I have seen many examples recently of people not understanding this basic principle: receiving a title does not make you a leader.
The first example is in my hobby of roleplaying games. In these social games, one player is given the title of Game Master, or GM. Simplistically put, the GM is a referee, but he is much more than that. The GM creates the entire world the game is played in. He is the one player authorized to make, bend, or break any rule he wants. The GM can keep anything he wants a secret, including how his dice roll. In other words, the GM is completely above the law where the game is concerned.
You might think there's no way a game could last under these conditions, and in many cases you'd be right. However, the GM has one important restriction which makes everything work. He must make the game fun for everyone, or the players will become disruptive and eventually leave. He can't play alone, so the GM has strong motivation to use his power fairly and wisely. GMs who don't understand this, and either underuse or overuse their authority, find their games falling apart very quickly.
Next is parents. Like a GM, a parent has near-ultimate power over her children, but is not so easily removed. However, I still see many parents frustrated that their children will not listen to them. They seem to expect compliance from the mere fact that they hold the title of parent. In other words, their title does not make them effective, their leadership does.
Next, Nancy Pelosi. I don't remember the exact numbers, but over two thirds of Obama voters thought Republicans are in charge of Congress, when in fact, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is. Congress has also had approval ratings in the single digits for most of the time she has held that office. Super-low approval ratings and the rank and file of your own party doesn't even realize you're in charge. She expects Congress to do what she wants simply because of her title, which is why she is failing.
Next, Presidents. Whatever you think of the morality of the issue, President Clinton lost his ability to lead with the Monica Lewinsky affair. His extremely powerful title meant almost nothing after that. President Bush lost his ability to lead with Hurricane Katrina. He still held the title, but he didn't hold the respect of the American people, and therefore has been a relatively ineffective president since that point.
Now, people have asked me for my opinion on President Obama. Here it is. He has shown himself to be very adept at obtaining titles, but he has yet to show true leadership. Most presidents come into office already being strong leaders. Obama doesn't have that advantage. The best presidents finish as strong leaders. Obama may still surpise us, and I'm not saying he can't be a strong leader, we just don't know. I hope he will be, but it worries me that he seems to take the same attitude as Speaker Pelosi that people will follow him just because of his title. And that doesn't work for any group, from a handful of friends playing a game, up to the United States of America.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Dropping Toys
I would rather lose an election than lose a (financial) war. The very fact that this has devolved into a discussion about what must be done to win the election instead of what is best for our country's economy frankly disgusts me.
Have you ever watched a toddler trying to carry too many toys at once, dropping one as soon as they bend over to pick up another in an endless cycle? That's what this mess reminds me of. The government is trying to teach the child how to carry everything he wants, but just ends up walking behind him, continually picking up toys and putting them back in his arms, hoping he won't trip and drop everything until after the election. Taxpayers are wondering why we don't just tell the child not to carry more than he can handle.
The mark to market rule worked exactly as intended. We have more information about the health of these companies than we otherwise would have. If you want to know how the companies would value their assets long term under the old system, they are more than willing to share that information if it makes them look better, and they have.
The problem is we had this extra information available to us for the first time and we didn't know what to do with it. Apparently, some thought that merely knowing more about the problem would automatically fix it.
Others looked at these assets no one wanted to buy and said we need the government to be the buyer of last resort. This will do absolutely nothing to help free up the flow of credit, and I know this because companies like Merrill Lynch did the same thing on their own that the government wants to do for other companies and it hardly helped them at all.
Why won't it help? Imagine someone coming to you and saying, "We had all these assets that were so bad the government had to bail us out and buy them from us. Could you loan us some money to buy something else?"
We're not going to be able to move forward until the financial sector rebuilds its reputation and earns our trust back, and that is going to take time. We're going to have to be satisfied with with only carrying one toy at a time for a while.
Have you ever watched a toddler trying to carry too many toys at once, dropping one as soon as they bend over to pick up another in an endless cycle? That's what this mess reminds me of. The government is trying to teach the child how to carry everything he wants, but just ends up walking behind him, continually picking up toys and putting them back in his arms, hoping he won't trip and drop everything until after the election. Taxpayers are wondering why we don't just tell the child not to carry more than he can handle.
The mark to market rule worked exactly as intended. We have more information about the health of these companies than we otherwise would have. If you want to know how the companies would value their assets long term under the old system, they are more than willing to share that information if it makes them look better, and they have.
The problem is we had this extra information available to us for the first time and we didn't know what to do with it. Apparently, some thought that merely knowing more about the problem would automatically fix it.
Others looked at these assets no one wanted to buy and said we need the government to be the buyer of last resort. This will do absolutely nothing to help free up the flow of credit, and I know this because companies like Merrill Lynch did the same thing on their own that the government wants to do for other companies and it hardly helped them at all.
Why won't it help? Imagine someone coming to you and saying, "We had all these assets that were so bad the government had to bail us out and buy them from us. Could you loan us some money to buy something else?"
We're not going to be able to move forward until the financial sector rebuilds its reputation and earns our trust back, and that is going to take time. We're going to have to be satisfied with with only carrying one toy at a time for a while.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Palin and the Press
I keep uncovering new reasons why Palin is such a grandmaster pick for McCain. The mainstream media has gone from largely ignoring the McCain campaign, to viciously attacking Palin's family. On the surface, this again looks like a step backwards. However, the same networks are also clamoring for interviews with Governor Palin, which she has so far refused.
What reason does the campaign give for refusing? The networks are not acting like objective journalists. In other words, if you want the interview, start acting like real journalists instead of Obama fanboys. Is it any coincidence that the first interview granted was to one of the few that made questions about Palin's family off limits in his last interview with McCain? The campaign won't out and out admit it, but the message is clear. Hopefully this will translate into overall fairer coverage for the campaign.
What reason does the campaign give for refusing? The networks are not acting like objective journalists. In other words, if you want the interview, start acting like real journalists instead of Obama fanboys. Is it any coincidence that the first interview granted was to one of the few that made questions about Palin's family off limits in his last interview with McCain? The campaign won't out and out admit it, but the message is clear. Hopefully this will translate into overall fairer coverage for the campaign.
Friday, September 05, 2008
McCain the Grandmaster
This is my response to all the pundits who think McCain forfeited his experience argument by picking Governor Palin as his running mate.
This is John McCain's greatest strength. He has strategic foresight and understands his opponents' reactions. He makes decisions that no one understands at the time, but are completely obvious in hindsight. This is a true definition of leadership.
Lay out the Palin decision step by step, and it no longer seems so radical and opaque, but McCain made the connection first, and some pundits have yet to catch up to the genius of it. It is not as risky as they make it out to be.
Look at it this way. Your opponent's greatest weakness is his scarce experience. Who should you choose as your running mate? The obvious choice is someone with vastly more experience than him. Wrong! You are only looking one move ahead in the chess game.
Why is that the wrong choice? Because the liberal media decides what the voting public talks about. John McCain understands that better than almost anyone. Pick a clearly more experienced VP candidate, and the media will avoid that topic like a plague. Pick a candidate who appears on the surface to lack experience, and the media will latch on to it like a bulldog, trying to highlight McCain's apparent belief that experience isn't that important after all.
McCain is willing to take that temporary hit, knowing that once experience is out on the table, he will be able to sell the message that Palin has actually accomplished a lot in a short amount of time, especially compared to what Obama, on the top of his ticket, has actually accomplished in relatively the same period of time.
Not only that, but Palin reinforces McCain's greatest strength, his proven reputation as a reformer, whereas Biden actually diminishes Obama's biggest strength, his outsider status, which is further diminished by Palin's even farther outsider status. Obama's greatest weakness, his inexperience, is also highlighted not only by McCain and Palin, but by his own running mate.
VP picks usually don't make much of a difference in an election, but in this case almost anyone Obama could have picked would have been better than Biden, and almost anyone McCain could have picked wouldn't have been as good as Palin. If there were ever an election where the VP candidates made a difference, this is it.
Considering, but ultimately rejecting, people like Senator Lieberman for VP was also a brilliant stroke. First, it lowered expectations, which made the actual pick that much more impactful. Second, no one will be surprised if Lieberman becomes McCain's Secretary of State, which is a position few republicans would disagree with him holding, and would go a long way to silencing democrats' claims of "they're more divisive than we are."
This is John McCain's greatest strength. He has strategic foresight and understands his opponents' reactions. He makes decisions that no one understands at the time, but are completely obvious in hindsight. This is a true definition of leadership.
Lay out the Palin decision step by step, and it no longer seems so radical and opaque, but McCain made the connection first, and some pundits have yet to catch up to the genius of it. It is not as risky as they make it out to be.
Look at it this way. Your opponent's greatest weakness is his scarce experience. Who should you choose as your running mate? The obvious choice is someone with vastly more experience than him. Wrong! You are only looking one move ahead in the chess game.
Why is that the wrong choice? Because the liberal media decides what the voting public talks about. John McCain understands that better than almost anyone. Pick a clearly more experienced VP candidate, and the media will avoid that topic like a plague. Pick a candidate who appears on the surface to lack experience, and the media will latch on to it like a bulldog, trying to highlight McCain's apparent belief that experience isn't that important after all.
McCain is willing to take that temporary hit, knowing that once experience is out on the table, he will be able to sell the message that Palin has actually accomplished a lot in a short amount of time, especially compared to what Obama, on the top of his ticket, has actually accomplished in relatively the same period of time.
Not only that, but Palin reinforces McCain's greatest strength, his proven reputation as a reformer, whereas Biden actually diminishes Obama's biggest strength, his outsider status, which is further diminished by Palin's even farther outsider status. Obama's greatest weakness, his inexperience, is also highlighted not only by McCain and Palin, but by his own running mate.
VP picks usually don't make much of a difference in an election, but in this case almost anyone Obama could have picked would have been better than Biden, and almost anyone McCain could have picked wouldn't have been as good as Palin. If there were ever an election where the VP candidates made a difference, this is it.
Considering, but ultimately rejecting, people like Senator Lieberman for VP was also a brilliant stroke. First, it lowered expectations, which made the actual pick that much more impactful. Second, no one will be surprised if Lieberman becomes McCain's Secretary of State, which is a position few republicans would disagree with him holding, and would go a long way to silencing democrats' claims of "they're more divisive than we are."
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
South Ossetia
There are conflicting reports coming out of the war in South Ossetia. That is to be expected. Each side of the conflict feels justified and sees things in their own way. In the absence of a truly objective source, the best you can do is find as many sources as close to the action as possible, see where their stories line up and where they don't, and draw your own conclusions.
The scary thing to me is not the claimed motivations for fighting. Russia says it is protecting its citizens, South Ossetians say they are fighting for independence, and Georgia says it is protecting its internationally recognized sovereign territory. The scary thing is I have seen journalist video with my own eyes of Russian troops on armored personnel carriers headed unopposed into a city outside the disputed area, then heard reports of Russia denying they are even there, with significant weight being given by other media to those reports.
That tells me Russia is after more than just South Ossetia, at least short term, and that whatever they want, they think they can accomplish it swiftly, before the guise of their propaganda wears too thin. I'm going to go out on a limb with a prediction that the Georgian capital will be invaded shortly.
