Planned Parenthood: Giving "Health" for Christmas?

Planned Parenthood in Indiana and Illinois are putting a new spin on a familiar Christmas gift concept that uncertain last-minute shoppers have relied upon for years: gift cards/certificates. Planned Parenthood is promoting the event as giving "health" to women for Christmas; it sells various contraceptives and birth control supplies, in addition to certain female health tests (e.g., Pap tests and breast exams), and, of course, abortion services.

I do understand that some people are psychologically suitable to be parents, and others face difficult circumstances for (e.g., limited income); these people will in all likelihood engage in sexual behaviors. There are legally available means for long-term or permanent means of birth control for one or both partners (e.g., vasectomies and tubal ligations), and people who engage in sex should be fully knowledgeable of its risks, including pregnancy and STD's, and effective technologies and procedures for controlling those risks.

Generally speaking, I do not favor government intrusion into personal health (e.g., sterilization) or family planning (e.g., whether and how many children to have) decisions, which I view in the context of the Jefferson-specified unalienable right, the pursuit of happiness. At the same time, I do recognize an implicit societal goal of self-preservation, and I am concerned about the effects of irresponsible sex decisions, especially on the traditional family structure and public health (e.g., spread of STD's).

In most cases resulting in pregnancy, both partners engaged in consensual sex and were aware of the pregnancy risk and, at least on the conceptual level,  of the financial obligation and time and effort required in raising a child. The woman always has the right to say no if her male partner refuses to use effective protection, but as a prudent matter may wish to rely on her own protection as well. 

I make a qualitative difference between preventive or proactive family planning and what happens after conception. I believe on scientific, not religious, grounds that human life begins at conception: the human embryo's DNA is distinct from his or her parents'. Whereas I do not in general favor government intrusion on parental activities and decisions, I do believe society has an interest in protecting the well-being of the child, whether 6 months in the womb or 6 months outside the womb. I can understand the rationale for exceptions when the mother's life is at risk or when there is no implicit consent (i.e., rape).

A chief issue I have with Planned Parenthood supporters (and even some of the general public) is a presumptuous attitude against large families. As the oldest of seven, I've heard some of the snide comments: the parents must be Catholic or Mormon; they are mindless sheep whom cannot control themselves and refuse to use modern birth control technologies because of arbitrary prohibitions by celibate geriatric prelates. [Actually, my mom's biggest concern about my looking at the airbrushed photos of naked women featured in Playboy was that I might develop unrealistic expectations.] Growing up with 6 wonderful little brothers and sisters is a blessing, not a deprivation, and I have two amazing parents whom really love each other and somehow stretched an enlisted careerman's pay to make ends meet.

Another issue I have with relevant sympathizers is how people deal with the unexpected or spontaneous, e.g., despite using protection, a child is conceived. I would like to see more of a constructive vs. a "Chicken Little" attitude. Governor Sarah Palin is a case in point; what is particularly compelling about Gov. Palin's story, getting pregnant in her mid-40's, is what Todd and she decided when finding out Trig had Down syndrome. Unlike 90% of the women faced with that issue during their pregnancy, Sarah refused eugenic abortion, seeing Trig not as a burden, but God's gift of love.

I have broad issues with Planned Parenthood offering gift certificates, good towards any of its "health" services, including elective abortion. It's basically saying, I'm forcing you to purchase products and services from Planned Parenthood, even if you can find more lower-price vendors or if you do not wish to support the organization. Recipients could also infer a paternalistic motive--I don't trust you to obtain health services using your own resources, and you need these particular health services. I also think we have to be very careful from an ethical standpoint in the marketing of health services in general; for example, we don't want an implicit incentive for doctors to market unnecessary tests, procedures, or expensive prescription drugs (when generics are available).

However, I find it particularly offensive on a holiday based on the long-awaited birth of Our Savior, Jesus Christ, whose birth symbolizes the hope and potential of any newborn child--perhaps a statesman to bring peace to the world, a medical researcher whom discovers a cure for cancer, the composer of a magnificent symphony, etc.--that an organization whose principal purpose is to limit the potential of an accidental child seeks to use the occasion to market its services.

