The Gentle Cricket

Credit where credit is due

2009-10-09T20:21:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago President Obama had a little media dust-up by calling Kanye West 'a Jackass'. Never had I agreed with the President more. However, this is clearly not a statement that a president should be making about a private citizen (no matter how big of a douche-bag that private citizen may be). President Obama made this statement off-the-record, however--it was publicized inappropriately.

Today's somewhat shocking news that the President has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize brought another Obama statement that I found reassuring. "I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of many of the transformative leaders who have received this prize." Classy. A President being honored with such an award should be a proud moment for America, and I think it still is...but I also think that any honest observer can recognize that there isn't much basis for the award. Perhaps the President will make great strides towards world peace..but not yet. Turning down the award would be incredibly poor form, and I think that the President's self-deference in his public statements are perfectly appropriate.

Overall I think today's award says much more about the Nobel committee that it does about our President. If I were a past recipient or a current contender, I would consider todays decision a bit offensive. But I don't think President Obama could have handled it better.

Pres. Obama's School Speech

2009-09-03T11:50:00.000-07:00

For the past two days the topic of conservative talk radio has been the President's planned speech next week, to be broadcast to schoolchildren throughout the country. While I can understand some of the concerns that conservative talkers have expressed, I think those concerns have been exaggerated and blown way out of proportion.

Personally, I think its a great idea for the President of the United States to address children during their first week back to school. Much in the same way that the President can wield the bully pulpit in driving legislation, so too can he use it to encourage children to stay in school, work hard, and be respectful young citizens. I hope the President does it again the next three years (and I hope President Romney does it the following 8 ;)

Of course, the President could use it as an opportunity to politic; to try to extol the virtues of health care reform, etc... And I would consider this incredibly inappropriate. However, there's no indication that he plans to do so, and I think it would be a politically stupid move. Furthermore, I consider it wrong to convict him of exploiting children before he has done a thing.

My thoughts on the Health Care Debate

2009-08-13T11:15:00.000-07:00

I've been notably absent from this blog for some time now, but with the current state of affairs surrounding health ~~care~~ insurance reform, I figured I should jump back into the fray. What really motivated me was a short clip from President Obama's recent NH town hall.
In the above clip, the President describes how we pay our primary care physicians so poorly, yet pay surgeons quite generously. He's absolutely right on this fact, though he has greatly exaggerated the numbers. A surgeons fee for an amputation is in the ballpark of maybe $2,500. Frankly, I whole heartedly agree with the President that our health care is structured in a way that disproportionately rewards treatment over prevention. Yet, I see things through a slightly different lens.

First of all, a dominant reason why a primary care physician is paid a "pittance" is because of government run programs like Medicare and Medicaid. With medicare reimbursements below what the market dictates, physicians and hospitals make up for this by increasing volume. That means that physicians have less time to spend with each patient, reducing their ability to perform the time-intensive interventions that the President is discussing. With rhetoric about cost-controls in the current legislation, and proposed cuts to medicare reimbursement, how am I to believe that this will improve--in fact, I would anticipate that it would worsen.

That's not to say that addressing this issue isn't important, though I believe that it could be done in a more efficient way. Decoupling private insurance to a) employment and b) state of residence or community would be a good start. With our current system there is actually a disinsentive for insurers to pay for preventative care, because as soon as you change jobs they will no longer be your insurer, and thus your amputation will be on someone else's dime. If it is in an insurer's best interest to keep you as a customer for a longer period, then it will be in their interest to reward cost-saving preventative measures.

Second, while a public option would have incentive to reward preventative care, they would also have an incentive to withhold costly care. We see this over and over again in country after country. While I do believe that America can accomplish things that others can't, why should we expect anything different in our country? It always reminds me of a scene in Arrested Development, where Tobias and Lindsay are discussing ways to improve their marriage.

Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters.
Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people?
Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us.

Third, I notice the irony here when the President brings up medication management. Proper use of medication is a vital component of diabetes management, as it is for so many chronic diseases (hypertension, vascular disease, etc...). Whereas studies have shown that medications greatly reduce overall health care costs, their use will undoubtedly be welcomed under the Democrat health care plan, despite the fact that pharma has been a whipping boy of the left for years.

