Miscellany: 5/31/10: Memorial Day

Photo Courtesy of  Joseph Sohm/Visions of America/Corbis

Monica McNeal, mother of 19-year-old Lance Corporal Eric Ward
Died in Afghanistian, Feb. 21. 2010
Photo Courtesy Jason Reed/Reuters

Let us never forget that each courageous fallen hero left behind a family: parents, siblings, wife or girlfriend, children.. For each survivor, Memorial Day is not a one-day event, a day off from work, cooking burgers and hot dogs on the backyard grill. It's something they live through every day of their lives: a young child who never met his daddy; a little girl who will never walk down the aisle with her father on her wedding day; a wife  who somehow must live on, raise their kids and fights to keep his memory alive; a mother who still remembers bringing him home from the hospital, his first day of school, the last time she saw him, and struggles to get through each of his birthdays for the remainder of her life... Reuters published a photo (above) taken last Thursday of the grieving mother of a proud, fourth-generation Marine. I wouldn't say that I know a number of these families personally, although I do remember being friends with an Army brat, a die-hard Green Bay Packers fan, before his dad died in Vietnam. There's a good article in today's Chicago Tribune by Bonnie Rubin, which does a better job than I can about how these Gold Star families cope with their loss and what we can do to help them and honor the memory of their loved ones.

There are some organizations which provide emotional support for these Gold Star families (e.g., click here), but one way interested people can choose to assist our active-duty military families is through organizations like Operation Homefront and the National Military Family Association. For a more comprehensive listing of military-related charities and organizations, click here.


Quote of the Day
It is only by following your deepest instinct 
that you can lead a rich life, 
and if you let your fear of consequence prevent you 
from following your deepest instinct, 
then your life will be safe, expedient and thin.
Katharine Butler Hathaway


The Mojave Cross Revisited: 
Censorship of Public Displays
Intolerance of Religious Symbols

The decades-old Mojave Cross
as originally displayed

I previously noted my support of the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision where Justice Kennedy noted that the Constitution does not require prohibition of religious symbols in the public arena. My own personal view is somewhat nuanced based on the nature and extent of the religious expression: it should be brief, general, archetypal, symbolic, and/or inclusive. Whereas there should be no restriction on private or church expressions of faith, I believe that specific doctrinal differences (within or among religions) or context (e.g., substantive references to religious founders or principals, e.g., Moses, Christ, Mohammad, or the Buddha) are less suitable in the public arena.

The boxed cross
during court hearings

 I also recognize the concept of default and multi-use nature of certain symbols. This can be a more subtle distinction. The United States was founded primarily by Christians of various denominations, and Presidents and most national legislators have been Christian (although there are a few Jewish and one Muslim legislator). The First Amendment goes beyond the practice of Christianity. The cross represents the faith of most fallen heroes but as a general or default symbol was never intended to be interpreted narrowly, i.e., honoring only Christian soldiers. The cross can also represent traditional American liberties and values and the concept of sacrifice. (Christians believe that Jesus' death on the cross was a sacrifice for the benefit of mankind.) The American Red Cross does not promote specific religious dogma but broad humanitarian assistance, regardless of recipients' personal faith; the cross can also serve as a symbol of medical assistance and first-aid products.

Remaining bolts on Sunrise Rock
 from the original  location of the cross

The civil libertarians insist that the Mojave cross on public land as a default symbol constitutes a de facto state sponsorship of Christianity. In fact, the First Amendment during the early years of the republic simply restricted federal establishment of a national church. In fact, religious services were held in the Capitol, frequently attended by Jefferson and Madison, often cited by the present-day prohibitionists citing the separation of church and state. Connecticut and Massachusetts, in fact, several years into the nineteenth century, maintained state sponsorship of religion or enforced collection of religious taxes (on a denomination-neutral basis). It really wasn't until the aftermath of Fourteenth Amendment when we saw similar negative liberty restrictions on state and local authorities. Some states, for instance, have laws ruling atheists to be ineligible for public office, something the Supreme Court rightly struck down as unenforceable.

The Mojave cross was originally erected about 75 years ago by a military veteran group (i.e., not a Christian group) seeking to honor fallen WWI war heroes. Anti-memorial bigots have torn down, on multiple occasions, the original 8 foot cross and its replacements. In 1994 the land in question was put under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. In 2001, a former NPS employee, Frank Buono, a Roman Catholic, filed suit on church-state grounds against the memorial, winning key battles. Congress in 2003, in an attempt to preempt the issue,  then attempted to swap the relevant acre of land, enveloping Sunrise Rock, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in exchange for a 5-acre tract from the Sandoz family bordering the preserve.

The cross, since the early court challenges, had been boxed with plywood (see above photo) to placate anti-memorial activists. Within days of the landmark ruling, which among other things suggested that the reversed lower court reconsider its position on the land swap, the cross was stolen. An attempt to replace the cross was brought down by the "get-a-life" government on the grounds it was a replica and not the original boxed cross.

There are opponents whom point out that the Vietnam Memorial does not use religious symbols or whom oppose the use of a Christian symbol in the context of war. I'm not interested in the judgmental, morally self-superior rationalizations of others, believing as self-appointed judges and experts, they have the right to set the rules of what constitutes an acceptable memorial. This was erected by a secular group of veterans not affiliated with any Christian church; they don't have a hidden agenda of converting people from non-Christian faiths. What they wanted to do is to remind people, through the use of a single, powerful symbol, that the liberties we Americans have come to take for granted were bought and paid for by the lives and limbs of hundreds of thousands whom have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Taking down the Latin cross is no victory for religious equality: it takes away one of the few monuments of common sacrifice in the history of our nation.

Political Cartoon

Nate Beeler reminds us that the ones we Americans are most indebted to aren't the Chinese,  the Japanese or other (including domestic) purchasers of Treasury bills but the hundreds of thousands brave American men whom have sacrificed their very lives to win and sustain our way of life.

Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)

#61, "Get Happy"



#62. "Beauty and the Beast"



#63. "Thanks for the Memory"



#64. "My Favorite Things"   one of my favorite things about the best movie of all time!

Miscellany: 5/30/10

Congratulations, Roy Halladay: MLB Perfect Game #20!

Technically #22 if we go back to 1880, before the start of the "modern era", i.e., 1900. For the first time in the modern era, we've seen two perfect games pitched in the same season, interestingly enough one in each league, after Dallas Braden's American League victory in Oakland just 3 weeks ago. (In 1880, two perfect games were pitched 5 days apart.) Ray Halladay of the visiting National League Philadelphia Phillies pitched a 1-0 masterpiece over the Florida Marlins, becoming the second Philadelphia Philly to achieve perfection since retiring Kentucky US Senator Jim Bunning did it during the Beatles' heyday in 1964.