I think the best case end result is that Russia will withdraw until it is "only" occupying South Ossetia, and that it will be declared a diplomatic victory. It is certainly a good strategy on Russia's part to take more than they actually want so they have some room for compromise.
However, this whole thing seems masterfully orchestrated. I fear the current political climate in the United States will prevent us from backing up our words with actions, as Barack Obama is so fond of requesting Russia to do, and that will allow Russia to conquer Georgia relatively unchecked. If Russia is smart and patient, they should be able to occupy Georgia until the rest of the world gets used to the idea, and only move on when we become complacent again. If Russia moves slowly enough, we will be politically powerless to stop them, like frogs boiling in a slowly-warmed pot.
I hope I'm wrong, and I'm certainly no expert on such things, but I am a pretty good judge of human character, and I wanted to take the risk of putting my predictions out there now, instead of trying to say "I knew it" only after the fact.
The scary thing to me is not the claimed motivations for fighting. Russia says it is protecting its citizens, South Ossetians say they are fighting for independence, and Georgia says it is protecting its internationally recognized sovereign territory. The scary thing is I have seen journalist video with my own eyes of Russian troops on armored personnel carriers headed unopposed into a city outside the disputed area, then heard reports of Russia denying they are even there, with significant weight being given by other media to those reports.
That tells me Russia is after more than just South Ossetia, at least short term, and that whatever they want, they think they can accomplish it swiftly, before the guise of their propaganda wears too thin. I'm going to go out on a limb with a prediction that the Georgian capital will be invaded shortly.
I think the best case end result is that Russia will withdraw until it is "only" occupying South Ossetia, and that it will be declared a diplomatic victory. It is certainly a good strategy on Russia's part to take more than they actually want so they have some room for compromise.
However, this whole thing seems masterfully orchestrated. I fear the current political climate in the United States will prevent us from backing up our words with actions, as Barack Obama is so fond of requesting Russia to do, and that will allow Russia to conquer Georgia relatively unchecked. If Russia is smart and patient, they should be able to occupy Georgia until the rest of the world gets used to the idea, and only move on when we become complacent again. If Russia moves slowly enough, we will be politically powerless to stop them, like frogs boiling in a slowly-warmed pot.
I hope I'm wrong, and I'm certainly no expert on such things, but I am a pretty good judge of human character, and I wanted to take the risk of putting my predictions out there now, instead of trying to say "I knew it" only after the fact.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Are Mormons Christian??? Yes!
Guest post by my brother, Kris.
I grew up in Arizona where in most areas 7-14% of the population are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as “Mormons.” I don’t know if I was simply sheltered from this particular accusation, but I honestly never heard anyone accuse Mormons of not being Christian until I left the state. Julie recently looked into enrolling Avery into a preschool that is held in a Baptist church. They only asked that all the children that attended be Christian, a requirement that we apparently did not meet in their eyes. This experience has really troubled me since I found out that this is a commonly accepted viewpoint. This prompted me to do a Google search on the subject to see what I could find… There are many sites that argue that Mormons are not Christian, the number one organic search result was:
http://www.cnview.com/on_line_resources/are_mormons_christian.htm
All the sites that argue that Mormons are not Christian use the same central argument that Mormon are not Christian because we don’t believe in certain things that are clearly described in the bible. I find this argument flawed when the World Christian Denomination database includes over 9,000 individual religions that use over 50 accepted English versions of the bible with inconsistent doctrine. In this realm of “Christian” religions are religions that preach that homosexuality is a sin and also religions that preach that it is an accepted practice in the eyes of God. There is a considerable split in the number of religions that believe in the Trinity versus three separate entities. Some preach that baptism by immersion is required while others indicate that sprinkling is sufficient. Some argue that we are predestined to complete our life in a certain way, ergo there is no sin, while others preach that we will be held accountable at a day of judgment. Some argue that only faith is required to obtain salvation while others argue that actions speak louder than words.
My intention is not to argue which of these views are correct or to attack any religion, only to point out that accepted Christian religions rarely agree with each other on the most basic of points (including the ones selected to argue that Mormons are not Christian), so why is it that Mormon’s unique views on certain doctrines cause us not to be considered Christian. In my research, I found that the Jehovah Witness religion was not considered to be a Christian religion for a similar reasons. I have known many Jehovah Witnesses very well and I can tell you that while I do not agree with some of their doctrines, they are most definitely a Christian religion. They believe in Christ and seek to follow his teachings. So why would mainstream Christianity single out Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons as not being Christian? These are the only two major religions which use extensive missionary work to share their message and it seems that some religions may resort to this argument to retain their membership base.
So what do I believe? I believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins. That thru him, we can be forgiven of our sins and be found clean. I believe that accepting Jesus Christ as my Savior is essential to my salvation. He led a perfect life, paid the price of sin, and suffered a horrible death so that me, a sinner, can return to live with him. I try to study His word and apply his teachings to my life. If I’m not Christian, then what am I?
I do not accuse others of not being Christian simply because I don’t agree with some of their doctrines and I plead for the religious community to grant that same right to both the Mormon and Jehovah Witness religions. I encourage those of you who feel the same way to post how you feel online so that Google’s organic results can provide ample equal representation to both sides. In summary, I find that the answer to this question is better answered with two questions:
Q) Are Mormons Christian?
A) Most definitely, YES!!!
Q) When categorizing the Mormon religion would it be placed in the same category of mainstream protestant religions?
A) No, some of the viewpoints unique to the Mormon faith would warrant a separate sub-category, but within the category of Christianity.
Kris Bielefeldt
Please review the article on lds.org:
http://www.lds.org/features/frames/0,5963,254-88-1,00.html
I grew up in Arizona where in most areas 7-14% of the population are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as “Mormons.” I don’t know if I was simply sheltered from this particular accusation, but I honestly never heard anyone accuse Mormons of not being Christian until I left the state. Julie recently looked into enrolling Avery into a preschool that is held in a Baptist church. They only asked that all the children that attended be Christian, a requirement that we apparently did not meet in their eyes. This experience has really troubled me since I found out that this is a commonly accepted viewpoint. This prompted me to do a Google search on the subject to see what I could find… There are many sites that argue that Mormons are not Christian, the number one organic search result was:
http://www.cnview.com/on_line_resources/are_mormons_christian.htm
All the sites that argue that Mormons are not Christian use the same central argument that Mormon are not Christian because we don’t believe in certain things that are clearly described in the bible. I find this argument flawed when the World Christian Denomination database includes over 9,000 individual religions that use over 50 accepted English versions of the bible with inconsistent doctrine. In this realm of “Christian” religions are religions that preach that homosexuality is a sin and also religions that preach that it is an accepted practice in the eyes of God. There is a considerable split in the number of religions that believe in the Trinity versus three separate entities. Some preach that baptism by immersion is required while others indicate that sprinkling is sufficient. Some argue that we are predestined to complete our life in a certain way, ergo there is no sin, while others preach that we will be held accountable at a day of judgment. Some argue that only faith is required to obtain salvation while others argue that actions speak louder than words.
My intention is not to argue which of these views are correct or to attack any religion, only to point out that accepted Christian religions rarely agree with each other on the most basic of points (including the ones selected to argue that Mormons are not Christian), so why is it that Mormon’s unique views on certain doctrines cause us not to be considered Christian. In my research, I found that the Jehovah Witness religion was not considered to be a Christian religion for a similar reasons. I have known many Jehovah Witnesses very well and I can tell you that while I do not agree with some of their doctrines, they are most definitely a Christian religion. They believe in Christ and seek to follow his teachings. So why would mainstream Christianity single out Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons as not being Christian? These are the only two major religions which use extensive missionary work to share their message and it seems that some religions may resort to this argument to retain their membership base.
So what do I believe? I believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins. That thru him, we can be forgiven of our sins and be found clean. I believe that accepting Jesus Christ as my Savior is essential to my salvation. He led a perfect life, paid the price of sin, and suffered a horrible death so that me, a sinner, can return to live with him. I try to study His word and apply his teachings to my life. If I’m not Christian, then what am I?
I do not accuse others of not being Christian simply because I don’t agree with some of their doctrines and I plead for the religious community to grant that same right to both the Mormon and Jehovah Witness religions. I encourage those of you who feel the same way to post how you feel online so that Google’s organic results can provide ample equal representation to both sides. In summary, I find that the answer to this question is better answered with two questions:
Q) Are Mormons Christian?
A) Most definitely, YES!!!
Q) When categorizing the Mormon religion would it be placed in the same category of mainstream protestant religions?
A) No, some of the viewpoints unique to the Mormon faith would warrant a separate sub-category, but within the category of Christianity.
Kris Bielefeldt
Please review the article on lds.org:
http://www.lds.org/features/frames/0,5963,254-88-1,00.html
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it might well be
I watched General Petraeus' testimony at the Senate Armed Services Committee meeting this morning while I was getting ready for work, and I have to say it was impressive, especially his charts, which were clearly understandable and powerfully persuasive. That guy is stone cold not afraid of anything, and did not bat an eye, except for a quick curious flick to see Senator Clinton's reaction when McCain mentioned a "reckless and irresponsible withdrawal of our forces."
Senator Clinton's remarks were highly anticipated, but since her influence in the committee is so low (which the media never seems to notice), it was lunchtime by the time her turn got around, and I wasn't able to watch it until later this evening, on c-span.org. I have to say it was my all-time favorite speech of hers, all due to this one quote in the beginning:
Does that sound like a future commander-in-chief talking to her future subordinate? Or does it sound like someone who is unsure, even afraid, that her position is wrong and too easily assailed? I think it could be fair to say that it might well be.
Senator Clinton's remarks were highly anticipated, but since her influence in the committee is so low (which the media never seems to notice), it was lunchtime by the time her turn got around, and I wasn't able to watch it until later this evening, on c-span.org. I have to say it was my all-time favorite speech of hers, all due to this one quote in the beginning:
Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy…
Does that sound like a future commander-in-chief talking to her future subordinate? Or does it sound like someone who is unsure, even afraid, that her position is wrong and too easily assailed? I think it could be fair to say that it might well be.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
The Education Gap
This article on the urban/rural education gap came to my attention today. People never look at the other side of the statistic. We have two students who attend the same classroom, with the same teacher, same curriculum, same funding, same class size, same anti-authoritarian culture, same books, same level of poverty, same government officials, parents with the same level of education, same graduation standards, and same federal and state mandated testing.
One of them graduates and one doesn't. What's the problem? Obviously, the classroom, teacher, curriculum, funding, class size, culture, books, poverty, government, parents, standards, and testing.
The difference is that one child puts in the effort and the other doesn't. Plain and simple. We used to hold children responsible for their own actions. Now, the government and the media are falling over each other to tell our kids that their failure is everyone else's fault but their own. How do kids naturally respond to such a situation? By not trying as hard.
It's the responsibility of teachers only to provide the opportunity for an education. It's the responsibility of the child to seize that opportunity. It's the responsibility of parents to provide the right incentives to encourage their kids to do so.
One of them graduates and one doesn't. What's the problem? Obviously, the classroom, teacher, curriculum, funding, class size, culture, books, poverty, government, parents, standards, and testing.
The difference is that one child puts in the effort and the other doesn't. Plain and simple. We used to hold children responsible for their own actions. Now, the government and the media are falling over each other to tell our kids that their failure is everyone else's fault but their own. How do kids naturally respond to such a situation? By not trying as hard.