Deepak Chopra, Mumbai, and Indulgent Punditry

Deepak Chopra is an immigrant Indian medical doctor and alternative/mind-body/holistic medicine pioneer, perhaps better known as a widely-published self-help/self-esteem guru, pacifist and philosopher.

In the aftermath of the tragic Mumbai (Bombay, India) hotel terrorist atrocities, Larry King had a series of interviews with Dr. Chopra, whom was also promoting one of his new books on Jesus Christ within the context of cosmic/divine consciousness.

Chopra has bought into the Western leftist groupthink on Islamic terrorism. The United States is as "terrorist" as the Islamic radicals  it pursues; one man's "terrorist" is anothe man's "soldier"; he sees collateral damage as genocide ("Get rid of the phrase "war on terrorism."...It's an oxymoron, terrorists call mechanized death from 35,000 feet above sea level with a press of a button also terror...innocent people are being killed. So, you know, terror is a term that you apply to the other.") Chopra argues that the Mumbai bombings were about sending messages to the Indian and Pakistan democratic governments, the Western democratic homes of victims, and Israel. The Western democracies, by fighting and creating new victims, alienates the Muslim moderates and creates an ever-worsening cycle of violence. Chopra further alleges that with Muslims being the fastest growing quarter of the world's population it is important to appease the moderates. He speculates that Obama's initial overtures to Muslim moderates may have sparked terrorists to act at Mumbai, terrified that their own power base may be compromised. Chopra says that the West is largely responsible for what's happening: their oil addiction funds the autocratic regimes, and some of that makes its way to radicalized clerics, schools and terrorists; he furthermore notes that Western arms suppliers are eager to sell to the oil-rich Muslim world.

Chopra sees victimization throughout the Muslim world: "You have to, you know, go to the deeper causes. Is it shame? Is it humiliation? Is it poverty? Is it lack of identity?" His solution? "I think in the long term, there has to be a marshall plan that looks at the deeper causes of global instability, poverty, radicalism, lack of education."

Analysis

First of all, I don't believe in victimization theory. Many radicals, like Osama bin Laden, come middle- or upper-class families, and are highly educated. It has more to deal with a distinctive religious fanaticism and ideals, e.g., for a monolithic Islamic world. Concessions are seen more as a sign of weakness.

There is a lot to be said that government reforms can make a difference; for instance, some sources indicate that there are perhaps as many Muslims in India as in Pakistan, but the number of radicalized Indian Muslims is much lower. President Bush took a relevant position early in his second term when he promoted a region-adapted form of republican democracy in the Mideast/Asia region. The basic theory is that democratic nations are slow to wage war.

Second, there are a number of internal and other conflicts (e.g., the disposition of Kashmir) in the Islamic world which cannot be scapegoated on the Western democracies.

Third, I would argue the biggest issue involves dissemination of information relevant to the atrocities of the Islamic extremists. Probably the best known example is how Al Qaeda in Iraq  had begun to target certain tribal Sunni leaders, whom it regarded as disloyal and not accommodative, and civilians. Free elections, a vibrant free press, and coverage of terrorist attacks on innocent Iraqi civilians have had a lot to do with a huge drop in popular support for Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups.

Conclusion

As a native Indian, Deepak Chopra is aware of religious tensions within India itself, particularly between Hindus and Muslims. However, he is buying into the same erroneous liberal analyses that predicted failure of the Iraqi surge strategy with counter-insurgency tactics. Calling America bombing raids on Al Qaeda targets as acts of terrorism is unreasonable and unconscionable. I am skeptical that a Marshall Plan-like initiative would work without the right political reforms in effect. What we need to see the Gulf Region do is to diversify their economies beyond oil production and refining and to ensure free trade agreements.

Deepak Chopra's analysis of the Mumbai attacks is speculative, provocative and ultimately shallow and unconvincing.  The idea that any or every act of violence in Asia in some way ultimately related to American actions, including the election of Barack Obama, is ludicrous and violates Ockham's razor; Muslim extremist attacks within India occurred without having to build elaborate, complicated theories of possible American connections. From my perspective, Deepak Chopra adds very little to the discussion beyond a conventional liberal perspective. Deepak Chopra should worry more about damage to his branded image as a self-help guru by advancing crackpot political opinions like he did on Larry King.