Sunday Talk Soup

I was amused and infuriated with Dick Gregory's pursuit of Obama Administration climate czar Carol Browner; the underlying assumption of Gregory's questioning is that the Obama Administration has surrendered  under the powerful oil lobby to doing due diligence to environmental impact studies. This tacit assumption is so patently absurd by any objective standard I was astonished Carol Browner failed to address it from the get-go.

For the most part, oil usage has remained fairly constant at about 20 million barrels per day. Ideally we could cut that usage, and to some extent high prices and a tough economy reduce fossil fuel consumption. But to a large extent our economy is relying on fuel-thirsty trucks and a commute lifestyle with  fuel-inefficient older vehicles (the "real" clunkers), not to mention popular trucks and SUV's. Whereas hybrids and new electric cars, like the $40K Chevy Volt, can help, we won't have nearly the volume to replace the older, less efficient vehicles on the road. Many progressives, including Obama, are sympathetic to the concept of taxing fossil fuel so we make $4-plus/gallon an ongoing reality with healthy tax hikes. The yuppies on the coasts may be proud to be seen in their Prius hybrids or the first in their neighborhood to own a Volt, but the fact is if you are in the lower-income brackets, you are likely looking at lower-price, used, less fuel-efficient vehicles. What that means is regressive energy taxes (including gas taxes) are going to especially hit lower-income vehicle owners.

The fact is that Congress in 2008 did enable expansion of offshore drilling after a long-term moratorium. Domestic production has continued to drop in market share of our daily oil requirements and only accounts for roughly one-quarter of our daily needs. Obama cautiously added a tiny percentage of available tracts off the East and Gulf coasts, none above New Jersey and none of the West Coast. Oil shale production in the west/central states is largely tied up in environmental legal challenges.

Obama, in principle, is sympathetic to the idea of forcing conservation through high energy prices. At the same time, he has to be aware that voters do want more self-sufficiency of domestic energy production and high gas prices are very unpopular with lower- and middle-class voters, key constituent groups. He's doing as little as he can, essentially making symbolic gestures in an attempt to convince voters he is open to increased domestic production as an interim solution to an alternative energy future, but he always pairs his support for modest increased production with his alternative energy agenda. What he never mentions, of course, is that many alternative energy producers (e.g., wind and ethanol) are only profitable under inefficient, massive federal subsidies; Toyota's Prius hybrid sales only fairly recently have become profitable.

But the idea of a cozy relationship with Big Oil and Obama to the extent the Obama Administration looked the other way instead of challenging BP's exploration plans for the Deepwater Horizon? PLEASE. First of all, major oil spills have not been a problem; even the Exxon Valdez was a transportation issue, not an exploration issue. Offshore oil production has a reasonably good record from a safety and ecological standpoint, and no doubt that record was a key reason why costly expanded investigations were unnecessary. Moreover, there were multiple levels of technological redundancy in the oil rig infrastructure.

But really: why would Gregory jump to political conspiracy versus typical Big Government incompetence? Did he suddenly forget recent stories of dead people getting stimulus checks? The space shuttle Challenger disaster? Medicare fraud? AIG and the GSE's? Katrina?

What we see is a highly unusual accident that BP itself did not anticipate, and it hires some of the industry's best and brightest. It has enormous costs and a huge public relations issue which may take years to resolve. Gregory's question has a presentist bias; quarterbacking is a lot easier Monday morning. There are scenarios which are difficult to simulate without themselves posing environmental risks. One thing is clear from the human performance literature: even experts make mistakes (although at a low rate). We cannot eliminate risk; we can try to control for it. To radical environmentalists, even minimal risk constitutes excessive risk.

Political Cartoon

Steve Breen points out that California, the homeland of progressive super-spenders  and over-promisers, is headed towards a Greece-like day of reckoning. Extravagant public sector retirement packages paying most of your paid salary every year for life? Can anyone say cap payments, adjust payment increases, postpone retirement age and put younger workers on 403B style retirement plans? How about streamlining government operations, staff reductions, salary cutbacks and greater benefit contributions? What about a more business-friendly tax and regulatory status and cutting the top income tax rate? This fall, California will have a gubernatorial choice between a professional politician, Jerry Brown, whom was against property tax reform before he was for it as a former two-term governor and  failed Presidential candidate, and Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, bringing a fresh perspective and new and different ideas to state governance.

Quote of the Day

Stay committed to your decisions, but stay flexible in your approach.
Anthony Robbins

Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)

#57. "The Windmills of Your Mind"



#58. "Gonna Fly Now"



#59. "Tonight"   from West Side Story: one of the best, most glorious love songs ever!



#60. "It Had to be You"

Miscellany: 5/29/10

The GOP Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks...

In particular, let's take yesterday's White House admission that former President Bill Clinton was enlisted to approach Joe Sestak (D-PA) not to contest turncoat Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) seek to extend his decades-long career in the U.S. Senate; apparently the inducement was the privilege of moonlighting on an unpaid, mostly ceremonial role on a Presidential board while still serving as Congressman.

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and others are continuing to press for a special prosecutor, even reaching the possibility of an impeachable offense, even though from any objective analysis of what we now know, Sestak's claim, which many thought was perhaps was the former admiral being named Secretary of the Navy, had been absurdly exaggerated and used to promote this pretentious bravado of the underdog battling the President and the Democratic establishment (while at the same time voting for Obama's agenda).

Consider what the Republicans got from Sestak's candidacy against Specter. First of all, Sestak's 7th district is a historically Republican seat, with a plurality of GOP registered voters, in a change election year. Pat Meehan, a former US attorney, is a strong, well-funded candidate to retake the seat. Second, Sestak has a left-of-center, high-spending voting record. Toomey has consistently led Sestak in polls until the last few weeks, and Sestak only holds roughly a 3-point lead after a high-profile race against Specter. Whereas Toomey would prefer to run against Specter, whom was a long-term incumbent in an anti-incumbent election year, Toomey can't be tied to Obama's unpopular policies; in fact, Critz (D-PA) won Murtha's seat by running against the health care bill and for culturally-conservative issues (e.g., abortion and guns). Third, Bill Clinton has greatly damaged his own prestige by being seen as little more than a party hack acting on behalf of the Obama Administration.