It's the responsibility of teachers only to provide the opportunity for an education. It's the responsibility of the child to seize that opportunity. It's the responsibility of parents to provide the right incentives to encourage their kids to do so.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
National Cerebral Palsy Awareness Day
Congress declared March 25th, 2008 as National Cerebral Palsy Awareness Day. Since I have a daughter with cerebral palsy, I wanted to point it out to my readers. Why am I doing it a week late? Because Congress passed the resolution a week late, on March 31st. <sarcasm>Thanks, Congress, for creating this special day to bring awareness. I'll be traveling back in time to take advantage of your thoughtfulness.</sarcasm>
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007
Honorable Senator,
I'm writing to weigh in on S. 602, the Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007, which was reported out of committee yesterday. In general, I think it is a good idea to periodically review parental control technology in light of advances in media technology. However, this bill has a glaring omission that I, as a parent, would like addressed.
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of advertisements to which I would assign a more adult rating than the shows they are sponsoring. We don't use the v-chip technology because our children never watch TV unsupervised, but we would use it if it could effectively block those commercials, which it does not the last I tried. It is very frustrating as a parent to have carefully selected a family friendly program, only to have it interrupted by commercials with images, dialogue, or subject matter I consider inappropriate for my children.
That change could easily be accomplished using existing v-chip technology by adding accurate rating codes to advertisements. Please help this bill actually accomplish something useful for parents, instead of being just another election year platitude.
I'm writing to weigh in on S. 602, the Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007, which was reported out of committee yesterday. In general, I think it is a good idea to periodically review parental control technology in light of advances in media technology. However, this bill has a glaring omission that I, as a parent, would like addressed.
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of advertisements to which I would assign a more adult rating than the shows they are sponsoring. We don't use the v-chip technology because our children never watch TV unsupervised, but we would use it if it could effectively block those commercials, which it does not the last I tried. It is very frustrating as a parent to have carefully selected a family friendly program, only to have it interrupted by commercials with images, dialogue, or subject matter I consider inappropriate for my children.
That change could easily be accomplished using existing v-chip technology by adding accurate rating codes to advertisements. Please help this bill actually accomplish something useful for parents, instead of being just another election year platitude.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
McCain's Finance Woes
"John McCain is breaking the law" was the subject of the email I received from Howard Dean on Monday afternoon. This is what I hate about political campaigns. A statement like that is thrown out there, with all the other outright distortions he uses in the body of the email to back it up, and unless you're an expert on campaign finance law, or take an hour or two to research this particular topic, the statement pretty much stands.
People just go off what they think they know about something, or what they heard, without finding out for themselves. They don't realize that what they heard almost always originates from an extremely biased individual like Howard Dean. I was amazed while reading online comments on the topic to discover the immense variety of wrong ideas people have about campaign finance law, that they simply accept and cite as fact.
That is unconscionable in the internet age. I admit that when I received Governor Dean's letter I had no idea what law he was accusing Senator McCain of breaking. However, I also didn't go around acting like I did, and it did not take much work at all to find out.
John McCain was certified for a completely optional program to have contributions matched with federal funds. In exchange for the matching funds, candidates agree to certain spending limits. Those spending limits would be unconstitutional unless the program was completely voluntary. Senator McCain ended up not taking any federal funds, but still abided by the spending restrictions. In other words, for a few months he suffered the restrictions of the completely voluntary program without gaining any of the benefits.
Because of that, when it was clear his campaign was becoming more successful and wouldn't be needing any help from public funding, he sent a letter to the FEC withdrawing from the—can I say it enough—completely voluntary program.
Two weeks later (I have no idea what went on behind the scenes during those two weeks) the FEC sent a letter back stating that McCain needed permission to withdraw from this program which would be unconstitutional if it wasn't completely voluntary. They cited an earlier advisory opinion (which is not a law), that states that you cannot withdraw if potential matching funds were used as collateral on a loan, and stated a hearing needs to be held in order to determine if a loan Senator McCain took out in December matches that condition.
Thanks to the magic of the internet, you can read a copy of the actual loan documents in question. It's clear from those documents that the lender specifically went out of the way to exclude those matching funds as collateral. A couple days ago, lawyers for the lender came out and said they didn't consider it collateral, and one of them is a democrat and former FEC chairman. If the lender doesn't consider something collateral, and the borrower doesn't consider something collateral, it isn't collateral. It doesn't matter what Howard Dean or the FEC thinks.
Now you see what I mean about campaigns. The accusation of law breaking is completely baseless, but it takes a fair bit of time to explain why, much more than you can fit in a standard newscast, so people will just decide they can't understand it, and that either side could be right. It doesn't hurt Howard Dean any, but adding that amount of uncertainty hurts John McCain.
On the other hand, the fact that all the shots against McCain lately have been such cheap shots gives me some hope. If that's the best they can do, it's almost pathetic. Clinton was whining at last night's debate about getting the tough questions, but I haven't seen either of them answer a tough one yet. If I were a moderator last night, I would have asked, "So, you plan to keep jobs here by imposing higher taxes and harsher environmental and labor standards on American companies. How does that work exactly?" I can't wait to see them in a real debate.
People just go off what they think they know about something, or what they heard, without finding out for themselves. They don't realize that what they heard almost always originates from an extremely biased individual like Howard Dean. I was amazed while reading online comments on the topic to discover the immense variety of wrong ideas people have about campaign finance law, that they simply accept and cite as fact.
That is unconscionable in the internet age. I admit that when I received Governor Dean's letter I had no idea what law he was accusing Senator McCain of breaking. However, I also didn't go around acting like I did, and it did not take much work at all to find out.
John McCain was certified for a completely optional program to have contributions matched with federal funds. In exchange for the matching funds, candidates agree to certain spending limits. Those spending limits would be unconstitutional unless the program was completely voluntary. Senator McCain ended up not taking any federal funds, but still abided by the spending restrictions. In other words, for a few months he suffered the restrictions of the completely voluntary program without gaining any of the benefits.
Because of that, when it was clear his campaign was becoming more successful and wouldn't be needing any help from public funding, he sent a letter to the FEC withdrawing from the—can I say it enough—completely voluntary program.
Two weeks later (I have no idea what went on behind the scenes during those two weeks) the FEC sent a letter back stating that McCain needed permission to withdraw from this program which would be unconstitutional if it wasn't completely voluntary. They cited an earlier advisory opinion (which is not a law), that states that you cannot withdraw if potential matching funds were used as collateral on a loan, and stated a hearing needs to be held in order to determine if a loan Senator McCain took out in December matches that condition.
Thanks to the magic of the internet, you can read a copy of the actual loan documents in question. It's clear from those documents that the lender specifically went out of the way to exclude those matching funds as collateral. A couple days ago, lawyers for the lender came out and said they didn't consider it collateral, and one of them is a democrat and former FEC chairman. If the lender doesn't consider something collateral, and the borrower doesn't consider something collateral, it isn't collateral. It doesn't matter what Howard Dean or the FEC thinks.
Now you see what I mean about campaigns. The accusation of law breaking is completely baseless, but it takes a fair bit of time to explain why, much more than you can fit in a standard newscast, so people will just decide they can't understand it, and that either side could be right. It doesn't hurt Howard Dean any, but adding that amount of uncertainty hurts John McCain.
On the other hand, the fact that all the shots against McCain lately have been such cheap shots gives me some hope. If that's the best they can do, it's almost pathetic. Clinton was whining at last night's debate about getting the tough questions, but I haven't seen either of them answer a tough one yet. If I were a moderator last night, I would have asked, "So, you plan to keep jobs here by imposing higher taxes and harsher environmental and labor standards on American companies. How does that work exactly?" I can't wait to see them in a real debate.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
How to Free Up the Housing Market
I think everyone should be able to buy a home. To me, that is a fundamental opportunity. I differentiate that from a fundamental right, because rights persist even after you squander your opportunities. (I also place education and health care under the category of fundamental opportunities.) My dilemma is that I also believe in free markets, and free markets do not necessarily guarantee everyone the opportunity to buy a home.
Congress recognized that in 1977, and passed the Community Reinvestment Act to basically force banks to loan more money to risky borrowers. Other people have covered the chain of events in more detail, but basically whenever you force someone to make risky investments, bad things are going to happen eventually, like the current housing and credit crisis.
There has to be some sort of economic incentive that would allow the free market to function efficiently, but would still provide the riskiest borrowers an opportunity to buy a home. Let's examine how such an incentive would look.
First, there must be a home available. This is only a problem if the highest price someone is able to pay is lower than the lowest price a builder is willing to accept to build a house that meets their needs. Let's assume this is the case for a worst case analysis.
Second, there must be credit available. There are two competing interests here. The lender needs a high enough interest rate to compensate for the extra risk, or he will not be willing to loan the money, and the borrower needs a high enough loan amount to cover the purchase price with a low enough monthly payment to be able to afford it. Note that the borrower doesn't really care what the final purchase price is, as long as the monthly payments continue to remain affordable. Problems arise when the desired interest rate drives the monthly payments too high. The naive solution is to force the banks to loan at the lower interest rate, which we already know is not an efficient solution.
So, we need a way to lower the monthly payment, while keeping the purchase price and interest rates at high enough levels to satisfy the suppliers. There's a technical economic term for this amazing solution: the down payment.
Now, you might think that I already knew the answer, and purposely built up to it for dramatic effect. Actually, I didn't know the answer until I wrote the first sentence of the previous paragraph, and it probably surprised me more than it surprised you. I thought I was going to come up with an ingenious idea that would revolutionize the industry, and instead I reinvented an idea that is so old we have forgotten why it exists.
However, it makes perfect sense. Not only do down payments reduce the monthly payment, they also prove you can afford a certain amount of extra expense, thus reducing the risk, and they also provide instant equity in the home, which reduces the risk if you need to move or refinance. What was the biggest thing missing during this subprime mortgage crisis? Significant down payments. It turns out they're good for something after all. Could we still have had a housing bubble and the associated spate of foreclosures? Sure, but the impact would have been much less severe.
So what should we encourage the government to do to prevent another mortgage crisis in the next generation of homebuyers? End this risky and inefficient regulation, and let the market set the prices, but encourage them to focus more on down payments than on gimmicks and high interest rates. I think mortgage companies could really benefit by offering some sort of down payment savings accounts which automatically qualified them for a mortgage after a certain term. We need to get away from this culture that everyone is entitled to get what they want right now.
Government could also do a lot to encourage saving for mortgage down payments. Not taxing our savings would be a start. Not taxing business investment in general, so the bank could pay higher interest rates, would be ideal. The fair tax would accomplish both those goals. I keep finding more reasons to like it.
Congress recognized that in 1977, and passed the Community Reinvestment Act to basically force banks to loan more money to risky borrowers. Other people have covered the chain of events in more detail, but basically whenever you force someone to make risky investments, bad things are going to happen eventually, like the current housing and credit crisis.
There has to be some sort of economic incentive that would allow the free market to function efficiently, but would still provide the riskiest borrowers an opportunity to buy a home. Let's examine how such an incentive would look.
First, there must be a home available. This is only a problem if the highest price someone is able to pay is lower than the lowest price a builder is willing to accept to build a house that meets their needs. Let's assume this is the case for a worst case analysis.