Lastly, I have grown weary of President Obama's repeated attempts to portray physicians as greedy. It seems that in his eyes physicians are willing to subject their patients to painful and expensive unnecessary procedures for the sake of enriching themselves. Whether they are taking out kids tonsils, or directing them towards amputations, he seems to believe that doctors only care about money.

We all agree that we need reform, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

RE: Sacha

2009-02-09T10:39:00.000-08:00

Sacha left some lengthy comments on my previous post, and I felt responses would be more appropriate as a new post. I'm not that interested in addressing all Sacha's points, considering my original post was an off-the-cuff opinionated response. Regardless, I thought some deserved attention.

You're putting in a lot of hard work to get that medical degree. Then you will work very, very hard as an intern and resident. What if graduates of foreign medical schools could be brought in to work at lower wages?

They can. Unfortunately, many residency programs, as well as the USMLE create artificial barriers to their successful employment (medicine is little more than a union). This summer and past fall I worked with an Iranian-born surgeon who attended medical school in the UK. Despite scoring a 99 on his american licensing exams, he is having trouble finding employment. It certainly is a boon for American born students who don't have to meet the same benchmarks, but it hardly seems like its in the best interest of their patients.

Suppose that the medical field operated in a less restricted market, and more foreign-trained physicians could enter the field. You're right that if they worked for less pay, then physician reimbursement would drop, and health care costs would be (slightly) reduced, without a reduction in quality of care...in fact, more likely an improvement in quality of care. It certainly wouldn't help me, as an individual with a clearly invested interest, but it would certainly be of benefit to society as a whole. And if the reimbursement rates dropped, then smart people who otherwise would have been doctors will go into other professions: dentists, lawyers, PhD's, engineers, etc... where they will be more lucratively rewarded.

Besides, since when is competition a bad thing? By your same train of logic, we should prevent the importation of foreign produced products. If Honda weren't allowed to sell cars on US soil, clearly General Motors would be better off. Without needing to worry about producing quality products at an affordable price, they would be virtually guaranteed people to purchase their products. Sounds great.

Also, in your original blog post, you talk about how "An engineer who designs a new products creates jobs: secretaries, product testers, factory workers, people to market the product..." really? I don't think an engineer gets his/her own secretary, and the product testers and factory workers are likely located in Malaysia or Taiwan. It may create marketing jobs, but do we really need more people to go into the "sales" profession?

My father is an electrical engineer (and he has had his own secretary in the past, incidentally). Just to cite a concrete example, several years ago he designed a new, state of the art product. Sales went up. People in the factory (located in the US, fyi) couldn't work enough overtime to meet demand, and the company hired more people to help build the products. Furthermore, the company hired 2 additional engineers to help with R&D. At his current employer (also with factories in the US), things aren't much different.

The same is true for numerous other professions. A surgeon can't exist in isolation. Consider a simple total-joint-arthroplasty. There are multiple nurses and tech's in the OR with the surgeon, not to mention those in pre-op and post-op. An anesthesiologist is required for the procedure. People are employed to clean up the room after the surgery, to manufacture and sell the prosthesis, people paid to bill for the procedure, people involved in the supply chain that got the prosthesis to the hospital...and secretaries to schedule the surgery, schedule the blood donation, coordinate the OR schedule, etc....

RE: American Worker

2009-02-03T15:03:00.000-08:00

The Coalition for the Future American Worker has a new television ad stating that we are currently bringing in 1.5 million new workers, which is poor policy in a time when millions are being laid off, stating "Ask why we keep bringing in 1.5 million foreign workers a year to take American jobs."

This seems like an incredibly simplified way to approach the issue. What isn't stated in the 1.5 million figure is the number that have advanced degrees in fields such as computer science, engineering, medicine, etc... Such imports fill positions that require immigration to meet domestic needs. Personally, I think its better to have a foreign engineer residing in America--where they will pay taxes and contribute to our economy--than in India or China, promoting outsourcing. Additionally, these highly-skilled workers actually create jobs. An engineer who designs a new products creates jobs: secretaries, product testers, factory workers, people to market the product, etc... Frankly, as I've said in the past, we should be increasing the influx of these workers.

The issue of the unskilled workers is open for more debate. There certainly is overlap with many American workers, particularly those most likely to make minimum wage, but I think this is in large part a function of minimum wage restrictions...and is more than I want to type about now.