Governor Christine Gregoire and the Atheist Display

As a Roman Catholic, I have often been exasperated with prominent lay Catholic politicians whom take stands inconsistent with fundamental Church teachings. For example, Democrats Speaker Pelosi, Vice President-elect Joe Biden, Senator Ted Kennedy, and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Republican former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani oppose restrictions on elective abortions. Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been a high-profile opponent of reinstating the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, adopted by the majority of California voters several years earlier, arbitrarily overruled by a 1-vote majority in the California Supreme Court, even though the state for years has had a functionally equivalent domestic partnership law on the books. 

Usually these politicians have sham excuses explaining why they let political or cultural values trump Catholic teachings in support of traditional Judaic-Christian values. They often recite the politically expedient rationale of not wanting to impose their "religious beliefs" on other Americans, although they are less concerned about imposing Judaic-Christian prohibitions regarding murder, lying, adultery, and theft. They also argue that one must look at the "big picture",  even if they concede the abortion issue, arguing, for example, Democratic programs are more consistent with Catholic teachings on social justice. That's an argument I won't concede; it seems one may argue that Christian politicians could argue a type of  "tough love", whereby we don't encourage an undue dependence of an individual on the state and hence impede his actualization as a person; that individuals should have an opportunity to maximize their own income in order to extend the reach of their own philanthropic efforts, without government inefficiencies and overhead with ineffective social programs; that given a surplus of unemployed low-skill workers, a hike in the minimum wage may actually result in a counterproductive contraction rather than an expansion of relevant work opportunities, etc. But the bottom line is, as I've explained in an earlier post on Senator Biden's pro-choice views, why would a Christian sell his or her soul for political treasure?

Washington's Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire, also a Catholic, has sanctioned yet another front in the culture wars, using a preposterous rationale based on the First Amendment to justify including the display of a provocative atheist rant near traditional Nativity scene and a holiday tree in the state Capitol. (There is also a menorah.)

The poster reads:

At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Governor Gregoire's response to public outcry over the poster?

The U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent and clear that, under the Constitution's First Amendment, once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of non-believers.

The highly rated cable  O'Reilly Factor featured the outrageous exhibit, which apparently was stolen shortly thereafter (oh, cry me a river!)

Let me make my position clear.

First, Christmas (and the Christian faith) has been an integral part of American culture since before the American Revolution. It has been a federal holiday for generations. The Nativity scene is symbolic of the traditional meaning of Chrismas. Americans have freedom of or from religion by the First Amendment, the same one which guarantees freedom of speech. However, just because the majority of Americans are fellow Christians does not mean that Christian rights to expression should be suppressed for fear of intimidating non-Christians. Exercising one's right to free expression implies tolerance of the same from others. I do not expect non-Christians to accept the belief system underlying the Nativity scene; what I do expect is certain minimal civility and respectfulness in the Constitution-required tolerance of Christian beliefs and symbols. I have no problem with atheists, agnostics or other non-Christians expressing their beliefs or skepticism and critical analyses of Christianity in various media . I don't have an objection to a natural setting or a representation of the winter solstice in the state Capitol; in fact, some holiday traditions borrowed from Roman pagan winter festivals. But putting a display that unilaterally ridicules, in explicit language, people of faith near a Nativity scene? Do Governor Gregoire and Attorney General McKenna honestly think that the state of Washington can't demand civility and apply professional or editorial standards on a consistent basis across exhibits?

Second, where do we draw the line? Do we need to permit, say, anti-Semitic passages from Hitler's Mein Kampf  to be posted near the display of the menorah? And exactly what standards do we apply, given potentially hundreds of religious groups, each demanding equal representation in the state Capitol?

To a certain degree, I hate drawing more attention to this situation, because I know the atheists were using this situation as a publicity stunt and probably knew that by being provocative, they would be yanking O'Reilly's chain and getting more mileage than their intellectually-impoverished, mediocre, unoriginal thinking could yield on its own merits. Personally, I don't think that people come to a state Capitol just to see a Nativity scene; any Christian can buy all sorts of Nativity-inspired items from hundreds of vendors. For years the state Capitol did without a Nativity scene without adversely affecting Christian worship in Washington.