Second, there must be credit available. There are two competing interests here. The lender needs a high enough interest rate to compensate for the extra risk, or he will not be willing to loan the money, and the borrower needs a high enough loan amount to cover the purchase price with a low enough monthly payment to be able to afford it. Note that the borrower doesn't really care what the final purchase price is, as long as the monthly payments continue to remain affordable. Problems arise when the desired interest rate drives the monthly payments too high. The naive solution is to force the banks to loan at the lower interest rate, which we already know is not an efficient solution.
So, we need a way to lower the monthly payment, while keeping the purchase price and interest rates at high enough levels to satisfy the suppliers. There's a technical economic term for this amazing solution: the down payment.
Now, you might think that I already knew the answer, and purposely built up to it for dramatic effect. Actually, I didn't know the answer until I wrote the first sentence of the previous paragraph, and it probably surprised me more than it surprised you. I thought I was going to come up with an ingenious idea that would revolutionize the industry, and instead I reinvented an idea that is so old we have forgotten why it exists.
However, it makes perfect sense. Not only do down payments reduce the monthly payment, they also prove you can afford a certain amount of extra expense, thus reducing the risk, and they also provide instant equity in the home, which reduces the risk if you need to move or refinance. What was the biggest thing missing during this subprime mortgage crisis? Significant down payments. It turns out they're good for something after all. Could we still have had a housing bubble and the associated spate of foreclosures? Sure, but the impact would have been much less severe.
So what should we encourage the government to do to prevent another mortgage crisis in the next generation of homebuyers? End this risky and inefficient regulation, and let the market set the prices, but encourage them to focus more on down payments than on gimmicks and high interest rates. I think mortgage companies could really benefit by offering some sort of down payment savings accounts which automatically qualified them for a mortgage after a certain term. We need to get away from this culture that everyone is entitled to get what they want right now.
Government could also do a lot to encourage saving for mortgage down payments. Not taxing our savings would be a start. Not taxing business investment in general, so the bank could pay higher interest rates, would be ideal. The fair tax would accomplish both those goals. I keep finding more reasons to like it.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Neighbor or Samaritan?
Even after Romney dropped out of the race, but with the possibility rising of him being the vice-presidential nominee, I continue to see comments that evangelicals have a "religious duty" to oppose him to keep his faith from being "legitimized." I ask you, are you treating Romney like your neighbor, or like a Samaritan?
During Christ's ministry, Samaritans were despised by the Jews, like Mormons are despised by some Christians today. Do you honestly think Jesus would encourage His followers to actively thwart a Samaritan's secular aspirations?
If so, that doesn't comport with the evangelicals I have come to call friends. As is custom with young men in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I served a mission for two years. During that time, I had many evangelicals welcome me into their home, feed me, pray with me, read the scriptures with me, and talk with me. They saw it as their duty to convert me, just as I saw it as my duty to convert them. Their opposition to my religion never carried over into opposition to me personally. In fact, quite the opposite occurred. They at least treated me as a neighbor, if not a friend.
I recently moved to the deep South and continue to have evangelical friends. Would they actively support my political campaign if there were an evangelical in the race? Probably not, but I see that more as supporting their religion rather than repudiating my own, which I can respect. Would they stand up for me once their guy was out of the race, assuming our political beliefs matched? I'd like to think so.
So next time you feel it's your religious duty to speak out against an LDS candidate, apply your famous WWJD test and ask if you can imagine Jesus saying the same thing about a Samaritan.
During Christ's ministry, Samaritans were despised by the Jews, like Mormons are despised by some Christians today. Do you honestly think Jesus would encourage His followers to actively thwart a Samaritan's secular aspirations?
If so, that doesn't comport with the evangelicals I have come to call friends. As is custom with young men in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I served a mission for two years. During that time, I had many evangelicals welcome me into their home, feed me, pray with me, read the scriptures with me, and talk with me. They saw it as their duty to convert me, just as I saw it as my duty to convert them. Their opposition to my religion never carried over into opposition to me personally. In fact, quite the opposite occurred. They at least treated me as a neighbor, if not a friend.
I recently moved to the deep South and continue to have evangelical friends. Would they actively support my political campaign if there were an evangelical in the race? Probably not, but I see that more as supporting their religion rather than repudiating my own, which I can respect. Would they stand up for me once their guy was out of the race, assuming our political beliefs matched? I'd like to think so.
So next time you feel it's your religious duty to speak out against an LDS candidate, apply your famous WWJD test and ask if you can imagine Jesus saying the same thing about a Samaritan.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Make Viewing the Super Bowl at Church Legal
The following is a letter I wrote to my senators in response to Senator Specter introducing a bill to make it legal for churches to show the Super Bowl live.
I respect copyright and patent law, and depend on it for my own work. I respect the desire of the NFL for others not to profit from their labors. However, I was shocked to discover that you can legally get together to watch the big game in a sports bar, but not in a church. To me, that's a clear violation of both the freedom of religion and the freedom to peaceably assemble.
I know this doesn't seem like the most urgent issue facing our nation, but to me the defense of liberty is always important. As Edmund Burke said in his Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, "[T]he true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts." Please join me in supporting this restoration of our freedom by writing to your senators.
Honorable Senators,
I'm writing to ask your support of S. 2591, which allows churches to provide public viewings of professional football events. Public viewings of free public broadcasts actually serve to increase revenue to professional sports franchises, and placing draconian restrictions on the types of establishments and sizes of television screens does absolutely nothing to promote the progress of useful arts, as was the original constitutional intent for copyright law.
I would like to see the legislation extended to cover all non-profits and all free public broadcasts. It troubles me that this issue has been approached by creating the largest restriction possible, then narrowly carving out exceptions to that restriction. In these great United States of America, we should instead begin with the most personal liberty possible, and if necessary carve out narrow exceptions to that liberty.
I respect copyright and patent law, and depend on it for my own work. I respect the desire of the NFL for others not to profit from their labors. However, I was shocked to discover that you can legally get together to watch the big game in a sports bar, but not in a church. To me, that's a clear violation of both the freedom of religion and the freedom to peaceably assemble.
I know this doesn't seem like the most urgent issue facing our nation, but to me the defense of liberty is always important. As Edmund Burke said in his Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, "[T]he true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts." Please join me in supporting this restoration of our freedom by writing to your senators.
Honorable Senators,
I'm writing to ask your support of S. 2591, which allows churches to provide public viewings of professional football events. Public viewings of free public broadcasts actually serve to increase revenue to professional sports franchises, and placing draconian restrictions on the types of establishments and sizes of television screens does absolutely nothing to promote the progress of useful arts, as was the original constitutional intent for copyright law.
I would like to see the legislation extended to cover all non-profits and all free public broadcasts. It troubles me that this issue has been approached by creating the largest restriction possible, then narrowly carving out exceptions to that restriction. In these great United States of America, we should instead begin with the most personal liberty possible, and if necessary carve out narrow exceptions to that liberty.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Putting Pollsters' Money Where Their Mouth Is
I just came across a site that combines two of my favorite interests: politics and the stock market. It's called intrade.com, and it lets you make or lose money based on whether your predictions on politics and other events are correct. I'd heard of it before, but never taken a look at it until today. They claim that it is a more accurate predictor of elections than polls or pundits, and apparently have historical data to back that up.
However, intrade is in a moral and legal grey area. You should consult with a lawyer and tax professional before participating. On the moral side, unlike gambling, intrade provides a valuable service to people outside the transaction. Pollsters like Zogby, Rasmussen, and Reuters get paid a lot of money for what they do, producing arguably less accurate results than intrade, and no one questions their business on moral grounds.
You could look at placing an intrade order as making an investment in your business of providing predictions to the media and political campaigns, and competing with other businesses to provide the same service, with the people who do the best job at providing the service making the best return on their investment.
On the other hand, unlike a business, the people receiving the service are not the ones paying for it. Like gambling, there is a certain element of chance involved, and there is a winner and loser in every transaction, whereas in business, both sides usually get something they want. While intrade itself describes the transactions as contracts, the easiest way to describe them in layman's terms are as bets.
Therefore, on moral religious grounds, I will not personally be participating, even though I think I could do a good job at it. However, that does not diminish the predictive value of the service, so I will be keeping a close eye on the results it provides. In order that you might be able to do the same, I'll explain a little how to interpret the results.
The most common type of contract they list is a 0-100. The way it works is a little complicated, but basically it turns out that the value of the contract is approximately the percent probability that a certain event will happen. For example, the contract for John McCain winning the Republican nomination was at 95 the last time I checked, indicating a 95% probability that he will win the nomination.
What I like about intrade is that it responds instantaneously to changes in circumstances, compared to polls where it takes them 3-4 days to make the calls and publish the results. For example, John McCain's numbers instantly went up and Mitt Romney's instantly went down after Romney's withdrawal speech yesterday.
Those results are obvious, but other more interesting questions are also updated almost instantly. How did the announcement affect Republicans' chance of winning the general election? How much of Romney's support will move to Huckabee? Does the announcement help Clinton or Obama gain the Democratic nomination, because one of them might be perceived as better able to beat McCain than Romney? These are all questions that take a while to answer with polls. I also like that historical data is easier to come by. I'm interested to go back and look at how things like Hillary's crying before New Hampshire were reflected.
The important thing to remember is that it is measuring only people's perceptions of what will happen, and that is always skewed by personal biases and available information. However, that is a pretty good indicator in politics, as political success itself is often based on perception more than substance.
Edit: I found a site that lets you do the same thing for the fun of competition rather than money. You'll find me there as kbielefe.
However, intrade is in a moral and legal grey area. You should consult with a lawyer and tax professional before participating. On the moral side, unlike gambling, intrade provides a valuable service to people outside the transaction. Pollsters like Zogby, Rasmussen, and Reuters get paid a lot of money for what they do, producing arguably less accurate results than intrade, and no one questions their business on moral grounds.
You could look at placing an intrade order as making an investment in your business of providing predictions to the media and political campaigns, and competing with other businesses to provide the same service, with the people who do the best job at providing the service making the best return on their investment.
On the other hand, unlike a business, the people receiving the service are not the ones paying for it. Like gambling, there is a certain element of chance involved, and there is a winner and loser in every transaction, whereas in business, both sides usually get something they want. While intrade itself describes the transactions as contracts, the easiest way to describe them in layman's terms are as bets.
Therefore, on moral religious grounds, I will not personally be participating, even though I think I could do a good job at it. However, that does not diminish the predictive value of the service, so I will be keeping a close eye on the results it provides. In order that you might be able to do the same, I'll explain a little how to interpret the results.
The most common type of contract they list is a 0-100. The way it works is a little complicated, but basically it turns out that the value of the contract is approximately the percent probability that a certain event will happen. For example, the contract for John McCain winning the Republican nomination was at 95 the last time I checked, indicating a 95% probability that he will win the nomination.
What I like about intrade is that it responds instantaneously to changes in circumstances, compared to polls where it takes them 3-4 days to make the calls and publish the results. For example, John McCain's numbers instantly went up and Mitt Romney's instantly went down after Romney's withdrawal speech yesterday.