An Odd Incentive Structure

2009-01-26T04:51:00.000-08:00

One argument I often hear regarding Universal Health Care (that I rarely give much credence to) is that it is a conflict of interest to have the same people that are charged with funding your retirement be in charge of prolonging your life. In other words, it creates an incentive to provide less than stellar care, because it means a reduction in social security payouts. Again, I don't think this is a strong argument, despite the fact that it may be technically true. I just can't believe that any policies would be enacted that would see this to fruition.

However, a similar sort of conflict of interest seems to be too much for Speaker Pelosi:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government

Now, there are certainly valid reasons for wanting to extend family planning services. Similarly, I think it is valid that the state supplies services such as education and health care for children (although maybe not to quite the extent that the current congress has decided). Yet, this exchange strikes me as creepy; that the third most powerful person in our government (and one unlikely to be strongly opposed by her senate counterpart or the executive branch) believes that she should be targeting birth rates in order to balance the government's checkbook.

Again, there are certainly valid reasons to support family planning: reduce the number of abortions, promote womens health, etc... This is certainly not one.

And so it begins...

2009-01-21T18:35:00.000-08:00

He's sticking to at least one campaign promise....

U.S. President Barack Obama may order a hold on a proposal issued in the final days of the Bush administration to expand offshore drilling in previously banned areas, an Interior Department official told Reuters on Wednesday.

Shortly after being sworn in on Tuesday, Obama ordered all federal agencies and departments to halt pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff.

An Interior official said the department is waiting for clarification from the White House on whether a proposed draft of a five-year plan to lease areas in the Atlantic and Pacific waters for oil and natural gas drilling can go forward.

The link is HERE.

Born Again?

2009-01-20T07:27:00.000-08:00

To add to my previous post, this website pisses me right off. This is a perfect example of how for some people, love of country is contingent upon something else, in this case the election of Barack Obama. Sounds more like "Fair-weather Americans". Now, admittedly, this site does not express itself as a supporter of Barack Obama, nor does it claim to be Democratic. Yet, the verbage and timber makes it clear, to me, that it is so aligned.

Why should one only love their country when their party is in power? As a Republican I'm very much out of power...but I love my country nonetheless. Where were these people over the past 8 years? Did they not consider themselves American? Where will they be in 4, 8, or 12 years? Will they still consider themselves American if and when Republicans take control?

Early Thoughts on the Obama Presidency

2009-01-19T05:57:00.001-08:00

Two things have come up recently in a number of other blogs that I want to comment on.

The first is a series of pictures of Iranians burning pictures of President Obama. They've come up on a number of "conservative sites" that I frequent (as well as the few "liberal sites" I check). These were standard fare during the last 8 years, but they still pissed me off every time I saw it. What was worse was the response from many of his fellow Americans. Many people tried to justify the actions, and some people even mimicked them during protests and rallies. Now that the target of hate has changed, I'm still pissed off. I may not agree with him on many issues (I'll get to that in a second), but he's still the leader of my country and a fellow American. Fortunately the sites that have posted these images have also condemned them, something I wish the Liberal sites I read would have done over the past 8 years.

Now, to some early complaints. Awhile back, I think over at The Corner they had a discussion about the difference between conservative love of country, and liberal love of country. I think these generalizations are often very wrong, and at the time I didn't give it much merit. However, someone said that the difference was that 'conservatives love their country for what it is, what it has been, and despite its faults, while liberals love their country for what it could be'. America would be great, if only we elected Senator Obama. America would be great, if only we had universal health care. Again, I have enough liberal friends to know that this characterization is not true. However, I continually get the impression that it fits for President Obama. Throughout his campaign he talked about fundamentally changing America. More recently, on his (very humble) train trip to DC he said at one stop that "we need a new Declaration of Independence". I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that much of this is just his normal aggrandized rhetoric, but it really rubs me the wrong way. I don't think there's anything wrong with the fundamentals of our country, and I don't think we need a new Declaration of Independence. We may need to change some details, but I love my country the way it is.

What happened to Due Process?

2008-12-15T10:41:00.000-08:00

From everything I've heard, it seems pretty clear to me that Gov. Blagojavich is guilty of quite a few crimes. However, that is my opinion based on media reports, pundits, and a few synopses of the allegations. With the evidence being so damning, I'm not surprised that Illinois lawmakers are calling for the Governor to resign--whether he is found guilty or not, he cannot be an effective executive during these times.