As for the purported deal, we need to know any administration has positions to fill, quite often with former existing or former lawmakers. These decisions were not always to the Democrats' local strategic interests; for example, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano is the former Arizona governor; she was succeeded by Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer (R-AZ),  now with an incumbent's advantage in this fall's election; Interior Secretary Salazar opened up his Colorado US Senate seat in a purple state in a change election year. (On the other hand, last year's famous NY-23 special election resulted from Republican John McHugh's nomination as Army Secretary.) It's very clear why the Obama Administration wanted to retain the advantage of incumbency for both Sestak's and Specter's seats, and we can't forget that Sestak's lead over Specter emerged fairly late in the primary campaign, long after Sestak turned down the offer.

In fact, the President is the leader of the Democratic Party. Party leaders often try to field competitive candidates for seats. Sometimes it backfires as in last year's NY-23 where party leaders nominated a liberal Republican to succeed John McHugh. Technically, Obama really didn't need to "bribe" Sestak; generally speaking, a President has a number of ways to reward a Congressman; for example, he can help raise money and mobilize political support,  push a legislator's bill, invite the legislator to the White House, etc. It doesn't have to be a specific favor: doing something a President wants puts the legislator in the enviable position of the President owing him a favor. It's possible the legislator himself may himself ask the President to return the favor in the future in a manner and timing of his choosing. Is this the way politics should operate in an ideal world? Of course not. In the ideal world, the President and the legislator come together based on the best interests of the American people, without regard to ideology or self-interest. What Friday's revelation showed is that this was not the Blagojevich scandal redux.

I think the GOP would be well-advised to take the moral higher ground and not sweat the small stuff. I think if anything, Sestak, Obama, and the Democratic Party have hurt themselves with this. I think Sestak's integrity has been irreparably harmed: why did Sestak fail to disclose the Clinton offer from the get-go? Stonewalling the press and the Pennsylvania voters is no badge of political courage or straight talk; it was protecting the White House, little more than politics as usual. Not to mention this "big prize" that the White House was waving in front of Sestak was a spot some advisory board, with no real compensation or authority? And the Obama Administration, in this post-partisan "new politics", is engaging in petty political wheeling and dealing?

The BP Oil Spill Disaster: What Could Obama Have Done?

I don't intend here to present a comprehensive analysis, but I do want to provide a starting point for discussion. In particular, Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) expressed great frustration over the failure of BP and the federal government to keep the oil spill from reaching some of Louisiana's most sensitive coastal shores and wetlands; he saw the federal government as stonewalling his request to dredge and establish barrier islands. He expressed frustration, saying he might act first and apologize later in the face of federal government analysis paralysis. During the President's recent press conference, Obama announced that the US Army Corps of Engineers had approved a partial fulfillment of that request based on certain cost factors.

I was very frustrated while watching the news conference because it was very clear that Obama wasn't being challenged on some very basic points obvious to any student  of business and economics. For example, he assumed the legitimacy of the US Army Corps of Engineers' belated response to the Jindal request. Are we to assume that the concept of dredging and barrier islands was an analysis de novo? That the same government which designed and constructed the levees in New Orleans never looked at the benefits of barrier islands?  That they never considered the contingency of a major oil spill in an area which accounts for about a third of our oil production and prone to hurricanes? That bureaucratic analysts attempt to reach some idyllic consensus, even as tar balls wash ashore?

The general gist of what I got from Obama's press conference is that bureaucratic processes take as long as bureaucratic processes need to take, regardless of circumstances. We have another episode of "Big Government Knows Best", where Obama assures us that the federal government are taking into account the best and brightest minds in the world in addressing such crises. Now, of course, he doesn't quite explain how the best and brightest minds never considered the special engineering issues related to a catastrophic failure a mile below the surface of the gulf and why the government never required data on relevant failover procedures?

Instead, we are led to believe by Obama that the Big Nanny Congress required "unrealistic" 30-day approval deadlines for oil and gas exploration and bureaucrats simply waived approvals without impact studies and that the real reason that government failed, with failure to address internal controls and the like, is because of some Bush Administration anti-regulatory conspiracy, that poor Interior Secretary Salazar was running himself ragged trying to put out fires left behind by the Bush Administration. All of this is, of course, little more than contemptible political scapegoating and grandstanding. I don't deny, given the massive size and scope of government there may be gaps, redundancies and structural problems in regulation. But unconscionably smearing the integrity and reputation of public servants working under the Bush Administration is unworthy of a legitimate American President.

Obama in his press conference abused his power by uniformly suspending or canceling lease sales, instituting lengthy review periods, etc. This is not based on intrinsic factors but was purely political. The vast majority of offshore installations do not pose the same issues; we did not stop the shuttle missions after a tragic mishap during the Reagan Administration.

Political Cartoon


Walt Handelsman is making a play on words, in terms of the patently broken promise to make government legislative and executive processes more fully accessible to the voters and the press and the President's own lack of demonstrable leadership (with 2 brief visits to the Gulf coast). The Obama Administration wants to assure us that behind the scenes government bureaucrats are diligently working on and resolving the crisis, that Obama can manage BP activities just as well as he has managed the bankrupt auto companies, AIG, and the GSE's. (Some might think the rhetorical confidence of  the President, whom is on track to increase the national debt by an amount comparable to the entire federal debt through the end of the Clinton Presidency in just one term in office and whom has added yet another health care entitlement under the most deceptive smoke-and-mirrors accounting in the history of the nation not even factoring into that, even while two existing entitlements, Medicare and social security, are on the verge of insolvency, is little more than hubris.)

Quote of the Day

A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.
Henry Adams

Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100

#53. "Goldfinger"



#54. "Shall We Dance?"



#55. "Flashdance"  (an all-time favorite: perfect song, arrangement, vocals, video!)



#56. "Thank Heaven for Little Girls"   (Amen! "They grow up in the most delightful way...for without them, what would little boys do?")

Miscellany: 5/28/10

Obama's Biggest Asset: A Clueless BP

CNN is reporting this morning that BP has upgraded impact of the oil spill from "very modest" to "environmental catastrophe". Say it ain't so, Joe! What clued you in? The fact that by last week already over 50 miles of Louisiana coast had been soiled by the spreading oil slick? This mirrors the Bush Administration public relations effort during Katrina, seemingly oblivious to what was playing on television screens across the country.