Those results are obvious, but other more interesting questions are also updated almost instantly. How did the announcement affect Republicans' chance of winning the general election? How much of Romney's support will move to Huckabee? Does the announcement help Clinton or Obama gain the Democratic nomination, because one of them might be perceived as better able to beat McCain than Romney? These are all questions that take a while to answer with polls. I also like that historical data is easier to come by. I'm interested to go back and look at how things like Hillary's crying before New Hampshire were reflected.
The important thing to remember is that it is measuring only people's perceptions of what will happen, and that is always skewed by personal biases and available information. However, that is a pretty good indicator in politics, as political success itself is often based on perception more than substance.
Edit: I found a site that lets you do the same thing for the fun of competition rather than money. You'll find me there as kbielefe.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Romney Withdraws, Can I Support McCain?
It's official. Conservatives lost the 2008 presidential election. In one of the two best speeches of any candidate in this campaign (his "Faith In America" address was the other one), Mitt Romney dropped out of the race at the CPAC conference this afternoon. We are now down to my fourth choice: John McCain. My second and third choices have been out of the race for a while.
I'm disappointed, to say the least. However, although there are definitely areas where I disagree strongly with Senator McCain, other people have covered those extensively. I followed Senator McCain's record very closely when I lived in Arizona, and always tried to see the reasoning behind his policies. If a vote didn't seem to make sense, I would look up his floor debate, check his press releases, and if I still didn't have an answer I would write or call his office. I'd like to discuss what I think would be the strengths of his presidency, and how that can benefit the country, the Republican party, and even the conservative wing of the party, which is apparently now in the minority.
Senator McCain gets things done in Congress. He tackles real issues, and when he sponsors a bill, it gets attention, it gets debate, it gets media coverage, and it gets an up or down vote. Obama and Clinton have barely managed to name a few post offices, and that's not an exaggeration.
Senator McCain often votes the wrong way for the right reason. For example, his Bush tax cut vote was largely based on insufficient attention to defense spending in that budget. This was pre-9/11 when national defense was not a priority for either party. He also consistently argues against pork and wasteful spending, of which there was plenty in that budget. He didn't argue for a reduction in the total amount of the cuts, as some people claim, but instead wanted the cuts distributed more to the middle class.
While I disagree with that sort of class warfare rhetoric, at least he wasn't arguing that the rich shouldn't receive any tax cuts, just a slightly smaller cut. He probably agreed with 90% of that bill, but because he knew it would pass without his vote, he could safely vote against it to protest the 10% he didn't agree with.
Imagine if in 2001 you could see forward in time to the present day, where our biggest economic concerns were not caused by the rich not having enough money to invest in jobs, but by the poor and middle class not having enough money to pay their mortgages, which is having a "trickle-up" effect on the rest of the economy. Knowing that, where would you direct the bulk of the tax cuts?
Other votes for which McCain is often criticized as being too liberal are on social issues. He strongly believes that most of those issues should be left for the states to decide, and frequently votes accordingly. In those cases, McCain is actually acting more conservative than most of his Republican colleagues.
Admittedly, there are social issues with which I disagree with McCain, stem cell research being the most notable. However, social conservatism is the area in which Republicans in Congress excel. Congress also has more influence on that arena than the President, and social issues have never been McCain's pet projects anyway.
Cutting wasteful spending and pork is where Senator McCain excels and Congressional Republicans are weak, and the veto power wields a lot of influence in that area. Also, being in the minority has suddenly reminded Congress that they used to be fiscal conservatives. They both excel at national defense conservatism. Since they need good cooperation in order to get anything accomplished, which is something McCain is much better at than Bush, I think that will have the net effect of moving the entire party more conservative, with the added benefit that there will be concrete accomplishments to back it up.
Make that one of the three best speeches of the campaign. The McCain campaign just sent me an email of his CPAC address, and it is right up there with Romney's speeches. I wanted to go to CPAC, but didn't, and now I'm always going to regret it. Everything else I was going to say is covered in that speech, so I'll leave it there for now.
I'm disappointed, to say the least. However, although there are definitely areas where I disagree strongly with Senator McCain, other people have covered those extensively. I followed Senator McCain's record very closely when I lived in Arizona, and always tried to see the reasoning behind his policies. If a vote didn't seem to make sense, I would look up his floor debate, check his press releases, and if I still didn't have an answer I would write or call his office. I'd like to discuss what I think would be the strengths of his presidency, and how that can benefit the country, the Republican party, and even the conservative wing of the party, which is apparently now in the minority.
Senator McCain gets things done in Congress. He tackles real issues, and when he sponsors a bill, it gets attention, it gets debate, it gets media coverage, and it gets an up or down vote. Obama and Clinton have barely managed to name a few post offices, and that's not an exaggeration.
Senator McCain often votes the wrong way for the right reason. For example, his Bush tax cut vote was largely based on insufficient attention to defense spending in that budget. This was pre-9/11 when national defense was not a priority for either party. He also consistently argues against pork and wasteful spending, of which there was plenty in that budget. He didn't argue for a reduction in the total amount of the cuts, as some people claim, but instead wanted the cuts distributed more to the middle class.
While I disagree with that sort of class warfare rhetoric, at least he wasn't arguing that the rich shouldn't receive any tax cuts, just a slightly smaller cut. He probably agreed with 90% of that bill, but because he knew it would pass without his vote, he could safely vote against it to protest the 10% he didn't agree with.
Imagine if in 2001 you could see forward in time to the present day, where our biggest economic concerns were not caused by the rich not having enough money to invest in jobs, but by the poor and middle class not having enough money to pay their mortgages, which is having a "trickle-up" effect on the rest of the economy. Knowing that, where would you direct the bulk of the tax cuts?
Other votes for which McCain is often criticized as being too liberal are on social issues. He strongly believes that most of those issues should be left for the states to decide, and frequently votes accordingly. In those cases, McCain is actually acting more conservative than most of his Republican colleagues.
Admittedly, there are social issues with which I disagree with McCain, stem cell research being the most notable. However, social conservatism is the area in which Republicans in Congress excel. Congress also has more influence on that arena than the President, and social issues have never been McCain's pet projects anyway.
Cutting wasteful spending and pork is where Senator McCain excels and Congressional Republicans are weak, and the veto power wields a lot of influence in that area. Also, being in the minority has suddenly reminded Congress that they used to be fiscal conservatives. They both excel at national defense conservatism. Since they need good cooperation in order to get anything accomplished, which is something McCain is much better at than Bush, I think that will have the net effect of moving the entire party more conservative, with the added benefit that there will be concrete accomplishments to back it up.
Make that one of the three best speeches of the campaign. The McCain campaign just sent me an email of his CPAC address, and it is right up there with Romney's speeches. I wanted to go to CPAC, but didn't, and now I'm always going to regret it. Everything else I was going to say is covered in that speech, so I'll leave it there for now.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
What's up with the economy, and what caused it?
The economy is actually easier to understand than most people realize. The trick is to not try to comprehend the big picture until all the small pictures are in place. I'm going to try to break it down for you.
The housing market is bad, and it's dragging down the rest of the economy. That's the usual extent of what you hear from the mainstream media. When they say the housing market is bad, they don't mean it's bad for everyone. If you're in the market to buy a house, now is a great time. If you want to refinance your house, and you have good credit and enough equity, now is a great time. If you bought your house a long time ago, and want to move, it's not the best time, but not the worst time either.
So who is the housing market bad for? People who bought a house in the last few years and are trying to sell or refinance it, and the people who lent them money in the first place.
So what happened? Liberal politicians decided that everyone is entitled to be a homeowner. They saw people with bad credit being denied mortgages. They saw a disproportionate number of minorities being denied mortgages because a disproportionate number of minorities happen to have bad credit. They decided that bad credit is something people have little to no control over, even though poor people can have great credit if they keep their financial commitments and pay their bills on time. They concluded that the rich elite are discriminating against minorities and the poor to deny them their rights, and that something must be done.
However, mortgage lenders were not doing anything wrong, they were just worried about getting a good return on their investment. The government couldn't punish lenders or force them to lend money to people with bad credit, so they provided incentives and applied pressure.
All of a sudden a lot more people had financing to buy houses. This caused housing prices to go up. Think of it like an auction. If a lot of people are bidding on an item, the winner ends up paying more than if no one else wants it.
The prices went up a lot faster than people's wages. Instead of waiting for prices to come back down or their wages to go up (which they would have; I'll get to that), people took out riskier mortgages they could barely afford, in order to get want they wanted sooner. Lenders ignored the risk in the name of greed. They also didn't want to be accused of being discriminatory, and they knew if borrowers got denied, the lender down the street would probably approve them.
Many of the borrowers could only afford the house they wanted on adjustable rate mortgages, which are easier to qualify for, because they reduce risk for the lender and pass it on to the borrower instead. That means they pay a low introductory rate, then their payments usually go up after a few years. The problem was that people couldn't afford the higher payments when they adjusted.
In the mean time, all the new home buyers were done buying houses, so the demand for housing went back down to more normal levels. This caused the prices to drop down to more normal levels. That's what they refer to as the housing bubble popping.
There are three usual options when someone can't afford their mortgage anymore: refinance, sell, or foreclose. The problem with refinancing and selling was that the values had gone down, so they couldn't refinance or sell at a high enough price to pay off their current mortgage. That leaves foreclosure.
When you foreclose a house, the lender has to sell it in order to get any money. All of a sudden, you have a lot of extra houses on the market, which drives the price down even further. This made it even more difficult for people to sell or refinance, which caused more foreclosures, in a vicious cycle. Foreclosures more than doubled in just one year.
People with that much trouble with their houses do not spend money on other things, which is why the entire economy was affected negatively.
Some politicians want you to believe that lenders intentionally set innocent borrowers up in order to steal their houses for cheap. They know that's not true, but they're hoping you don't. Let me show you why.
Suppose you bought a house for $150,000. At 7%, over the course of the loan, you pay $209,263 in interest. If you default after 3 years, the mortgage company would have to sell the house for $323,000 in order to make the same money as they would if you kept the mortgage. They have to sell it for about $120,000 just plain to break even, and prices often dropped below that when the bubble popped. They are minimizing their losses, not making money, when they foreclose on a home.
That's why lenders have a big incentive to work with borrowers to help them stay in their homes and keep paying interest. In fact, last year there were 380,000 homeowners that lenders were fully justified in foreclosing on, but that they instead worked with so they could keep their homes. This was completely voluntary and without the government needing to intervene at all. That's the dirty little secret the democrats don't want you to know. They want you to be angry at the evil oppressive mortgage corporations cheating you out of your money and stealing your homes, so that you will vote them into office to protect and save you.
Next time: How do the political parties think they can help, and will it actually help?
The housing market is bad, and it's dragging down the rest of the economy. That's the usual extent of what you hear from the mainstream media. When they say the housing market is bad, they don't mean it's bad for everyone. If you're in the market to buy a house, now is a great time. If you want to refinance your house, and you have good credit and enough equity, now is a great time. If you bought your house a long time ago, and want to move, it's not the best time, but not the worst time either.
So who is the housing market bad for? People who bought a house in the last few years and are trying to sell or refinance it, and the people who lent them money in the first place.