However, one feels compelled to speak out when pedestrian politicians like Gregoire and McKenna demonstrate moral cowardice and attempt to hide behind the First Amendment to rationalize permitting anti-religious propaganda to be prominently posted in the state Capitol.

WalMart: How About Some Corporate Responsibility?

WalMart had relied for a long time on it high-volume, low-everyday-price strategy to attract shoppers to its stores, rather than expensive advertising and manipulative sales gimmicks. Gimmicks like offering a limited number of expensive electronics items at below-cost prices to get the customers into the stores. The advertised items, of course, exist but are snapped up almost immediately. The business, of course, doesn't exist for the purpose of losing money; it hopes to make up what it loses on sales volume to disappointed customers already in the store, pointing to alternative profitably-priced merchandise. Bait-and-switch.

Shame on WalMart; it should have known better. I realize it's a challenging retail environment, but WalMart's management showed poor judgment in trying to beat the early Black Friday competition. In fact, it was conceptually close to the First Amendment exception to free speech of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. WalMart is one of the few retailers showing sales strength, with many other stores and chains experience single- or double-digit percentage declines in year-over-year sales. Why did the retail giant feel it had to resort to marketing gimmicks to build up traffic? And even if it was going to resort to gimmicks, it doesn't take a lot of creativity to implement  things in a way that defuses a crowd determined to beat each other on their way, say, to the electronics department. For example, it distributes raffle tickets for the limited-quantity items during the first 3 hours of the store opening and randomly draws tickets (winners need not be present). Or they could install multiple turntiles at the entrance, provide a special entrance and location for electronics sales, implement a "click-and-brick" promotion via walmart.com for specified store sites, etc.

The death by asphyxiation of a 6'5" temporary worker (Jdimytai Damour), trampled over by a frenzied crowd at the WalMart in Green Acres Mall (Long Island, New York) on the recent Black Friday, reflects badly on both WalMart and its customers. At last word, the police were still trying to pull together a list of suspects from witnesses of the trampling stampede. There is simply no excuse for anyone whom knowingly stepped over and around a fallen man in the middle of a crowd and did nothing to help his or her fellow citizen; this was someone's son, maybe a father, brother or husband. What would we have felt or said if it was our own loved one on the ground? Wouldn't we have wished for someone or anyone to have taken the initiative and shouted out, "STOP! There's a man on the ground! Let him up!"? How ironic and tragic, at the start of the season that celebrates the birth of the Christ child, that we see shoppers motivated more by greed than by the principles and teachings of Jesus Christ!

I'm sure that WalMart will defend itself, saying that it didn't anticipate this crowd reaction based on past sales, that it shouldn't be held responsible for the unlawful behavior of rogue patrons beyond its control, etc. No doubt it is breathing some relief because technically it was not the employer of the contractor. 

Many people do not understand the second-class status one has as a subcontractor. In one recent case involving an internal project for a global consulting firm, I found myself walked off after I complained about a physical threat from an overstressed contractor (different company) whom had been sent home a couple of weeks earlier; my client manager didn't want to have to deal with corporate HR. In another, more trivial example, I had replaced the corporate database administrator, whom had given notice, for a chip-testing equipment distributor in Silicon Valley. My boss, who was hinting that he wanted to hire me perm, had just returned from an internal company meeting/luncheon and invited me to go down to the cafeteria and help myself to some leftover pizza. At first I resisted, pointing out I wasn't an employee, but eventually I went downstairs. A general accounting manager spotted me approaching the open pizza boxes; she quickly closed them and took them with her, indignantly pointing out that the pizza was for employees only.

However, WalMart will not be able to maintain its business partnerships, e.g., with temp agencies, if it fails to provide the same safe working environment extended to perm employees. It also could have just as easily have been a customer whom got knocked over during the stampede as well.