I have no doubt some unexpected combination of human error and mechanical failures occurred. No doubt "white glove" post-audits will be done critically examining the protocol for any deviation from "best practices". What I fault BP on is its failure to have been proactive; it's not enough merely to comply with federal regulations.  The fact is deepwater accidents pose special engineering challenges, given the extreme depth and  pressure. What we have seen play out comes across to the public as seat-of-the-pants problem solving. Why didn't we anticipate, for example, the ice crystal problem for the giant dome?  If the Top Kill approach, which appears to be working, succeeds, why didn't we try it weeks ago? I personally would have preferred to see BP compare and contrast land-based versus offshore oil leaks and documented solution alternatives.

The same point could be made over the actual spill impact. For example, a prominent case example for a 1993 Saudi oil leak involved the use of supertankers; why didn't BP use supertankers? Even if the federal government failed to acquire fire booms, why didn't BP have them?

The bottom line is BP's failed leadership and communication issues in articulating its position and strategy and its apparent "not-invented-here" principles in attempting to address the oil leak problem are having profound effects on the future of domestic exploration and production. Obama is using the accident, the first major spill in over 20 years, in his version of progressive populism, to justify freezing or even canceling lease sales, increasing the bureaucratic timetable and burden. Every barrel deferred or canceled erodes the strength of our currency and worsens our trade imbalance.

End to Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Thumbs Up

Progressives make it very easy for me to want to oppose the change; I do not like victimization politics. I also oppose using the term "marriage" to describe a domestic partnership between gays, and I have religious and moral objections to non-traditional relationships and behaviors.

I am, and have been, supportive of gays serving in the military; I have mentioned in past posts even when I served in the Navy years ago, it was common knowledge that an officer and (separately) an enlisted woman were lesbians. Most of us felt what people did outside of duty hours was their business. (Obviously there are some legally and morally unacceptable behaviors, like rape and child predator activities.)

Personally, I'm not sure why gays want to serve openly; I would simply prefer to eliminate discussion of one's sexual preference from hiring or other personnel decisions. Even though most polls show a clear majority supporting voluntary participation of gays in the military, I have decidedly libertarian/individualist principles here: the right of an individual to participate in public service should not be subject to a majoritarian veto.

I think many pro-defense social conservatives are using the wait-until-the-military-review-is-over rationalization, but this is a disingenuous defense, merely a stalling tactic. Similarly, I have no doubt why Pelosi and her progressive Democratic allies were pushing for and won the vote now: it will be more difficult to pass such legislation after the mid-term correction.

Political Cartoon

Ken Cataalino satirizes Obama's take on Emma Lazarus' "The New Colossus"...

Quote of the Day

It is the highest form of self-respect to admit mistakes and to make amends for them.
John J. McCloy

Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)

#49. "Make 'Em Laugh"



#50. "Rock Around the Clock"



#51. "Fame"



#52. "Summertime"

Miscellany: 5/27/10

Art Linkletter, RIP: 1912 - 5/26/10

Courtesy, AP, 2006

Kids Say the Darndest Things: Video and Examples

Art Linkletter's famous collection, based on his interview segment on House Party, was one of my favorite books in our home library.



K:My father's a schoolteacher.
L:That's a fine profession. Does he like it?
K:He only has one thing to complain about.
L:What's that?
K:The kids.

L:What did your mommy tell you not to say?
K:My mother told me not to tell any of the family secrets, like the time she dyed her hair blonde and it came out purple.

Bonus Video: Art Linkletter & daughter Diane:
"We Love You, Call Collect"

Diane committed suicide which Art attributed to drug abuse, soon after this award-winning recording which was released posthumously. The poignant recording focuses on letters between a father and his runaway teen daughter.



The Obama May 27 Press Conference:
Some Comments on Opening Remarks

• The BP bashing is unnecessary and pushing on a string. BP has not disputed its obligation for cleanup and economic damages to coastal businesses. I personally regard all this bellicose rhetoric as an attempt to deflect attention from the suboptimal response from the federal government.
• Obama's insistence that the federal government is in charge means that it has to take ultimate responsibility for what many people perceive as a slow, uncertain response to recognizing the nature, scope, and resolution of the disaster. For example, BP could always argue that federal approvals tied its hands, and it has every incentive to mitigate its losses. At one point, Obama recognizes that BP has technology and know-how specifically addressing the ruptured pipeline. Generally speaking, the federal government's primary responsibility has been to mitigate the economic and ecological effects of the oil spill on the coastline and any adjoining waterways. It should stick to its own distinctive mandates and the limits of its own knowledge and experience.
• Obama sends out mixed messages. At one point, he insists he is taking full responsibility, but he does Bush bashing in arguing (over a year in his presidency) that there effectively was no regulation, and he bashes BP. He disingenuously suggests that ecological impacts weren't done because the Congress did not allow one to be done, given an unrealistically short 30 day period to respond. He also argues there were internal control problems with relevant agencies. But then he then notes the unprecedented nature and intrinsic difficulty of plugging a hole a mile under the gulf surface. It seems clear whatever the structural problems in the federal agency, it's not salient to the discussion of a contingency plan in the event of catastrophic failure of redundant mechanical failover technology. There are several relevant points to be made with Obama's assertions. For example, consider the 30 day period. Even assuming it's true an ecological impact study takes over 30 days, presumably there could be a contingent approval pending completion of the impact study. Then again: we need to understand why it takes over 30 days. Is the delay principally a manpower issue? Why didn't the competent progressive government realize ecological impact studies weren't taking place and adjust approval schedules? Why didn't the progressive government realize the internal controls problems in advance?

Political Cartoon

Dana Summers doesn't show the surviving pilot, Barack Obama. He ran out of taxpayer money trying to pilot the economy through turbulence of a partisan, radical progressive agenda focused on ineffective super-spending and racing past a $13T national debt, tax-and-trade, scapegoat-the-banks "reform", and smoke-and-mirrors health care deformation. Obama, of course, is accusing BP of  ignoring federal standards and having a cozy relationship with federal inspectors in the production of jet fuel and blaming Bush for not maintaining the plane properly. In the meanwhile, Obama is searching the crash site, trying to find his missing voice, a positive job approval rating, a winning political issue, and his leadership. He has been in touch with Robert Gibbs, telling him that there has been no quid pro quo in asking Admiral Sestak to come and rescue him.

Quote of the Day


The first virtue of all really great men is that they are sincere. They eradicate hypocrisy from their hearts.
Anotole France


Musical Interlude: AFI Music Top 100 (continued)

#45. "That's Entertainment"



#46. "Don't Rain on my Parade"



#47. "Zip a Dee Doo Dah"



#48. "Que Sera, Sera"

Miscellany: 5/26/10

Congratulations to American Idol 2010 Winner, Lee DeWyze!