However, I'm a little annoyed by Attorney General Madigan's push for his resignation. As the Attorney General, shouldn't the people of Illinois expect her to wait until he's seen his day in court to condemn him?

A few thoughts on Election night...

2008-11-04T18:43:00.000-08:00

Ohio has just been called for Sen. Obama, which should pretty much ensure his win. Should this hold true, we're in for at least four years of an Obama presidency. I have been (and will most likely continue to be) a critic of Sen. Obama. I disagree with his stance on many issues, and with a powerfully Democratic congress, its likely that a host of unfavorable policies will be adopted. That being said, first and foremost we are both Americans, and we both want the best for the country. President Obama will face many challenges, and I hope that he succeeds.

McCain, SF Chronicle Invite Obama

2008-07-30T09:09:00.001-07:00

The Editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle gives kudos to Senator McCain for suggesting that Sen. Obama join them in a meeting for their endorsement process.

Sen. John McCain came up with a terrific idea Monday when he was handed an invitation to meet with our editorial board as part of our endorsement process.
"Why don't you invite Senator (Barack) Obama to join me?" McCain suggested.
...
Senator McCain gets extra points for proposing a unglossed, unscripted, groundbreaking version of the presidential debate in the bluest of states and at a newspaper that last endorsed a Republican for president in 1992.

Despite reservations about many of his policies, this upfront, open aura of Sen. McCain should be a breath of fresh air to everyone. When was the last time we saw a politician who was so willing to answer questions posed by those who, by most measures, aren't likely to vote for him? Compare this to Sen. Obama refusing to attend a FOX News Debate. Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, I hope everyone can appreciate Sen. McCain's pursuit to have open dialogue.

Media Bias from around the Web

2008-07-25T06:09:00.000-07:00

Theres a lot floating around the web today concerning the media love affair with Sen. Barack Obama. While some think its a myth (e.g. the progressive site Think Progres). Well, Investors Business Daily took a look at the numbers, specifically donations to candidates by members of the media.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
...
What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

This should refute the "well, Obama's just more newsworthy" line that many espouse to refute alleged bias.

Rasmussen polling shows that more people are beginning to recognize this bias. According to their polling, 49% of people believe the media is trying to help Senator Obama (up 5 points from last month), with 14% saying that the media will try to help Senator McCain (note that this polling occurred before the New York Times refused to print McCain's op-ed). I'm not sure that these polling numbers reflect the 100:1 spending ration observed, but they do represent that the public is partially aware of the biased coverage.

Lastly, to highlight the disparity in media coverage, consider the following from the Wall Street Journal:

CNN interrupts a discussion of whether the media are in the tank for Obama for a news bulletin that Obama's plane has landed safely--a dog-bites-man story if ever there was one.

You've got to be kidding me. This is over the top, and I hope Wolf Blitzer recognizes the irony here. During a discussion on the situation room about whether the media is biased towards Sen. Obama, they interrupted the story to provide coverage of "O Force One" landing. Blitzer followed the interruption with:

All right, Sen. Obama has just arrived at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel. And upon his arrival from Amman, Jordan, he made a brief statement, reaffirming his strong support for Israel.

Cross posted at

We Are the World vs. We Are the Change

2008-07-24T11:31:00.001-07:00

From my favorite blog, The Campaign Spot, comes this challenge: Try to figure out if the following statements come from the song "We are the world" or Sen. Obama's ~~Campaign rally~~ completely not-campaign related speech in Berlin:

UPDATE: Pop quiz, hot shot. Pick out the "We Are The World" lyrics vs. Obama speech lines.

A: "We can't go on pretending day by day that someone, somewhere will soon make a change."

B: "This is the moment we must help answer the call."

C: "But if you just believe there's no way we can fall."

D. "The world will watch and remember what we do."

E. "Let us realize that a change can only come when we stand together as one."

F. "We cannot afford to be divided."

G. "These now are the walls we must tear down."

H. "This is the moment when we must come together."

I. "They'll know that someone cares, and their lives will be stronger and free."

You'll have to go HERE to see the answers. I only got 3 of 9 correct!

The Benefits of Ethnic Cleansing

2008-07-23T13:14:00.000-07:00

Note the following exchange that occurred when ABC's Terry Moran interviewed Sen. Obama :

Moran asked what Iraq would look like now if Obama's policy of withdrawing in the face of the violence had been implemented.