I'm sure that WalMart did not knowingly plan the public relations disaster it now has, and it's impossible to plan for every contingency.  But I think WalMart needs to reassess its marketing and store security policies, standards, and personnel, and it should be more proactive than reactive in planning special events. One security person facing dozens (if not hundreds) of anxious customers, some waiting for some time to enter the store is an accident waiting to happen. And regardless of the legal issues over Mr. Damour being a contractor vs. employee, WalMart has a moral obligation to do right by his surviving family.

Congress During the Summer Smells, But It's Not the Tourists

Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid had the tact to make the following observation recently:

My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true.

Senator Reid, I'm a Texan by birth. A key part of training to be a Texas Democrat is learning how to toss a cow pie as far as one can, and he or she earns extra credit if a Republican is smeared in the process.  A Texas voter learns early in life to watch where one steps when there is a Democratic rally in process.

You are correct that "something is rotten in the District of Columbia" during the summer (and the autumn and the winter and the spring). It's particularly thick around the Capitol  and the Government Printing Office. I suspect, but have yet to confirm, that the air quality in DC remarkably improves when Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid gavel their Congressional sessions to a close for recess.

Senator Reid, you need more than air conditioning to clear the air in Washington. You also need to filter out the empty promises and doublespeak, the government waste, the self-righteous rhetoric, the ad hominem attacks, indulgent political posturing, character attacks on respected jurists, time-wasting resolutions and hearings on topics like designer steroids (while putting off action on real problems like catastrophic health care expenses, Medicare and social security reform), and the hype of government-inspired "solutions".

More on the Palin Post-Election "Smears"

Neoconservative The Weekly Standard editor and New York Times columnist Bill Kristol, in the first post-election Fox News Sunday, said his sources told him (on the famous question items involving NAFTA and Africa being a country vs. continent) that she made slips of the tongue during a rapid-response series of  questions after a hard day of interview/debate preparation, i.e., confusing NAFTA with CAFTA and responding "Africa is a country which..."

This appears to be a more plausible explanation and context than Sarah Palin's own comments on the leaks or the pro-Palin apologists whom have been in a state of denial.  Indeed, any serious study of the human performance literature reveals that even experts will make mistakes (but at a lower, constant rate): authors may misspell words, comedians can blow punchlines, etc. You need to look more at the nature and context of the mistake. For example, novices tend to focus on surface-level phenomena whereas experts read for meaning and will automatically adjust for noise like misspellings. That's why authors will often have other people proof-read their manuscripts.

I'll give an example from experience. In the early 1980's, one of my professors, Maryam Alavi, had a prototyping manuscript accepted by the prestigous Communications of the ACM. She asked me and a colleague to check the galley proofs. One of the more critical errors I came across was a sequencing issue with her footnotes; she had used Likert scale items in her study questionnaire and intended to cite the standard Likert source, but the target source was listed under a different, unrelated footnote number. [Unfortunately, Dr. Alavi did not wait for my edits, and my corrections were not caught by the other person, so the sequencing issue is in print.] Obviously Dr. Alavi knew what Likert scaling was. She probably made some manuscript changes to accommodate reviewer comments, and the footnotes were not resequenced properly. This was not a more conceptual error, e.g., confusing the types or proper utilization and interpretation of scaling techniques.

There is good reason to question, as Bill Kristol does, adverse human performance under degraded conditions, e.g., a surgeon or pilot operating without enough sleep, etc. However, the nature of the error determines its significance. For instance, if she grouped the US with Central American countries and called the relevant trade agreement "NAFTA", that's the equivalent of an innocuous typo. If she's mixing-and-matching the parties to NAFTA and CAFTA, this suggests a more serious problem of internalizing the concepts of NAFTA and CAFTA, and hence her knowledge is more rote memorization. I'm less concerned with whether Palin could list all the nations in Central America than in the concepts underlying CAFTA, e.g., opening up Central America to more U.S. goods and services, that CAFTA was a followup extension under the Bush administration following the passage of NAFTA under the Clinton administration, and part of an ongoing series of trade initiatives in the Americas as we look to extend to South America (including the current Colombia trade pact under consideration).