Lee DeWyze, American Idol 2010 Winner
Courtesy of AmericanIdol.com

I have been a huge fan of "American Idol" since its inception. (For regular readers of my blog, this was clear during my musical interlude segments several weeks back when I did a selection of American Idol performances.) I've supported 6 of the 9 winners, including Lee DeWyze. My biggest blown call was choosing Bo Bice over Carrie Underwood, whom has emerged as country music's leading vocalist, even domestically outselling the one commercially successful  American Idol pop vocalist, Kelly Clarkson. (Other winners have had success in other market niches, like country, R&B or adult contemporary.) I still believe Bo Bice is a more consistent, versatile singer than Carrie Underwood, but there is no doubt whom has been more commercially successful.

I think departing lead judge Simon Cowell last night had it spot on when he pointed out that Lee DeWyze was what the competition is really all about: where a 24-year-old Chicago area paint salesman with outstanding rock and R&B vocal skills can win it all. It's the traditional American success story. It's rare when you can see weekly growth of a performer whom originally seemed to be tentative, almost shy in his performances emerge as a more confident artist. In comparison, a number of past finalists have been struggling artists, have toured or even had minor recording deals. I think Lee's opponent, Crystal, is a talented, more experienced singer but with a less commercial sound; the judges clearly favored Crystal's performances last night. I disagreed with their analyses; I thought Lee's interpretations (e.g., Simon & Garfunkel's "The Boxer") were fresher, although I was disappointed that he didn't reprise his version of Cohen's "Halleluja". But of the two singers, Lee had clearly been more consistent down the stretch and dominated Crystal and Casey last week; I mentioned to one of my nieces last week that if it had been youth baseball, they would have declared the competition over after the first round/inning.

Bonus Video: DeWyze's Finale Performance of U2's "Beautiful Day"

Obama's Modus Operandi: Too Little, Too Late

How often has this been characteristic of Obama's approach? Remember Gen. McChrystal's options for the Afghanistan surge where it took Obama seemingly forever to come to a decision and then he split the difference between the highest-risk/lowest-manpower options?

So are we really surprised when a request for 6000 National Guardsmen (comparable to 2006's Bush deployment) gets stripped down to 1200 and half a billion dollars and there are suggestions even this additional modest increase doesn't mean 1200 pairs of boots on the ground bolstering Border Patrol efforts. What's even more intriguing and in my view damning is the political gamesmanship Obama did. There was an earlier meeting that day with Republican senators, including John McCain, when the request for additional boots on the ground explicitly came up; Obama did not hint of any imminent border security relief and in fact wanted to jawbone the GOP into supporting his version of immigration reform/amnesty and insisted that he has done more than Bush on border security. To a large extent, Obama was being polemical knowing that illegal immigration patterns have significantly changed in response to the American crackdown, and there have been some disturbing trends in some of Arizona's largest cities, including an escalation in kidnappings and some high-profile drug and other busts. This also shows Obama's faux bipartisanship/compromise that we saw during the health care debate where Obama had a show meeting with Republicans and then afterwards paid lip service to a weak variation of medical malpractice reform.

We have seen the same thing in effect with Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) furiously complaining about federal bureaucratic foot-dragging on his request for an emergency waiver so they can dredge and build barrier islands, even to the point of suggesting he would act first and apologize later at the risk of going to jail. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, on Greta Van Susteren's On the Record, rattled off a number of Obama Administration miscues on the disaster, noting staffing issues and the above-mentioned delayed US Army Corps of Engineers' ecological impact study which must be completed as a prerequisite to dredging activities. There is also some evidence that BP and/or the federal government are not looking at other approaches to spill containment, including the  use of supertankers as effectively used during a 1990's Saudi oil spill. Even the 'Top Kill' technique currently being tried by BP had to be approved by the federal government.

But one interesting contrast is clear in this crisis. During 2005 the Bush Administration pushed on the city of New Orleans and the state, then led by a Democratic governor, to act on an evacuation plan before landfall of Katrina and then deferred to higher-standing local and state government decision-making to act in the aftermath of the ongoing disaster. During the current crisis, state and local government are waiting on the Obama Administration, which is providing a case study on the ineptitude of progressive Big Government to respond in a timely fashion to protect the coastline (the oil is already there, even though it took several days to travel from the spill area).

Political Cartoon

Steve Breen doesn't have the National Guard on site demonstrate the use of the 'Top Kill' technique in order to stop the leak.

Quote of the Day

There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Musical Interlude: AFI Music Top 100 (continued)

#41. "New York, New York"



#42. "Luck Be a Lady"



#43. "The Way You Look Tonight"



#44. "Wind Beneath My Wings"

Miscellany: 5/25/10

Obama's West Point Address: A Short Critique

There are some points of agreement. For example, I agree with the fact that America has been overextended, and I think there's been a disproportionate amount of emphasis on two small countries in the Gulf Region which, by themselves, do not constitute the same type of threat, say, that nuclear powers China and Russia present. Second, I think that the nature of terrorism constitutes a qualitative different type of threat and rapid development of catastrophic weapons and instant modes of communication make the need for proactive action and improved information gathering and sharing a necessity.

I have nuanced differences with Obama on some aspects of terrorism. For instance, I'm very concerned about state sponsors of terrorism, not unlike how the Taliban protected Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I am also concerned with militant breeding grounds in the western part of Pakistan which is not fully under the control of the Pakistan government and Iranian efforts to spread destabilization in Iraq and the Middle East in Lebanon and Palestinian territories. Obama seems to be unduly focused on Al Qaeda and trying to discredit its underlying religious fundamentalism; there are a number of differing types of terrorism, including secular causes (e.g., radical environmentalism).

My biggest concerns are with the new international order:

The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times -- countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing wounds.

In essence, we are seeing an expansion of the concept of positive rights applied to a nation-based unit of analysis. To its logical conclusion, the US, as the leading economic power, would be expected to subsidize other nations. This raises the concept of moral hazard to the national level. To give a relevant example, North Korea spends a disproportionate amount of its meager resources to maintain a large army, even though there have not been hostilities on the Korean peninsula in over 50 years. More to the point, Obama's analysis fails to adequately consider the fact that nations are motivated by their self-interests, and despite his best efforts at international rhetoric and a Nobel peace prize, he has very little to show in terms of influencing rogue nation behavior (e.g., North Korea and Iran) or convincing other nations to join in, say, the Afghanistan surge policy.

Whereas I would prefer to see us disentangle ourselves from convoluted structure of alliances and bilateral relationships, Obama wants to expand those relationships on new grounds. We need look no further than the effects of Greece's fiscal problems on the euro.