"That is a hard thing to speculate," Obama said, "The Sunnis might have made the same decisions at that time. The Shii’as might have made some similar decisions based on political calculation. There was ethnic cleansing in Baghdad that actually took the violence level down. And so, as I said before. Nobody has a crystal ball. If we did you just hire the guy with the crystal ball."

I haven't seen the original transcript, so this is coming via Jake Tapper of ABC blogs Political Punch.

Is the senator really going this far out of his way to avoid saying the surge was a success that he wants to credit ethnic cleansing for a 90% reduction in violence?

Cross posted at

Well Then Who Are You Talking To?

2008-07-16T06:13:00.001-07:00

In January of 2007, while still vying for the Democratic Nomination, Sen. Obama said

..we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the groundemphasis mine.

This was just one of many similar statements. It's now pretty clear that the surge has led to a reduction in violence, as McCain had predicted. It's so clear, that the Obama campaign deleted the page on their website that called the surge a "problem" and stated that "the surge is not working," and so clear that Obama is now trying to pretend that he supported it all along.

However, as we continue to see Sen. Obama ~~flip-flop~~"refine" his position on various issues, its not a surprise that he's now singing a different tune. Yet, what should be a bit of a surprise is that--if we take the Senator at his word--he didn't speak to a single "expert on the region or any military officer" that predicted the surge would work, then who has he chosen to advise him?

Presidents rely on their advisors to make informed, expert decisions. We've seen President Bush often make errors due to his advisors. If not one of the lot of Sen. Obama's military or middle-east advisors (note that this does not include Gen. Petraeus) thought the surge would help, shouldn't we be a little concerned with the Senator's judgement in selecting his advisors? Either he's chosen an incompetent group, or a group that chooses to tell him what he wants to hear.

Mandatory Volunteerism

2008-07-07T05:54:00.001-07:00

Several months ago Michell Obama said "Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed," which many of the righty blogs spouted as an intent for a totalitarian sort of Obama Administration. Frankly, it seemed like they were making a mountain out of a mole-hill and I didn't put too much stake in it. However, only several days ago, the Senator himself said the following:

Just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously. Study after study shows that students who serve do better in school, are more likely to go to college, and more likely to maintain that service as adults. So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.

We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.

For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you - that's how we're going to make sure that college is affordable for every single American, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.

I'll need to look at this piece by piece:

Just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously.

Agreed. Everyone should be proud to serve their country and community. However, I don't think that they should be required by the government to do so.

Study after study shows that students who serve do better in school, are more likely to go to college, and more likely to maintain that service as adults.

I don't doubt this for one second, yet this is only an association, and does not prove that volunteering causes college attendance. I would argue that the people who choose to volunteer are the people who are already highly likely to attend college, anyway (this is my anecdotal experience from High School, College, Medical School). Citing an association means nothing--the number of storks in the UK is decreasing, as is the birth rate...that doesn't mean that storks bring babies.

So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.

I volunteered extensively when I was in high school and into college. Often I gained a great deal of pride and honor in doing so. I'm curious if being forced to do so would have brought about the same encouraging attitude. In other words, would I have viewed it as a sacrifice to help others, or would I be bitter about it if it were compulsory?

We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.

This is the most troubling proposal to me. While the quality of instruction in our schools is deteriorating, Senator Obama is proposing that we tie funding to school district volunteer programs? I imagine that the schools in the most serious trouble, where drop-out rates are above 50% and graduation rates below 10% will have the most trouble meeting these standards, and will thus be the ones who see a reduction in funding. Does the Senator really expect students in these situations to volunteer in their communities? If he really wants to be the candidate of change, lets see some real change...like a nationwide voucher program that could realize the same successes that DC has had.

For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you - that's how we're going to make sure that college is affordable for every single American, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.

Personally I don't have much issue with this part of the plan. However, I don't see this as really making college more affordable. If this program garnered a large enough pool of students, I imagine universities would just increase their tuition accordingly. In addition, I fundamentally don't agree with subsidizing college in this manner. If the money is to be spent in such a way (tied to community service), create a system of grants or scholarships instead of just one-size-fits-all giveaways. With a scholarship or grant, it would encourage students to volunteer in meaningful ways, rather than just whatever gets them their paycheck.

Singing a Different Tune

2008-07-03T07:46:00.000-07:00

Personally, I don't believe that military service is a prerequisite for either public office or patriotism. In fact, I understand what Gen. Wesley Clark recently said, though I think the way he phrased it was a little offensive (see below). It seems as though some of Obamas supporters agree with me....though they didn't 4 years ago.