So what happened? Liberal politicians decided that everyone is entitled to be a homeowner. They saw people with bad credit being denied mortgages. They saw a disproportionate number of minorities being denied mortgages because a disproportionate number of minorities happen to have bad credit. They decided that bad credit is something people have little to no control over, even though poor people can have great credit if they keep their financial commitments and pay their bills on time. They concluded that the rich elite are discriminating against minorities and the poor to deny them their rights, and that something must be done.
However, mortgage lenders were not doing anything wrong, they were just worried about getting a good return on their investment. The government couldn't punish lenders or force them to lend money to people with bad credit, so they provided incentives and applied pressure.
All of a sudden a lot more people had financing to buy houses. This caused housing prices to go up. Think of it like an auction. If a lot of people are bidding on an item, the winner ends up paying more than if no one else wants it.
The prices went up a lot faster than people's wages. Instead of waiting for prices to come back down or their wages to go up (which they would have; I'll get to that), people took out riskier mortgages they could barely afford, in order to get want they wanted sooner. Lenders ignored the risk in the name of greed. They also didn't want to be accused of being discriminatory, and they knew if borrowers got denied, the lender down the street would probably approve them.
Many of the borrowers could only afford the house they wanted on adjustable rate mortgages, which are easier to qualify for, because they reduce risk for the lender and pass it on to the borrower instead. That means they pay a low introductory rate, then their payments usually go up after a few years. The problem was that people couldn't afford the higher payments when they adjusted.
In the mean time, all the new home buyers were done buying houses, so the demand for housing went back down to more normal levels. This caused the prices to drop down to more normal levels. That's what they refer to as the housing bubble popping.
There are three usual options when someone can't afford their mortgage anymore: refinance, sell, or foreclose. The problem with refinancing and selling was that the values had gone down, so they couldn't refinance or sell at a high enough price to pay off their current mortgage. That leaves foreclosure.
When you foreclose a house, the lender has to sell it in order to get any money. All of a sudden, you have a lot of extra houses on the market, which drives the price down even further. This made it even more difficult for people to sell or refinance, which caused more foreclosures, in a vicious cycle. Foreclosures more than doubled in just one year.
People with that much trouble with their houses do not spend money on other things, which is why the entire economy was affected negatively.
Some politicians want you to believe that lenders intentionally set innocent borrowers up in order to steal their houses for cheap. They know that's not true, but they're hoping you don't. Let me show you why.
Suppose you bought a house for $150,000. At 7%, over the course of the loan, you pay $209,263 in interest. If you default after 3 years, the mortgage company would have to sell the house for $323,000 in order to make the same money as they would if you kept the mortgage. They have to sell it for about $120,000 just plain to break even, and prices often dropped below that when the bubble popped. They are minimizing their losses, not making money, when they foreclose on a home.
That's why lenders have a big incentive to work with borrowers to help them stay in their homes and keep paying interest. In fact, last year there were 380,000 homeowners that lenders were fully justified in foreclosing on, but that they instead worked with so they could keep their homes. This was completely voluntary and without the government needing to intervene at all. That's the dirty little secret the democrats don't want you to know. They want you to be angry at the evil oppressive mortgage corporations cheating you out of your money and stealing your homes, so that you will vote them into office to protect and save you.
Next time: How do the political parties think they can help, and will it actually help?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Super Tuesday
Well, Super Tuesday is coming up next week. I've been mostly silent about this election up until now, but I know quite a few people in Alabama, Arizona, and Utah, and I would like to tell you how I think you should vote. No, I don't presume to say whom you should vote for, just what factors I think ought to be considered, and which ones ought to be left out of the decision.
First of all, I don't know many democrats, but please don't make it a question of whether America is more racist or sexist. Frankly, both Obama and Clinton are mediocre senators with almost identical positions and paltry records. You already voted off the candidate with the best resume (bonus points if you know who that was). You're obviously just looking for a candidate with the intangible quality of leadership.
I don't mean to imply that intangible qualities are bad criteria for selecting a president, although it is nice if they have a record to back it up. Leadership is one of the most important factors in my own decision, and I'll tell you why. Think back to the 2000 presidential election. What was the most important factor in that election? Trick question. The answer is obviously the ability to handle the 2001 terrorist attacks and the associated national security and economic problems. I don't remember what people thought was most important at the time, but whatever it was now pales in comparison.
What will be the next president's biggest challenge? We don't know, and don't believe any pundit who thinks they do. The ability to lead no matter what challenges come along is critical. How do I define political leadership?
Enough said about leadership. Now on to some other considerations.
Vote according to your own religion, not the candidate's. Don't vote for or against a candidate because he belongs to a certain religion. However, you should think about your own religious convictions, and whether the way a candidate will govern will support those convictions. Sometimes a candidate with a different religion will actually uphold your religious values better than someone from your own religion.
Look at their records, but be realistic and put them in context. Campaign ads are the worst for taking things out of context. A vote that on the surface appears to be pro-abortion or illegal immigration, may actually have been cast for states' rights or anti-pork reasons, or simply because there was a better bill in the works to accomplish the same thing. If something appears inconsistent, call the candidate's office and demand an explanation. Do your research. Chances are if you have a question, they've already answered that question to other people. Go back to the local newspapers at the time the decision was made, or better yet, look up the debate in the government record. National news, columnists, and campaign commercials are not good sources.
What I look for in a record is if the candidate showed leadership or just consistently made safe votes. I look to see if they actually proposed bold initiatives, or if they were all talk. I look to see the amount of support they were able to command for their ideas. I look for areas where they could have easily made a difference in a cause they claim to uphold, but didn't. In election years, where presidential candidates rarely make it to votes in Congress, I look at which votes were important enough for them to make an effort to attend. For a governor, I focus more on the areas he clearly has responsibility for, rather than areas he shares responsibility with the legislature.
Learn economics. If you're like me, you had a few weeks of economics instruction in high school, and spent a semester in college with 1000 other students in a lecture hall. I had to supplement that with reading Adam Smith and others before I felt qualified to vote on the issue. If you don't know how taxes, interest rates, housing, welfare, trade, oil prices, wars, the stock market, and other factors affect and reflect the economy, find out. If you don't know the pros and cons of different potential solutions related to those factors, find out. Statistics show a huge disparity between the way people perceive the economy, and the way it actually is. Politicians take advantage of that ignorance. The best solution is education.
Ignore polls. Don't vote for someone because you think he has momentum, or because the polls of the day say he's the only one who can win the general election. There's a lot of time before November, and any one of the candidates can do the job.
Clarify your positions, and pick a candidate who closely matches your positions. You can ignore a president's personality, but not his policies.
Character matters. If you think that a president's personal life doesn't affect the ability to do his job, you're wrong. First of all, private indiscretion can lead to public compromise. Imagine if Monica Lewinsky had wanted something only a president could give, before the story broke.
Second, the presidency is a political job. Some of the political power comes by virtue of the office, but not all of it. Like it or not, political opponents can and do use problems in a president's personal life as excuses to ignore his public policies. What did Bill Clinton accomplish after his impeachment? There is no doubt that his personal failings severely crippled his political power. Arguing about whether that was fair makes little difference. A president that remains beyond reproach personally will retain more power politically.
Now that I've explained my selection process, I'm ready to tell you who I'll be supporting. I'm hesitant to do so, because I prefer for people to make up their own minds, without being unduly influenced by other people's opinions. I'll give you the same caution about my own opinion that I give for everyone else's. Verify the facts, and honestly evaluate the opinions.
If I were a democrat, I would support Barack Obama. I wrote to him well before he announced his candidacy, and told him if we absolutely had to have a democrat president, I would want it to be him. The reason is that he exemplifies leadership as I described it above more than any other democratic candidate. That's really not saying much, as his record stinks, but it is what it is.
I'll be voting for Mitt Romney. Ironically, as a Mormon myself, that actually made me more reluctant to support him at first. I didn't want my personal feelings to overshadow my judgment. Being from Arizona, I remember what a disaster Evan Mecham was, even though I was very young. I recently did some research to complement my general feelings about Governor Mecham with some facts. Harry Reid is another good counterexample that made me wary.
That being said, knowing Romney's religious beliefs made it easier for me to trust him on social issues. I know even if he once held a pro-choice political position, that he would never make that choice for his own family. His record as governor shows that when it came down to actually implementing policy, he never felt strongly enough about choice to do anything to advance that agenda. In fact, he did a lot to prevent the pro-choice agenda from advancing, earning recognition from pro-life advocacy groups. Yes, that's not as good as actively advancing a pro-life agenda, but in a state as liberal as Massachusetts, I think it was a significant accomplishment.
Romney is a man with good character and strong family values. I talked earlier about why I think that's important in a president.
I like that Romney is not a career politician. He's been successful in business and with the olympics, and if his political career ended today, he wouldn't be devastated at the loss of his identity. I think this makes him more likely to resist the corrupting influence of political power.
Romney has definitely proven himself as a leader. I don't care who you are, getting elected as governor and actually getting useful things done with the liberal legislature in Massachusetts is no small feat. We need a president who can do the same thing with the democratic majority in Congress. His olympics experience is another great example of turning around a failing system.
Romney is a Washington outsider. He's been criticized for pouring so much of his own money into the campaign, but who is more susceptible to corruption, the man who uses his own money or the one who uses other people's money? I like the idea of a president who starts out owing no one in Washington any favors.
I won't talk about the weaknesses of the other candidates. Other people have covered that topic to death. However, I would like to point out that there are also many things to be excited about with the other candidates. Their presidency would definitely be different than Romney's, but I won't despair if Romney doesn't get the nomination.
First of all, I don't know many democrats, but please don't make it a question of whether America is more racist or sexist. Frankly, both Obama and Clinton are mediocre senators with almost identical positions and paltry records. You already voted off the candidate with the best resume (bonus points if you know who that was). You're obviously just looking for a candidate with the intangible quality of leadership.
I don't mean to imply that intangible qualities are bad criteria for selecting a president, although it is nice if they have a record to back it up. Leadership is one of the most important factors in my own decision, and I'll tell you why. Think back to the 2000 presidential election. What was the most important factor in that election? Trick question. The answer is obviously the ability to handle the 2001 terrorist attacks and the associated national security and economic problems. I don't remember what people thought was most important at the time, but whatever it was now pales in comparison.
What will be the next president's biggest challenge? We don't know, and don't believe any pundit who thinks they do. The ability to lead no matter what challenges come along is critical. How do I define political leadership?
- Optimistic. A leader sees every challenge as able to be overcome, and doesn't see problems where problems don't exist.
- Realistic. On the other hand, a good leader knows his limits. He doesn't promise things he can't deliver. He realizes that keeping policies from getting worse under heavy opposition is a greater accomplishment than advancing his agenda under heavy support.
- Able to work with both sides. "We're more bipartisan than you," is a popular message these days. I want a leader who has proven they can work with the other party to get great things accomplished, not just lament the great things they could do if the other side saw things their way.
- Not afraid to take unpopular positions. Followers do what's popular. Leaders figure out what is best for the country, and find a way to make that course of action popular.
- Vision. A leader is able to chart a clear course to somewhere maybe only he can see, without being deterred by short-term setbacks.
- Dependable. A leader doesn't shift positions without a really convincing shift in circumstances. A change in popular opinion doesn't count. On the other hand, going from representing a state or district to representing the entire country usually necessitates at least a shift of policy, if not position. Otherwise, you're not recognizing the limits of federal government, states' rights, and the simple fact that you're representing a different group of people.