The Sestak Kerfuffle

The question is whether the White House essentially tried to clear the field against its favored candidacy, former Republican Arlen Specter, by essentially promising Sestak (D-PA) a high-profile appointment in the administration. I personally think the issue is more with Joe Sestak whom has repeatedly refused to disclose the exact nature of his allegation. Most speculation focuses on the retired admiral possibly being named Secretary of the Navy as a quid pro quo.

I agree with George Will: this is much ado about nothing. If Republican John McHugh of the infamous NY-23  was asked to be Secretary of the Army, why not a former admiral to be Secretary of the Navy? In fact, Sestak could have easily refiled for a third term this fall as Congressman and for most of the campaign trailed the more moderate Specter in the polls.

Political Cartoon

Eric Allie shows Obama on his boat, the Katrina II. He was relying on the BP oil booms to absorb all the blame for the oil leak and keep it from spreading to the White House.No word yet on whether he has succeeded in renaming the San Andreas Fault George W. Bush's Fault.

Quote of the Day

If there is one thing upon this earth that mankind love and admire better than another, it is a brave man,-- it is the man who dares to look the devil in the face and tell him he is a devil.
James A. Garfield

Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)

#37. "Swinging on a Star"



#38. "Theme from Shaft"



#39. "The Days of Wine and Roses"



#40. "Fight the Power"

Miscellany: 5/24/10

Renominated for 2010 Jackass of the Year:
2009 Winner Alan Grayson (D-FL)

It takes chutzpah for a Democrat whom has helped set two consecutive American (and world) records in federal deficits and government waste (over $1.4T per year) to suggest that voting for Republicans, whom controlled the Congress and the only party to run a budget surplus, on multiple occasions, over the last 40 years, makes no more sense that hiring members of Al Qaeda to be pilots. Any comparison of the GOP to Al Qaeda is an indisputable breach of civility.

Let me do Grayson the courtesy of seriously analyzing his assertion  that turning over the keys of the Congress (and White House) to a party that preaches limited government is irrational. No, Mr. Grayson, the GOP is not a party of anarchists. Grayson's analogy makes no more sense than asserting that you should never eat at a restaurant with a toned, trim head chef whom dishes out limited portion sizes. This is patently absurd, of course. A lean, mean chef doesn't mean that he or she doesn't love food; it simply means he eats what he  needs to live a healthy lifestyle. The food doesn't have to taste like cardboard or be prepared in an unhealthy way. In a similar manner, a conservative can believe in public service; however, he or she understands that too much government impedes vibrant economic growth and the well-paying jobs business growth yields, not to mention the self-actualization of its citizens. Lean, mean government never serves for its own purposes but simply to execute limited, core functions and to manage related objectives and goals effectively.

Obama Special-Interest Bailouts? HELL, NO!

Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Obama are backing a $23B state/local teacher bailout (despite Obama's promise of no more bailouts--apparently some bailouts are more equal than others). And Senator Bob Casey recently introduced legislation for a $165B private union bailout.

It has become trite political fare to pay tribute to "overworked" and "underpaid" teachers. Republicans are not exempt from this American sacred cow; Governor Crist (R/I-FL) said he was moved to veto a critical education reform he initially supported because of individual educator anxiety over the nature of new teacher performance standards. My favorite new governor, Chris Christie, almost feels the need to apologize for asking teachers for minor concessions in the face of a huge state budget deficit.

Before going on, let me point out I taught 8 years on the university level, the last 5 years as a full-time professor. I have a sister, a niece, cousins, and a late aunt with education degrees and/or years of teaching experience, plus at least two other college-age nieces and a nephew whom aspire to teaching careers, probably none of whom agree with what I'm about to write. The point is, I have a great deal of respect for the teaching profession. I do not share the same degree of respect for teacher unions and administrators. I also don't have a lot of patience for teachers or professors whom seem to be motivated more by pay and benefit packages, at taxpayer expense, beyond the average household in a state; I was earning less as an untenured professor than a number of my former students. For me, it wasn't about the money; after earning my MBA, I was making just enough money teaching a couple of classes a semester to cover my graduate school expenses.

Politicians have been throwing money at public education for decades now, e.g., lower class sizes. For example, we've gone from roughly 28 students per teacher in the 1950's to 16 students per teacher. Now as someone who has designed research studies, I can tell you how researchers would look at the hypothesized relationship between class size and educational performance. There are relevant complications such as moderator factors; for instance, after I mastered basic skills, I was motivated more by intrinsic factors and my own goals than by teacher behavior; by early high school, I was checking out calculus books from the base library. You  want to confirm hypothesized relationships and look for generality across settings (e.g., educational systems outside the US). So, for example, if we increase the ratio of teachers to students, we should see some commensurate improvement in achievement test scores, college entrance  exams, etc. In fact,  if anything, we have seen scores stagnate or erode despite improved class size, and we have seen higher math scores achieved by students outside the United States, despite much larger class sizes.

In fact, for those of us from a business background, this is a very curious business model. Most of us would look at improving teacher productivity through the intelligent use of technology, e.g., automate skill building, freeing up teacher time to mentor higher-order educational objectives.  Instead, we have decreasing economies of scale at the same time we have seen wages and benefits sharply increase, in particular unsustainable pension systems.

Here's the point: legislators, particularly Democratic ones backed by teacher unions, have been throwing more and more money to increase the number of teachers for the same number of students with generous salary and benefit increases. There are some public school teachers earning $70K or more; a second household income pushes that into the six-figures. Legislators are always afraid against pushing back: are you against the education of your constituents' children? Why, I bet you're against babies, Mom, apple pie, and Chevrolet, too! Well, before the Democrats started throwing more money at education, they should have been thinking of establishing a rainy-day fund and what would happen if tax revenues dropped by 20% or more. It's not like recessions are unknown phenomena.

The fact is, there are competing demands for public funds; I'm sure that police, firemen and other public servants also feel the same way. But more to the point, if states like Texas and Indiana have done a better job of planning for down periods than, say,  California, Illinois and New York, why should we be bailing out Democratic legislators whose promises to their special-interest supporters are effectively being bailed out by American taxpayers whose own jobs are not being bailed out by the government?

Perish the thought than maybe some states may actually  have to increase class size to  somewhere between 16 and 28! I suspect that somehow despite all the teacher union Chicken Little's, our kids are resilient...