In 2004, Howard Dean said the following:

Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?

FYI, for his service, Senator McCain earned a Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, two Bronze Star Medals, a Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross

In 2004, General Wesley Clark said

John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief. ...
John Kerry is a man who in time of war can lead us as a warrior, but in times of peace, he will heed the call of scripture to lead us in beating swords into plowshares.
John Kerry will lead America with strength and wisdom. He has the will to fight. He has the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace.

Replace 'Kerry' with 'McCain' and that statement makes more sense (considering McCain demonstrated more physical courage and moral values). Quite a difference now that he is saying that "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president". Aside from a complete reversal of his earlier thoughts, this statement implies that Senator McCain was a doofus (note: "riding" is much different than "flying" a fighter plane), and makes no mention of the character that Senator McCain showed during those 5 years as a POW (google "Bud Day" for a partial account).

In 2004, former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia said "We need somebody who felt the sting of battle, not someone who didn't even complete his tour stateside in the Guard." Cleland is currently supporting Obama.

I disagreed with the Democrats in 2004. Military service should not be a prerequisite for holding public office. Yet, if they felt so strongly that it does, in 2004, why are they not supporting Senator John McCain?

Hold On, Sit Down, and Shut Up MoveOn!

2008-07-01T10:10:00.000-07:00

My weekly moveon.org e-mail newsletter asks me if I am ready for 4 more years of $4 gas, arguing that under a McCain presidency, policies would ensure that gas prices remain high (presuambly the way to lower prices is to tax those who produce it). Clearly this is debatable, as increasing supply (offshore drilling, which is favored by a fair majority of citizens), reducing ethanol requirements (which Republicans are currently attempting), and promoting alternatives (that McCain has called for) would all likely contribute to a reduction in gas prices. Reducing taxes on gasoline would immediately reduce costs, though the income would have to be made up elsewhere.

Yet, if MoveOn.org is really concerned with the high cost of Gas, they may want to direct their ire at Sen. Obama. While McCain has consistently noted the strain that high gas prices place on Americans, Obama recently said that he doesn't object to them...just wishes they had risen more gradually...and might actually be good!.

Silver Lining

2008-06-26T09:24:00.001-07:00

I see a lot of statments like "The median sales price, however, fell to $208,600, down 6.3 percent from a year ago" as a catastrophic sign that hurts everyone. While I understand that the housing market affects the entire economy, I have trouble believing that falling prices of homes are a bad thing. While it is certainly not what the owners of those homes want, it is of benefit to first-time home buyers, and will likely serve to increase their numbers.

If his Online Store is any indication.....

2008-06-24T18:59:00.000-07:00

...Then McCain will be very efficient as President.

On Monday morning I ordered two McCain notepads using his online store. When I got home from work on Tuesday, they had already arrived at my door!

When was the last time you ordered something online and it arrived the following day (without any shipping and handling charges!)?

Is this an indication of how efficient his presidency will be?

Economic Confirmation

2008-06-24T09:50:00.000-07:00

Despite my conservative viewpoint, early on in the primaries I put forth some thought into voting for one of the Democrats (I could legitimately see myself voting for Sen. Biden, and I have a lot more respect for Edwards than I do for Sens. Clinton and Obama). Part of this was my general malaise for McCains policies, part of this was my perspective that policy issues matter more for legislators than executives, and part of it was a hope that spending and government expansion would be curtailed for a little while if the Congress and White house were controlled by different parties. In other words, I wouldn't be as opposed to a Democrat in the White House if I knew that Republicans would be in congress (think 1996 Welfare reform).

It didn't take too long to realize that Biden and Edwards didn't have a shot for President, and Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell to regain a majority in either chamber of congress. Its most likely that we'll have a spend-happy Democrat in the oval office, working with a Democratic congress, and government spending will be even worse that it was from 2000 to 2006. What should we expect?