- Thinks outside the box. A good leader comes up with ways to do things people thought couldn't be done.
- Doesn't seek glory. Leaders who are constantly worried about looking better than everyone else do not make good decisions. Good leaders share credit and give praise where praise is due.
- Puts principles above politics. I want a leader who will not compromise his principles for political expediency.
- Inspiring. People should feel inspired when they hear a good leader speak.
- Not a people-pleaser. I don't mean a leader shouldn't be charismatic. I mean he should worry more about what is best for the country than what other people or countries think of him.
Enough said about leadership. Now on to some other considerations.
Vote according to your own religion, not the candidate's. Don't vote for or against a candidate because he belongs to a certain religion. However, you should think about your own religious convictions, and whether the way a candidate will govern will support those convictions. Sometimes a candidate with a different religion will actually uphold your religious values better than someone from your own religion.
Look at their records, but be realistic and put them in context. Campaign ads are the worst for taking things out of context. A vote that on the surface appears to be pro-abortion or illegal immigration, may actually have been cast for states' rights or anti-pork reasons, or simply because there was a better bill in the works to accomplish the same thing. If something appears inconsistent, call the candidate's office and demand an explanation. Do your research. Chances are if you have a question, they've already answered that question to other people. Go back to the local newspapers at the time the decision was made, or better yet, look up the debate in the government record. National news, columnists, and campaign commercials are not good sources.
What I look for in a record is if the candidate showed leadership or just consistently made safe votes. I look to see if they actually proposed bold initiatives, or if they were all talk. I look to see the amount of support they were able to command for their ideas. I look for areas where they could have easily made a difference in a cause they claim to uphold, but didn't. In election years, where presidential candidates rarely make it to votes in Congress, I look at which votes were important enough for them to make an effort to attend. For a governor, I focus more on the areas he clearly has responsibility for, rather than areas he shares responsibility with the legislature.
Learn economics. If you're like me, you had a few weeks of economics instruction in high school, and spent a semester in college with 1000 other students in a lecture hall. I had to supplement that with reading Adam Smith and others before I felt qualified to vote on the issue. If you don't know how taxes, interest rates, housing, welfare, trade, oil prices, wars, the stock market, and other factors affect and reflect the economy, find out. If you don't know the pros and cons of different potential solutions related to those factors, find out. Statistics show a huge disparity between the way people perceive the economy, and the way it actually is. Politicians take advantage of that ignorance. The best solution is education.
Ignore polls. Don't vote for someone because you think he has momentum, or because the polls of the day say he's the only one who can win the general election. There's a lot of time before November, and any one of the candidates can do the job.
Clarify your positions, and pick a candidate who closely matches your positions. You can ignore a president's personality, but not his policies.
Character matters. If you think that a president's personal life doesn't affect the ability to do his job, you're wrong. First of all, private indiscretion can lead to public compromise. Imagine if Monica Lewinsky had wanted something only a president could give, before the story broke.
Second, the presidency is a political job. Some of the political power comes by virtue of the office, but not all of it. Like it or not, political opponents can and do use problems in a president's personal life as excuses to ignore his public policies. What did Bill Clinton accomplish after his impeachment? There is no doubt that his personal failings severely crippled his political power. Arguing about whether that was fair makes little difference. A president that remains beyond reproach personally will retain more power politically.
Now that I've explained my selection process, I'm ready to tell you who I'll be supporting. I'm hesitant to do so, because I prefer for people to make up their own minds, without being unduly influenced by other people's opinions. I'll give you the same caution about my own opinion that I give for everyone else's. Verify the facts, and honestly evaluate the opinions.
If I were a democrat, I would support Barack Obama. I wrote to him well before he announced his candidacy, and told him if we absolutely had to have a democrat president, I would want it to be him. The reason is that he exemplifies leadership as I described it above more than any other democratic candidate. That's really not saying much, as his record stinks, but it is what it is.
I'll be voting for Mitt Romney. Ironically, as a Mormon myself, that actually made me more reluctant to support him at first. I didn't want my personal feelings to overshadow my judgment. Being from Arizona, I remember what a disaster Evan Mecham was, even though I was very young. I recently did some research to complement my general feelings about Governor Mecham with some facts. Harry Reid is another good counterexample that made me wary.
That being said, knowing Romney's religious beliefs made it easier for me to trust him on social issues. I know even if he once held a pro-choice political position, that he would never make that choice for his own family. His record as governor shows that when it came down to actually implementing policy, he never felt strongly enough about choice to do anything to advance that agenda. In fact, he did a lot to prevent the pro-choice agenda from advancing, earning recognition from pro-life advocacy groups. Yes, that's not as good as actively advancing a pro-life agenda, but in a state as liberal as Massachusetts, I think it was a significant accomplishment.
Romney is a man with good character and strong family values. I talked earlier about why I think that's important in a president.
I like that Romney is not a career politician. He's been successful in business and with the olympics, and if his political career ended today, he wouldn't be devastated at the loss of his identity. I think this makes him more likely to resist the corrupting influence of political power.
Romney has definitely proven himself as a leader. I don't care who you are, getting elected as governor and actually getting useful things done with the liberal legislature in Massachusetts is no small feat. We need a president who can do the same thing with the democratic majority in Congress. His olympics experience is another great example of turning around a failing system.
Romney is a Washington outsider. He's been criticized for pouring so much of his own money into the campaign, but who is more susceptible to corruption, the man who uses his own money or the one who uses other people's money? I like the idea of a president who starts out owing no one in Washington any favors.
I won't talk about the weaknesses of the other candidates. Other people have covered that topic to death. However, I would like to point out that there are also many things to be excited about with the other candidates. Their presidency would definitely be different than Romney's, but I won't despair if Romney doesn't get the nomination.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Benazir Bhutto
The death today of Benazir Bhutto makes me sad. I'm sad because I saw greatness in her, and greatness has become a rare commodity these days.
I'm sad because most Americans didn't know of her greatness. I'm sad that so many here place high value on low accomplishments and low value on high accomplishments. I'm sad that some see our lack of having had a woman Head of State as a problem with our country rather than a problem with the candidates. I'm sad that her death will be used for political purposes she wouldn't necessarily approve of.
I'm sad because Bhutto seemed to be a rare politician who put the cause above her own interests. I'm sad to have lost such a great ally in the fight for democracy against terrorism.
I'm glad that I didn't have to ask, "Who is that?" when I turned on the news this morning, but I'm sad that I don't know more about this great leader. I checked out her autobiography, "Daughter of Destiny," from the library today, and very much look forward to reading it.
I'm sad because most Americans didn't know of her greatness. I'm sad that so many here place high value on low accomplishments and low value on high accomplishments. I'm sad that some see our lack of having had a woman Head of State as a problem with our country rather than a problem with the candidates. I'm sad that her death will be used for political purposes she wouldn't necessarily approve of.
I'm sad because Bhutto seemed to be a rare politician who put the cause above her own interests. I'm sad to have lost such a great ally in the fight for democracy against terrorism.
I'm glad that I didn't have to ask, "Who is that?" when I turned on the news this morning, but I'm sad that I don't know more about this great leader. I checked out her autobiography, "Daughter of Destiny," from the library today, and very much look forward to reading it.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Three Things That Irked Me Today
The Democrats' response to three things really irked me today: the National Intelligence Estimate about Iran, the subprime mortgage industry, and the credit card industry.
I'll address the last two first. When someone gives you money to buy something you want, and you agree to their terms, then later decide you don't like the terms, you are not a victim, except of your own poor judgment. I'm tired of Democrats treating everyone from presidential candidates on down as victims. When did feeling like a victim become a desirable thing?
Next, the national intelligence estimate. If you haven't heard, it said that Iran had a nuclear weapons program which it halted in 2003. Democrats immediately seized upon this information as proof that Iran is not dangerous, and that Bush's foreign policy is a failure. The exact opposite is true.
First of all, Iran has not stopped their uranium enrichment efforts, they've only started claiming it is for civilian energy purposes only and stopped activities that have creating a bomb as their only plausible purpose. It's like a teenager stockpiling eggs on Halloween, but telling his parents he just wants to cook a big breakfast in the morning. Not only that, but his parents know he stopped working on an egg launcher after his friend got caught trying to build one. It's possible his intentions are completely benign, but not very likely.
Next, about Bush's foreign policy. Don't you think it's too much of a coincidence that Iran happened to halt their nuclear weapons program the exact same year the United States invaded Iraq, Iran's next door neighbor, thinking Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Iran is not going to resume that program until they know they are fairly safe from military repercussions.
But don't worry, the Democrats plan to give Iran a stern talking to if they win the White House, and they promise not to act militarily on any of the intelligence they receive that suggests their diplomacy isn't working. The intelligence is probably faulty, after all, and we have to protect our troops so they don't become victims.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
D.C. vs. Heller
My regular readers (if I have any) know that I get excited by big Supreme Court cases. You may have heard that the Supreme Court has decided to hear a second amendment case. Major news outlets see it as their job to tell you this is happening. Columnists, talk show hosts, and presidential candidates see it as their job to give you their opinions about it. I had a forceful opinion all ready to give, then decided there was more than enough opinion to go around, and that a better use of my column today was to point you to resources where you can educate yourself about the case.
Part of the reason for taking this approach is that I read the circuit court opinion and could think of absolutely nothing to add. It draws heavily fromUnited States vs. Miller, which was the last second amendment case heard by the Supreme Court, 68 years ago.
I won't reiterate the details in those documents, but if you get bogged down in the legalese at the start, realize that courts have a bunch of things they have to establish before they get down to arguing the actual meat of a case. The good stuff starts on page 12.
I told you I wouldn't give my opinion about the subject of the case, but I want to give some predictions about the case itself.
I predict a 5-4 decision to strike down the D.C. handgun ban. This is evident because they had 30 years to hear a case, but only chose to do so after the balance of the court shifted conservative.
The democratic nominee for president will be hurt in the polls by something they say about the decision. They have been quick to denounce every single move made by this court as radical departures from decades of precedent, but on this issue, they have so far remained silent, indicating they don't know how to respond.
D.C. will institute a new crime initiative, so that the resulting drop in the murder rate can be attributed to the new program they put in place, which will be "effective despite the dangerous increase in guns resulting from the Supreme Court's radical swing to the right."
Part of the reason for taking this approach is that I read the circuit court opinion and could think of absolutely nothing to add. It draws heavily fromUnited States vs. Miller, which was the last second amendment case heard by the Supreme Court, 68 years ago.
I won't reiterate the details in those documents, but if you get bogged down in the legalese at the start, realize that courts have a bunch of things they have to establish before they get down to arguing the actual meat of a case. The good stuff starts on page 12.
I told you I wouldn't give my opinion about the subject of the case, but I want to give some predictions about the case itself.
I predict a 5-4 decision to strike down the D.C. handgun ban. This is evident because they had 30 years to hear a case, but only chose to do so after the balance of the court shifted conservative.
The democratic nominee for president will be hurt in the polls by something they say about the decision. They have been quick to denounce every single move made by this court as radical departures from decades of precedent, but on this issue, they have so far remained silent, indicating they don't know how to respond.