Kristol's conclusion that the leaks were a cheap shot is clearly assuming Sarah Palin's mistakes are of the frequency and nature that anyone, even an expert, might make under those conditions and Sarah Palin is just being unfairly singled out, that the other 3 candidates probably have made their own  unreported embarrassing mistakes in debate preparation. Well, of course, we know about Obama's 57 US states, Hillary Clinton dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, and Biden's discussion of a Presidential television address in 1929. 

The problem I have with Kristol's assessment is that Palin's public responses have been too problematic for the allegations to be dismissed as a typical innocuous error. Her responses often come across as stream of consciousness; she'll often restate the question in a response without really answering a question on the conceptual level.

For example, Couric asked Palin a question designed to probe whether the bailout funding would crowd out funds available for tax reductions or relevant government programs: "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?"  Palin's response included the following statement: "But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the--it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans." Ultimately the bailout is about health care reform? She's not talking about, say, bank lending freezes that might affect companies meeting payroll or consumers unable to buy because credit lending has been cut back. Couric was talking about families unable to find the discretionary money for health care insurance, doctor/hospital bills, etc., not even health care reform so much. So where did Palin get "health care reform" from? I don't recall a crisis involving widespread bankruptcies and failures of health insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, etc. How will health care reform shore up our economy? Did Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fail because of speculation in health care real estate? The only explanation is that Palin made an inference of health care reform because Couric mentioned families needing to find money to pay their medical bills. This is not a simple slip of the tongue; it's a conceptual error. Palin seems to be trying to bridge from words cherrypicked from Couric's question to her own talking points, but she's doing so in an incoherent manner.

So my guess is that the NAFTA and Africa responses were more indicative of the stream of consciousness response described above and the leaks were campaign staffers also exasperated with her rogue and diva behavior which they considered uncharacteristic and unworthy of someone running for higher office. And I agree. The GOP will never again nominate Sarah Palin for national office. She's probably popular enough to get reelected in Alaska and maybe one day she may run for the Congress or U.S. Senate. There is no doubt she's very popular; Georgia US Senator Chambliss credits her for bringing out the crowds across the state just before his impressive victory in Tuesday's runoff and calls her a rock star. But I haven't seen a poll where she's put together bigger than, say, 30% in early straw poll, despite massive recent publicity, and largely unknown Bobby Jindal has already picked up 15%, with a well-rounded experience as a Congressman, administrator, and Louisiana Governor and (unlike Palin) very articulate. Right now it looks as the only purpose Palin would have in a 2012 primary campaign is to siphon off support for Huckabee if he chooses to make a second try.

Favorite Palin Jokes

My two favorite Palin jokes were both delivered by NBC late night show host Conan O'Brien:

"Alaska's largest newspaper has endorsed Barack Obama despite the fact that their governor is Sarah Palin. Luckily for Palin, it's one of the 500 newspapers she doesn't read."

"President-elect Barack Obama spent the day thanking the people who helped him win the election. Yeah, and actually, Obama's first phone call was to Sarah Palin. He sent her flowers."

Obama: Mixed Initial Review of the President-Elect

I see today that the National Bureau of Economic Recession has concluded that we entered a recession last December; a more generally known heuristic is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, and the second quarter this year showed some GDP growth. However, given the rising unemployment, declining manufacturing, the raft of bankruptcies and near-bankruptcies (including Big Three Auto and Big Banks), and struggling retailers, with only well-established discounters like WalMart holding their own, the fourth quarter is a near certain lock to fulfill the heuristic. The average tenure of a recession has been 10 months; this one almost certainly will be longer.

There are two primary points I have to made regarding President-elect Obama. (Technically he's not the President-elect until the Electoral College meets and formally votes later this month.) 

First, I have concerns with the excessive uncertainty in the market (and certainly the Bush administration, including Treasury Secretary Paulson, has been responsible for much of this, in terms of selective bailouts and shifts from buying up bad mortgages to shoring up banks). I am very concerned that Obama may be looking to emulate the same failed approaches of Hoover and FDR in the aftermath to the 1929 market crash and the 1990's ineffectual responses of Japan to their own real estate bubble (including pushing interest rates to zero and massive infrastructure spending). The "carrot-and-sticks" approach Obama has described (rewarding employers with tax breaks for in-sourcing jobs or hiring new workers) is not promising. 