I am not indifferent to hard-working teachers losing their jobs during a recession. I lost my college teaching career during one; I  know a talented experienced teacher in Colorado going into her second year without a full-time job offer. But the larger issue is setting a bad precedent:  the states will know that future generations of the United States will pick up the costs if states don't want to do the politically unpopular, i.e., cut enough or raise taxes to make up the difference If families have to live on a budget, so do the city, state, and federal governments.

As for Senator Casey wanting to bail out various union-relevant pension plans, the vast majority of which were in trouble 4 years ago before the recession, dream on! Did we bail out Enron employees, many of whom lost their entire retirement savings? Pension funds are going the way of the dinosaurs; we are seeing more 401K/403B type retirement systems with a partial company match. Just as bailing out the states is wrong from a moral hazard perspective, so is bailing out private pension funds. What the Obama Administration did in putting union demands over the higher-ranking obligations to bondholders during the auto bankruptcies was grossly unethical: now we're talking about the American taxpayer or future generations expected by pay off Democratic chits to Big Labor...

Political Cartoon

Lisa Benson points out that Obama has managed to spend his way to a $3T deficit, while barely touching on an 8 million job deficit since the recession, followed recently by a fragile economic recovery, started in late 2007. (And, yes, Obama, we know--Bush was President during the early period of the recession when you and a majority of other Senate Democrats controlled the Senate.)

Quote of the Day

One may go a long way after one is tired.
French proverb

Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)

#33. "Aquarius"



#34. "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off"



#35. "America" from West Side Story



#36. "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"

Miscellany: 5/23/10

Sunday Talk Soup

Meet the Press included discussions of or with two winning Senate candidates: Rand Paul (R-TN), who declined an invitation to appear, and Joe Sestak (D-PA).

I am not sure who is handling Rand Paul's campaign, but he has been reeling from a series of gaffes, principally including the unforced errors of discussing the philosophic merits of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and then criticizing Obama's bellicose rhetoric on BP, which is responsible for one of the greatest oil spill disasters in American history. There are some legitimate points Paul is raising, but from a standpoint of practical politics, it would be difficult to see how he could handle things more ineptly; I'm not sure, though, that turning down an opportunity to appear on the most prestigious talk show and set the record straight was in his best interests. I do realize, of course, Dick Gregory would want to probe exactly how limited government and where he stands on each and every federal domestic program and relevant repeals, over and beyond ObamaCare, not to mention his and his father's more restrained view on military and foreign policy.

I have already outlined in my own posts many of these issues. For example, I think Obama's public statements on the BP disaster have been superficial and disingenuous. We have been drilling oil offshore safely for decades in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. We have to go back 20 years to get back to the Exxon Valdez, which was a tanker, not a rig failure. Obama can speak all he wants of  "cozy" relationships between Big Oil and the Department of Interior, but he totally lacks credibility on the issue. The fact is there was a federal plan of action to purchase fire booms against the risk of a spill over 15 years ago, and the federal government, given its mandate to protect the coastline from disasters, failed to execute in a responsive, proactive, preventive manner. And you have to wonder if whatever contingency planning took into effect deeper depths complicating manual containment of mechanical failure, exactly the kind of problem we are seeing with the Deepwater Horizon.

Obama can try to argue that there were shortcuts in approval mechanisms, but given the experimental nature of containing the spill, it is very clear neither the company nor the federal government adequately addressed the complications of containment at great depth. In other words, BP and the federal government could have followed all specified steps in their procedures, but there were clear defects in contingency planning on both sides. Obama's scapegoating of BP officials and government bureaucrats wasn't constructive. That's the point that Rand Paul should have gotten across. It is absurd to believe that BP wanted an accident resulting in several deaths and, at minimum, tens in millions in costs. The fact that Obama and his environmentalist allies will try to exploit the accident to stave off domestic exploration and production, further raising the dependency of the American economy on unstable, unreliable foreign sources of energy supplies, not to mention the inevitably inflationary trade deficit, tells us all we need to know. Calling it, as Rand Paul does, "un-American", is unduly provocative. I'm sure that Obama doesn't see a lot of difference between my describing his rhetoric as disingenuous versus Paul's calling it "un-American"; however, the "un-American" label raises a value judgment that most Democrats are always accusing the GOP of doing--questioning their patriotism. I don't question Obama's patriotism (although his apology tour and initial denials of American exceptionalism are troubling); I am criticizing his vacillating leadership, refusal to acknowledge responsibility (i.e., Bush bashing), inexperience and numerous failures in judgment.

In terms of 'limited government' I've previously discussed my point of view:

I am a believer of limited government; what does this mean? In part, I'm referring to limiting government to a few core competencies, including national finance, international relations, economic affairs, social services, logistics and resource management, public safety and justice. Generally speaking, I prefer to limit government micromanagement of industry but that doesn't mean the elimination of regulation...Government can promote policy goals by ensuring fair competition and cost sharing, resource sharing and sustainability, and transparent information, and limiting adverse human and ecological impact.

As for discussions of laws in general, I think Rand Paul would have been well-advised to push on the failure of government to consider economic impact (as well as ecological impact) of laws. We do not suffer from a lack of laws but from dubious relevance, cost efficiency, and effectiveness of an increasingly complex and unmanageable legal framework, which obfuscates and undermines individual responsibility; a key example is a  convoluted tax revenue infrastructure which significantly contributes to moral hazard and the law of unintended consequences.

If I was Rand Paul, I would work to set expectations, noting that rollbacks of major legislation are unlikely given Obama's veto authority. What a coalition of conservative legislators can attempt to do is deprive Obama of budget funds to grow the government bureaucracy. In the meanwhile, Rand Paul could champion government process reform to streamline government operations and regulatory authorities.

Joe Sestak (D-PA) is trying to milk his primary victory over Specter and the senior senator's backing from Obama for populist reasons, trying to define his GOP opponent, Toomey, as a Wall Street insider. Sestak did not do a good job under Gregory's questions separating himself from Obama's spending record. For obvious reasons, he refused to criticize Obama's domestic spending initiatives, all of which he himself voted for. He vaguely referenced being for "effective spending", which obviously implies being against unspecified "ineffective" spending. He made a minor point of objecting to certain military spending which could have helped some businesses in his district.

Sestak's cultivated image of being the underdog who defeated the Obama-backed party machinery won't go very far; it basically serves his own political ambitions, not the well-being of Pennsylvania constituents. It all boils down to the fact that Sestak has voted for an additional $3T in national debt to sponsor Obama's first 2 years as President. The bottom line is that Sestak is an incumbent Democratic lawmaker heading into a change election. If I was Toomey, I would largely ignore red meat politics; none of the conservatives are going to vote for Sestak, and they are highly motivated, with or without red meat. Toomey needs to capture the independents and the moderates; in particular, he needs to point out that it is important for a check on the balance of power against the drunken sailor spending of Sestak and Obama, that we can't afford for the US to become another Greece.