Obama has not made balanced budgets a priority. Instead, he promises numerous tax cuts likely to make the situation worse, including subsidies for education, child care, homeownership, "savers" and people who work. Obama also vows to extend the Bush tax cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 a year. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of Brookings and the Urban Institute, his tax plans would deprive the Treasury of nearly $900 billion in his first term, and increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion by 2018. ..
"I suspect that McCain will be more constrained and will have a veto power over the Democratic Congress," said Alice M. Rivlin, who served as the first director of the Congressional Budget Office, as well as one of Clinton's budget directors. "If it's Obama, the Democratic Congress is going to be pushing for spending and it's awfully hard to rein in your own folks. No Democrat is going to want to go to war with Congress." Emphasis mine

Hooray.

FISA doublespeak

2008-06-24T08:51:00.000-07:00

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
-Bill Burton, Obama Campaign spokesman
October 24, 2007

"There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority... But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program"
-Sen. Obama, speaking after the passage of the bill
June 20, 2008

"He has talked repeatedly about making sure somebody watches the watchers. I don’t think you should necessarily trust an Obama Administration anymore than you should trust a Bush Administration or a McCain Administration."
-Robert Gibbs, Obama Spokesman
June 23, 2008

So, just to keep everything straight....Obama promised to filibuster something, but didn't. He believes that President Bush broke the law on FISA, and promises that as President, he won't do that....but his Spokesman says he's no more trustworthy than Bush. Is that right?

Jim Geraghty over at National Review recognizes the contradiction here, too

Respect for the Dead, and Lessons from our Mothers

2008-06-17T07:11:00.000-07:00

When I was a child, my mother told me that 'if I didn't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all'. It's cliche, but its true. While I certainly haven't lived up to that advice, I've never sunk as low as Marc Cooper, who seems to have taken a great deal of offense that Tim Russert passed away on Friday. Cooper comments on how he "cashed in" by writing about his father (who Mr. Cooper shows serious contempt for), and rates Russert as a "just above median" journalist. Unlike Marc Cooper, Russert truly was a fabulous journalist. He was tough to everyone, including Obama.

The inexplicable amount of air time devoted to Russert's death surely was laced with some potent self-pity by the networks themselves. In the sudden death of Tim Russert they no doubt caught a passing glimpse and reflection of a fate they fear for themselves.

Possibly, Mr. Cooper. However, I would say that it is far more likely that the amount of airtime was a reflection of the widespread respect and admiration for a truly great colleague. I don't think Tom Brokaw tearing up was a reflection of his own mortality. I think he, like so many others, was grieving the loss of a friend.

Anymore, cable news is about partisan bickering. Nothing is fair, and nothing is neutral. Yet, Tim Russert was equally tough to all comers. I suggest Marc Cooper show some respect for dead.

Common Sense

2008-06-06T09:24:00.000-07:00

I'm currently reading Gross National Happiness by Arthur Brooks (also the author of Who Really Cares). The premise of the book is how the things in life do (or don't) bring us happiness. Topics include family, friends, money, etc... The following section really rang true with me:

It is one thing to charge our government with helping us band together as citizens to take care of the most vulnerable. The mentally ill, for example, who do not have strong private support, truly deserve our help in a civilized society, and we cannot realistically rely on private charity to meet that need. It is another thing entirely to demand that the state take care of the rest of us--able-bodied, sound-minded, once-independent Americans--guaranteeing our wages and providing our medicines for free. This is to treat us like children. There is little freedom in the nanny state, and we can expect little happiness there, either.
It is one thing to entrust the government with the financing of massive relief efforts, such as rebuilding a city in the wake of a hurricane. But it is another thing to ask the government to meet every social want and need, from our desire for symphony orchestras to our longing for amateur sports leagues. The attitude is depressingly common that, if something is important to us, the government ought to provide it. The
ever-growing social welfare net diminishes our freedom by giving us less power to solve our own problems. It also places our social preferences in the hands of public servants--well-intentioned, perhaps, but with preferences of their own to pursue with our dollars.
It is obviously appropriate to invest the government with the responsibility to protect our nation against real dangers, such as the invasion of a foregin army or an attack on our interests abroad. But this is not the same thing as expecting governments--creating new bureaucracies in their
earnestness--to pacify us with ineffective security measures or to protect us from ourselves in the course of normal risks in our day-to-day lives. The dignity of the goal of defeating worldwide terrorism is hopelessly degraded when, in the next breath, we declare war on helmetless motorcycle riding and secondhand smoke. Osama bin Laden is a threat to America; trans fats in our food are an annoyance. We need to protest when our government fails to makes [sic] these distinctions and uses spurious logic to justify trading away our happiness. [emphasis mine].