even Perry Mason never managed to do what I did in that class: the coed in question raised up her hand and demanded to know, "Is it me?" I told the class that I would not identify the parties in class but would discuss the matter outside of class. The young woman ignored what I was saying and continued, "You can't do anything to me. I'm a straight-A student. I don't need to cheat. They won't believe you. They won't let you do anything to me." This was rapidly escalating out of control; a professor is then caught in a tough situation: students will naturally empathize with one of their own, but will also blame you for losing control of the class. I responded, "I think we need to discuss this after class." She, visibly shaking with rage, screamed, "NO! I WANT TO DISCUSS IT RIGHT NOW!" I had never previously experienced an outright temper tantrum in class before. I was trying to decide whether I should dismiss the class or call in campus security. (So I do empathize with the UWM anthropology professor here...) While I was pondering my next move, one of the students near her mentioned that the student should discuss it after class; one or 2 other students subsequently repeated the same. The peer pressure seemed to work; initially she started arguing with them, finally shutting up, arms folded, glaring angrily at me for the remainder of the lecture.

I won't discuss the aftermath. I ended up abandoning my office when she started shrieking at me, with a voice that could break glass, that she was not a cheater; she had slammed my office door behind her and refused to open it. I asked her to leave; she refused to leave. My colleagues were coming out of their offices, and I was afraid the young woman might make some sexual misconduct allegation.

She followed up by filing a grievance with the Student Affairs office against me. All you need to know about the corrupt nature of the Student Affairs office is I never had a single face-to-face meeting with the dean during my stay at the university. He never interviewed me or asked me for a statement; he never asked to look at the evidence; he never asked to see a copy of the syllabus; he never asked for a response to any allegation made by the young woman. (Ask me what I think of President Natalicio or her corrupt administration...)

The only reason I'm going into this part of the story is that the young woman slandered me in the Dean's office. The reason I know that is because the dean called me angrily one day, "You better not do it." I hadn't the foggiest idea what he was talking about. He continued, "Don't play innocent with me. You know exactly what you did." I felt like a clueless husband in the doghouse. It was like pulling teeth, but it turned out that the young woman had told the dean that I had threatened to blacklist her on the job market. (In fact, I was a first-semester professor with no local community contacts, I never earned a dime in outside income as a PhD student or a professor, and I had no industry contacts. I never had a conversation with any recruiter or manager about any student, and no student--INCLUDING THIS STUDENT--ever requested my serving as a job reference. There had been no discussion with this student beyond this particular assignment. It was a totally invented smear.)

What I eventually discovered after additional digging was this student had listed me as a reference in job applications. I have no idea why she did that; this was my first semester at UTEP, and this incident occurred fairly early in the semester. I barely knew her as a student on my class roster, and I had never had a prior personal conversation with her. It was clear now why she smeared me: she was afraid of what I might tell any recruiter whom contacted me about her. [In fact, I would have recused myself from a recommendation as a matter of professional ethics, simply because I didn't know her that well.] With respect to the academic honesty issue, I often give individuals the benefit of a doubt and a second chance (e.g., the original problem with her homework); however, her uncivil behavior in class and towards myself was fundamentally unacceptable. I have no doubt those characteristics would manifest themselves during a professional career, and employers have zero tolerance for these people skill problems.

Death Threats Over Votes on the 
Democratic Party Health Care Law?

Fox News Shepard Smith, as he reported tonight's news, led off by disapprovingly mentioning allegations of death threats against last weekend's Democratic swing voters, including Bart Stupak (D-MI), whom end up voting for the corrupt Senate bill Obama signed into law yesterday. There is no equivocation in the pro-life community: acts of violence against preborn or born human beings are rejected on principle. However, I reject any attempt to make out Stupak and his holdouts, whom folded like cheap suits in the face of political pressure last weekend, to be "profiles in courage". I'm sure that politicians get personally threatened more occasions than we probably know about, and threats should be treated seriously and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I can't help but believe, though, the explicit revelation of these threats were motivated for political reasons, specifically to put opposition to the corrupt, unaffordable white elephant legislation on the defensive. I'm sure that the FBI could do its job without political talking points.

My posts have been clear about this: for example, yesterday I mentioned that conservatives and Republicans need to dial back the angry rhetoric. I'm clearly unhappy about the fact so-called pro-life Democrats caved into political pressure, making the difference in the bill carrying, but the fact is that over 30 Democrats joined in bipartisan opposition to this corrupt bill/law. There is only so much that conservatives and/or Republicans can do; they simply didn't have the votes to stop passage of a bad bill. Ultimately, the American voters are responsible; they elected the most liberal Democrat in American history and give him the strongest partisan majorities in years. I can't really explain why the ratings of Republicans in Congress in some polls are as bad as the Democrats. By any objective standard, virtually all significant Republican inputs have been repeatedly batted down on partisan grounds. The Republicans have been out of power in the Congress for over 3 years. This obstructionist label is absurd: the Republicans couldn't stop the Democrats from passing the stimulus bill, they couldn't stop the budget bills; they couldn't stop the raising of the federal debt limit. The problems the Democrats had dealt with an ideological split between progressives and centrists.

If I had to venture an explanation of why the Congressional Republicans are scoring low, I would focus on two points: (1) there is a general frustration with the Congress in general, and the Republicans are part of Congress (i.e., life isn't fair); (2) the Republicans are remarkably inept in getting out their message--and also incredibly unlucky: I never heard the Republicans address the Anthem Blue Cross of California issue of raising rates for self-employed individual coverage policies to up to 39% at a politically inopportune time. And yet the same White House and Congress that guaranteed health insurers customers through an unconstitutional mandate and cut deals with pharmaceuticals, medical device makers, etc. are making Republicans to be proxies of health sector businesses! The Republicans can't afford to be constantly playing defense: they needed to come out with government-lite reforms to address catastrophic expenses, high risk pool availability, and tax-advantaged, self-insured cross-state pools for small businesses and individual coverages, but at a far smaller price to the government. Let me quote from my last Dec. 17 post:

Note that the wider scope of eligibility, the higher the costs to the federal government; the study authors pointed out "universal" catastrophic coverage could cost the federal government almost 5 times as much as a more focused plan to high-risk individuals and small groups.

It was only a matter of time that the liberal mass media would attempt to portray activist conservatives (e.g., the Tea Party movement) as potential "terrorists" (recalling last year's DHS kerfuffle identifying Iraq veterans, pro-life activists and right-wing activists). What the liberal media didn't  focus on is the fact that Stupak and others were getting harassed (by progressives) while they were withholding support for the corrupt bill.

Remember this news item from last September?

The Detroit News reported this morning, "Harlan James Drake, 33, confessed to shooting 63-year-old activist James Pouillon because of the larger-than-life photographs of mutilated fetuses Pouillon was setting up to display Friday morning in front of Owosso High School, authorities said."

There were comparative counts of citations on the murder of Pouillon versus that of  late-term abortion specialist George Tiller: fewer than 1 to 30. [Follow-up: Drake was convicted earlier this month of first-degree murder.] Let's hope the liberal mass media will provide more proportionate attention to the crimes of pro-abortion choice activists, well-documented by the pro-life movement.

Political Cartoon

Chuck Asay points out the self-described pro-life Democrats whom sold out their principled stand against taxpayer funding for abortion in the corrupt Senate Democratic Party Health Care Bill for political cover from Barack Obama.

Musical Interlude: More Heaven Songs

Donna Summers, "Heaven Knows"



Belinda Carlisle, "Heaven is a Place on Earth"



Bee Gees, "Too Much Heaven"



Eric Clapton, "Tears in Heaven"