Oops! Palin Did It Again...

Any faithful reader of my blog knows I'm not one of Sarah Palin's fans. Sarah does have her moments; I felt her recent take on the Highland Parks High girls' basketball team, whose trip to Arizona later this year was cancelled over the new immigration law, was particularly relevant given her own past experience as a star player for her own high school basketball  team. But Palin's assertion on Fox News Sunday that Obama is in the pocket of Big Oil is clearly over the top.

Palin's inference, based on BP's past contributions to the Obama campaign, is untenable. As I pointed out in my April 3 post, Obama only released a tiny fraction of available coastal areas which the Congress made available in 2008 after $150 barrels of oil. The slow reaction to the spill simply reflects bad management.

Political Cartoon

Matt Davies spoofs Vietnam(-era) veteran US Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal (D-CN).

Quote of the Day

A technical objection is the first refuge of a scoundrel.
Heywood Broun

Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)

#29. "Born to be Wild"



#30. "Stormy Weather"



#31. "Theme From New York, New York"



#32. "I Got Rhythm"

Miscellany: 5/22/10

Arizona Power Cutoff to Boycotting Californians? No

Gary Pierce, one of 5 Arizona Corporation Commissioners, pointedly wrote a letter to the Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, one of those progressive city leaders (in addition to the usual liberal meccas like student-dominated Boulder, CO and Austin, TX) whom have joined in an economic boycott of Arizona in response to the Arizona immigration law, noting that Los Angeles, which does not generate enough of its own energy, has to import a significant percentage of its own power from Arizona stations. Pierce sarcastically suggested that if Los Angeles doesn't think that Arizona is a good place to visit or do business with, why should they continue to rely on Arizona for their power needs? Pierce would be more than happy to help Villaraigosa find a way out of their power agreements with Arizona suppliers.

Of course, Arizona power plants include Californian ownership interests, and Pierce has no real authority to threaten a power cutoff to Los Angeles. But it's not like Los Angeles, which has all but run into the ground by liberal free-spenders, has a lot of money to throw away on junkets to Arizona in the first place. If I was mayor of a large city that to a significant degree depends on tourism, the last thing I would be doing is starting a tourism fight with a neighboring state.

No, Arizona shouldn't try to reciprocate the boorish, morally self-superior, unconscionable actions of petty politicians trying to exploit a state's attempt to deal with instability on its border and a dysfunctional national administration which finds all sorts of ways to spend the money of future generations except in defending its own national borders. If demagogues like the progressives in Los Angeles, Austin and elsewhere were truly consistent, they should be protesting ICE, which has the ability to demand paperwork with or without any reason, including morally unacceptable ones, like racial profiling, versus Arizona's, which is far more constrained and explicitly rejects racial profiling.

Supplying Los Angeles with power provides a number of well-paying Arizona jobs and handsome returns for investors. How is it a quid pro quo to cut off one's nose to spite one's face? The moral upper hand belongs to the state government of Arizona putting the safety of its citizens above ugly progressive threats.

Political Potpourri

The one big change here is the aftermath of the Vietnam service revelation of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D-CN), heir apparent to the retiring Chris Dodd Senate seat. Just a few weeks ago, Blumenthal held huge leads of up to 30 points or more over his likely GOP opponents. Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment who won a critical GOP endorsement this weekend, almost overnight shot to within 3 points of Blumenthal, possibly within the statistical margin of error. Blumenthal, in a strongly Democratic state, probably has a strong floor of support and maybe bounces back a bit from here; the revelation could have been fatal if the McMahon campaign had released it a few days before the election. Blumenthal best response would have been an unconditional admission and apology. His self-serving rationalization simply dug him into a deeper hole. To a certain extent, a Blumenthal v. McMahon campaign is predictable; Blumenthal will try to paint McMahon as someone trying to buy a Senate seat; McMahon will argue unlike Blumenthal, she is not a career politician in a change election looking for new leadership, with a strong emphasis on business growth policies and fiscal discipline.

Democrat Critz beat Burns with a wider-than-expected margin of victory for the late Murtha's old seat. I was watching FNC, with many commentators clearly expecting Burns to take the seat after the recent GOP sweep through Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Critz probably benefited by a large turnout for the high profile Specter-Sestak nomination fight and had a huge advantage in the high proportion of registered Democrats. Critz ran as a conservative Democrat (pro-life, pro-gun, against ObamaCare), all but running against Pelosi and Obama's policies. There will be a rematch in this fall's election, so Burns has 6 months to devise an alternative strategy. Burns tried to make the election a referendum on Pelosi. That was probably a mistake because Critz could simply argue he's a different type of Democrat. I would have probably focused more on the change election theme, with Critz having little influence over the progressives in charge of the Congress and the White House, and painted Critz as the equivalent of an incumbent as Murtha's top staffer. I think Burns should have stressed his pro-job growth credentials as a businessman, his independence from business as usual in DC, and Democrats' indulgent legislative priorities and ineffectual hyper-spending. I cannot stress enough: independents and moderates are not attracted to red meat partisan politics.

I've seen one recent poll with Sestak taking a small lead over his GOP opponent, Toomey. Boxer and Brown in California have regained small leads in California, and Democrats have narrowed their deficiency in the generic Congressional ballot. Perhaps modest job gains have stabilized the the Democrats' drop, but the national debt is not dropping within the near future, and job recovery to date is trivial relative to the millions shed on the Democrats' watch.

Political Cartoon

Lisa Benson symbolizes how two contemptible two national leaders, looking desperately for ways to bolster their approval ratings at home, are disingenuously smearing the reputations of honest, hard-working law enforcement officers in Arizona, with a proven track record of following the law in exercising authority and making arrests. Recent statements of DHS indicate that they may choose to catch and release unauthorized residents if they don't agree with the laws or methods under which the residents were arrested, regardless of the facts of the resident's status. Obama has so transparently exploited this issue to motivate his Latino voter base that it almost makes a strongly pro-immigration conservative like myself want to switch sides. I logically separate temporary worker and immigration issues.

Quote of the Day

Travel only with thy equals or thy betters; if there are none, travel alone.
The Dhammapada

Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)

#25. "High Noon"



#26. "The Trolley Song"



#27. "Unchained Melody"



#28. "Some Enchanted Evening"