The seeming willingness to put off an explicit tax hike on higher-income taxpayers, quite often the job creators, is a good first step. But I would like to see a more pro-growth policy to coax money off the sidelines and into domestic equities. One good way is by Obama's adopting McCain's promise the cut the business upper-income bracket from 35% to 25%.  I would also like to see other pro-growth policies, e.g., offsetting the regulatory/ reporting requirements on small business, reducing the barrier of entry to capital investment (such as allowing a discounted capital gain tax rate for investments made during this recession), allowing more rapid depreciation rates on high tech and other equipment, etc.

Second, I have some concerns about Obama's appointments. Whereas the reappointment of Gates and a solid pick in James Jones as National Security Advisor signal some stabilityand continuity between administrations, and Obama in many respects seems to be making more pragmatic choices which is more consistent with his more centrist promises during the general campaign, one must be wondering (1) if Obama is simply attempting to coopt Senate Clinton, moderates, and independents through staff appointments, paying lip service to listening to alternative points of view while relying on his liberal inner muse for decisionmaking, and (2) the legitimacy of his ideal of change from the Bush-Clinton years, the "turning of the page",  given a heavy influx of Clinton administration and holdover of more recent experienced hands (e.g., Gates and New York Fed chief Geithner). Others defend Obama on this, arguing how else is he going to get experienced personnel.  I'm not arguing that point on its merits, but the key question is, why is experience more salient at lower levels of managment? You would think from his rhetoric that Obama would really think outside the box, his comfort zone, in making appointments, e.g., some names from academia or the business world.

This is not to say that I don't appreciate his explicitly stated motive to appoint people like Gates, Jones and/or Clinton, whom might challenge his way of thinking and guard against groupthink (although it would be a  more plausible point if lead Democrats like Obama, Biden, and Clinton had significantly different voting records). Even conservatives such as myself have criticized Bush for his isolation from Congress and his dependence on known and familiar faces (e.g., Cheney, Gonzales, and Miers).  Probably there's no clearer case of the "emperor wearing no clothes" than Bush's famous quote to Hurricane Katrinia FEMA head Michael Brown: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!", after days of national TV coverage showing bodies floating in water, chaos on the streets and at shelters, etc.

Still, Obama is treading a fairly thin line. His liberal ideologue supporters are fuming that he's recycling "more of the same" old, more orthodox names; his more moderate, independent supporters are worried about a "bait-and-switch" from his uncharacteristic general campaign stands promoting middle-class tax cuts, gun rights, the traditional concept of marriage, etc. Obama cannot be all things to all people; he will at some point need to make decisions where rhetoric will not mollify the losing side. Obama, despite the advantages of a change election, a 2-1 money advantage down the stretch, and an economic tsunami (when economic downtimes generally favor the welfare net Democrats), did only modestly better than Bush did in 2004, and Bush's favorability ratings quickly fell with Katrina and Iraq.

Defense Policy

I'm encouraged by Obama's decision to hold over Defense Secretary Gates and to name former General James Jones as National Security Adviser. This seems to suggest he will work within the recently negotiated US-Iraq agreement, approved by the Iraqi parliament. Jones is known to be a hawk on the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan, which echoes Obama's position during the general election campaign. 

What I would like to see from Obama is a commitment to replenishing and upgrading military equipment and supplies, expanding our military (in particular, the Army and the Marine Corps.), and a disavowal from early campaign statements to obstruct or cut funds for future military weapon systems research and development. I'm particularly concerned about our satellite vulnerability and sophisticated cyber attacks, particularly on military operations and related systems. I would also like to see more emphasis on resurgent militaries in Russia, buoyed by natural resource trades, and China, with a growing monetary reserve .

Foreign Policy

Hillary Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State still puzzles me. That would make 3 former rivals for the nomination now prominently working for Obama (Commerce Secretary Richardson and Vice President Joe Biden), whom he previously condemned for not having made the right decision on authorizing the liberation of Iraq. There could be a number of factors at work: Obama could be coopting former rivals; Obama could also be intentionally including a diverse set of foreign policy views for the crucible of his policy decisionmaking; Obama could be signaling a shift in his foreign policy views.

What I would like to see is a realistic foreign policy which, for instance, doesn't assume that the Germans will send soldiers to Afghanistan simply because Bush is no longer President, that rogue nations will cease and desist destabilizing activities simply if the President would just meet with them, that relies more on regional security, and that avoids costly foreign entanglements like the Iraq occupation. At the same time, Obama needs to assert, not apologize for, America's values, power and influence and actively promote American goods and services.

Economic Team

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Council of Economic Advisors chair Christina Romer, National Economic Council Larry Summers, and OMB director Peter Orszag constitute a solid team of competent pragmatists whom seem to signal support for free trade, responsible tax policy, and fiscal responsibility. In addition, Obama seems to be indicating he will postpone any income tax hikes for upper-income taxpayers over the next two years, and he has backed off from his punitive, counterproductive threats of windfall profits taxes on domestic energy corporations.

Still, there are a variety of concerns I have. First, the Democrats are talking, on top of all the federal bailout already at work in terms of stabilizing banks, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc., a second stimulus package. Karl Rove, in a recent column, cited sources indicating less than 20% of Americans spent their first stimulus check. In this recessionary period, my gut feeling is that most Americans, fearing the recession may drag on or prices may deflate from here, may simply bank the check. If so, there will be little to spark the two-thirds of the economy based on consumer spending. It seems to me somewhat unconscionable to increase our national debt to push for a stimulus package which is largely pushing on a string: why are we asking our children and grandchildren to take on yet more borrowed money for a short-term spending boost? I oppose a new stimulus bill.

Second, there is some discussion of infrastructure spending, noting the multiplie effects of such spending. I like this alternative better than stimulus checks, which could be used for purchasing Chinese-made toys or other foreign consumer goods (e.g., clothing and electronics); we end up with tangible American-built assets in fixing deteriorating roads, bridges, levees, etc., which have tangible, durable payback. There are some issues, however. One of them is what projects get approved (these can be influenced by political factors such as party affiliation or seniority); second, there are potential supply/demand constraints, existing engineering firm backlog, manpower supply vs. demand (and associated training/skill requirements) and ability to take on additional projects. For many (if not most) projects, we are often talking about leadtimes before you actually can start work.

What I would like to see is an Obama reality check. We need an explicit recognition that the federal government cannot and should not bailout each and every industry (or politically favored industries, like the Big Three) and struggling states and local governments looking for a way out of making politically unpopular budget cuts. We need Obama to understand the federal government, with its current obligations, cannot take on some $800B of his new federal spending initiatives. Obama needs to enact, like JFK/LBJ, a pro-business growth agenda, recognizing, like McCain did during the election campaign, that we have among the highest business tax brackets among the developed nations and the fact those taxes are implicit costs of doing business and attracting job-creating investments to America. Favorable investment tax policy, e.g., by encouraging investment during the recession, would go a long way towards stimulating cash off the sideline and into the economy. I would also like to see government getting out of the way of business competition, e.g., allowing health insurers to market policies across states, and reassessing on a cost-benefit basis costly business reporting requirements and other mandates.

Some Disappointing Appointments

Attorney General nominee Eric Holder is, in my judgment, too tied to certain unsavory aspects of the Clinton Presidency, including the unconscionable pardon of billionaire fugitive (and Democratic contributor) Marc Rich and the sentence commutation of certain violent Puerto Rican nationalists. Homeland Security Secretary nominee Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is notoriously soft on border issues, sarcastically commenting that there are workarounds to any restrictions against illegal border entry, i.e., if you build a 50-foot wall, Latin Americans will counter with 51-foot ladders.

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, in a current post, identifies a number of troubling Obama appointments, including pro-abortion choice EMILY List's executive director Ellen Moran, Domestic Policy Council member Melody Barnes (former board member to Planned Parenthood and EMILY List), and the oxymoronic choice of Alta Charo as Obama's ethics adviser, whom opposes conscience exceptions (to human life-destructive policies) for health care professionals and favors human embryo experimentation.