D.C. will institute a new crime initiative, so that the resulting drop in the murder rate can be attributed to the new program they put in place, which will be "effective despite the dangerous increase in guns resulting from the Supreme Court's radical swing to the right."
Monday, November 19, 2007
Abortion and Federalism
Letter sent to local talk show host in response to a show about the role of federal and state government in abortion:
I consider myself to be very conservative, and I can name one, and only one, role the federal government should have with regard to abortion: preventing the contravention of state abortion laws by crossing state lines.
If Alabama has a parental notification law and Tennessee doesn't when my daughter is old enough to get into that situation (God forbid), I don't want an abortion provider to be able to avoid notifying me by something as simple as a half hour drive across state lines.
Unfortunately, the average citizen tends to view us as one big united state, rather than 50 separate, but united, states.
There's a good reason for that. The states have largely abdicated their power. Your pet topic, immigration, is just one example of that. What do you hear over and over from state and local officials about immigration? "It's a federal problem." Disaster relief? "It's a federal problem." Health care? "It's a federal problem." Education? "Local problem, but we want federal money."
Ask most people what guarantees their right to bear arms, and they will answer, "The second amendment." Section 26 of the Alabama Constitution should be just as important.
People need to crack a history book once in a while. Our founding fathers were so wary of a strong central government that they went too far the other way, producing the ineffective Articles of Confederation. They never could have imagined a day when the only stand states are taking against the federal government is on the Real ID act.
Give me easily counterfeitable driver's licenses, or give me death.
I consider myself to be very conservative, and I can name one, and only one, role the federal government should have with regard to abortion: preventing the contravention of state abortion laws by crossing state lines.
If Alabama has a parental notification law and Tennessee doesn't when my daughter is old enough to get into that situation (God forbid), I don't want an abortion provider to be able to avoid notifying me by something as simple as a half hour drive across state lines.
Unfortunately, the average citizen tends to view us as one big united state, rather than 50 separate, but united, states.
There's a good reason for that. The states have largely abdicated their power. Your pet topic, immigration, is just one example of that. What do you hear over and over from state and local officials about immigration? "It's a federal problem." Disaster relief? "It's a federal problem." Health care? "It's a federal problem." Education? "Local problem, but we want federal money."
Ask most people what guarantees their right to bear arms, and they will answer, "The second amendment." Section 26 of the Alabama Constitution should be just as important.
People need to crack a history book once in a while. Our founding fathers were so wary of a strong central government that they went too far the other way, producing the ineffective Articles of Confederation. They never could have imagined a day when the only stand states are taking against the federal government is on the Real ID act.
Give me easily counterfeitable driver's licenses, or give me death.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Dear Pakistani People
Dear Pakistani People,
There are some terrorists we don't like who are living in your country. Could you please kill or capture them for us? We'll help if you want. Don't worry, we got your back as long as you get them all before the opinion polls change again.
Even better, if you meet anyone from Al Qaeda, can you invite them to come to the new embassy we built for them in Washington D.C.? There is no military solution to this war, so we must rely on diplomacy, but that's difficult when none of Al Qaeda's diplomats have shown up yet.
Of course, since you're our friends, we don't have to bother with diplomacy, because it's much quicker if we just invade if you don't do what we want. When we do, could you please point the terrorists out for us? We won't be able to find them all, otherwise.
It might make them a little mad when you snitch on them, but you'll have to worry about that because we only want to do narrowly targeted anti-terrorism missions. If we stop people in Pakistan from killing other people in Pakistan, that would be getting involved in a civil war, and frankly, I don't see how instability in a nuclear-armed state would be my problem.
I'm glad I took this opportunity to strengthen the ties between our two countries. I think it really helped to strengthen the international reputation of the United States that George Bush did so much to damage. I look forward to your continued friendship and support.
Sincerely,
President Obama
There are some terrorists we don't like who are living in your country. Could you please kill or capture them for us? We'll help if you want. Don't worry, we got your back as long as you get them all before the opinion polls change again.
Even better, if you meet anyone from Al Qaeda, can you invite them to come to the new embassy we built for them in Washington D.C.? There is no military solution to this war, so we must rely on diplomacy, but that's difficult when none of Al Qaeda's diplomats have shown up yet.
Of course, since you're our friends, we don't have to bother with diplomacy, because it's much quicker if we just invade if you don't do what we want. When we do, could you please point the terrorists out for us? We won't be able to find them all, otherwise.
It might make them a little mad when you snitch on them, but you'll have to worry about that because we only want to do narrowly targeted anti-terrorism missions. If we stop people in Pakistan from killing other people in Pakistan, that would be getting involved in a civil war, and frankly, I don't see how instability in a nuclear-armed state would be my problem.
I'm glad I took this opportunity to strengthen the ties between our two countries. I think it really helped to strengthen the international reputation of the United States that George Bush did so much to damage. I look forward to your continued friendship and support.
Sincerely,
President Obama
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
My Poll Test
In response to an article advocating voter-competency tests:
We used to have these sorts of voter requirements. They are called Jim Crow laws. I recently moved to Alabama, so I reviewed the state constitution to see how the government differed from Arizona, where I moved from. The voter education requirements we used to have seem like a great idea, until you realize they were enacted with the sole purpose of preventing black people from voting.
In addition, when you think about it, the ability read or write, pay a certain amount of taxes, or recite how many senators are from your state, has very little bearing on whether you are able to cast a good vote. What is vital is knowing what issues are important to you, knowing how the candidate stands on those issues, and knowing what the limit of their influence on those issues will be.
My poll test would be candidate and issue oriented. First, the voter would be required to list the top three issues that are important to them in this election. In order for their vote for a candidate to count, they should be able to answer simple questions about that candidate's position on those issues.
For example, if a voter lists abortion, Iraq, and immigration as their top three issues, some questions might be:
Congress recently debated a bill requiring parental notification for a minor to have an abortion. Which way do you think candidate X voted on that bill? a) require notification, or b) do not require notification
What is the maximum number of U.S. troops candidate X expects will remain in Iraq by the end of his first year in office? a) zero b) 20,000 c) 75,000 d) depends on conditions on the ground
Which of the following immigration bills do you think the incumbent governor supported? a) illegal aliens must pay out-of-state tuition, b) English as the official language, c) illegal aliens accused of felonies should be denied bail, d) all of the above, or e) none of the above
My poll test would be open book, with the question pool available beforehand. The important thing is not for voters to prove how smart they are, but to ensure they are voting for candidates who truly represent their views.
We used to have these sorts of voter requirements. They are called Jim Crow laws. I recently moved to Alabama, so I reviewed the state constitution to see how the government differed from Arizona, where I moved from. The voter education requirements we used to have seem like a great idea, until you realize they were enacted with the sole purpose of preventing black people from voting.
In addition, when you think about it, the ability read or write, pay a certain amount of taxes, or recite how many senators are from your state, has very little bearing on whether you are able to cast a good vote. What is vital is knowing what issues are important to you, knowing how the candidate stands on those issues, and knowing what the limit of their influence on those issues will be.
My poll test would be candidate and issue oriented. First, the voter would be required to list the top three issues that are important to them in this election. In order for their vote for a candidate to count, they should be able to answer simple questions about that candidate's position on those issues.
For example, if a voter lists abortion, Iraq, and immigration as their top three issues, some questions might be:
Congress recently debated a bill requiring parental notification for a minor to have an abortion. Which way do you think candidate X voted on that bill? a) require notification, or b) do not require notification
What is the maximum number of U.S. troops candidate X expects will remain in Iraq by the end of his first year in office? a) zero b) 20,000 c) 75,000 d) depends on conditions on the ground
Which of the following immigration bills do you think the incumbent governor supported? a) illegal aliens must pay out-of-state tuition, b) English as the official language, c) illegal aliens accused of felonies should be denied bail, d) all of the above, or e) none of the above
My poll test would be open book, with the question pool available beforehand. The important thing is not for voters to prove how smart they are, but to ensure they are voting for candidates who truly represent their views.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Letter to Mitt Romney On the CNN/YouTube Debate
Governor Romney,
I'm writing to encourage you to participate in the CNN/YouTube debate in September. I understand if you are hesitant — the Democratic debate was largely a joke. However, you have the uncanny ability, more than any candidate of either party, to turn a bad question into a great answer, so I think this is a format where you would shine.
One of President Bush's failings is a perception that he doesn't listen to the people. I cannot overstate the importance of this debate among the Internet generation in helping us feel heard. For us, the Internet is more than just trying to get our 15 minutes of fame. It is the modern day equivalent of the town square, where we go not only to express ourselves, but to listen and interact and discuss. The Internet is how we feel connected to the world.
To put things in perspective, I read every single blog entry and press release of the major candidates (5 brothers is great, by the way). Debates are important enough to me that I even watched the state superintendent debate last year. However, the Democratic CNN/YouTube debate was the first presidential debate I watched this year, because it was the first one that felt like it might address my own concerns, even though I hadn't personally submitted a question.
Not only that, my wife, who always finds something else to do when news or politics is on TV, and who didn't even recognize any candidate other than Hillary Clinton, sat down to watch and discuss the debate with me.
I strongly encourage you to embrace the opportunity for this new form of debate.
Sincerely,
Karl Bielefeldt
I'm writing to encourage you to participate in the CNN/YouTube debate in September. I understand if you are hesitant — the Democratic debate was largely a joke. However, you have the uncanny ability, more than any candidate of either party, to turn a bad question into a great answer, so I think this is a format where you would shine.
One of President Bush's failings is a perception that he doesn't listen to the people. I cannot overstate the importance of this debate among the Internet generation in helping us feel heard. For us, the Internet is more than just trying to get our 15 minutes of fame. It is the modern day equivalent of the town square, where we go not only to express ourselves, but to listen and interact and discuss. The Internet is how we feel connected to the world.
To put things in perspective, I read every single blog entry and press release of the major candidates (5 brothers is great, by the way). Debates are important enough to me that I even watched the state superintendent debate last year. However, the Democratic CNN/YouTube debate was the first presidential debate I watched this year, because it was the first one that felt like it might address my own concerns, even though I hadn't personally submitted a question.
Not only that, my wife, who always finds something else to do when news or politics is on TV, and who didn't even recognize any candidate other than Hillary Clinton, sat down to watch and discuss the debate with me.
I strongly encourage you to embrace the opportunity for this new form of debate.
Sincerely,
Karl Bielefeldt
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Proverbial Nail
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The only tools government has are laws, taxes, and bureaucracy. They either have to use those tools, or choose not to try to solve the problem.
Conservatives know that the government choosing not to solve a problem doesn't necessarily mean the problem won't get solved. Consider how you might advise a friend whose family all has strep throat. He makes enough money to adequately support his family, but they don't have health insurance coverage.
I'll bet none of you answered that there's nothing he can do until the federal government creates universal health insurance. He could work out a payment plan with a doctor, go to a free clinic, put it on a credit card, get health insurance through a state program, get a job that provides health insurance, ask family for help, ask his church for help, or simply get lots of fluid, rest, and OTC medicine and only figure out how see a doctor if that doesn't work.
I pose that example because I remember being in very similar situations more than a few times as a child. Yet, if you listen to the socialist democrats, you'd think I'd be dead by now. If people didn't manage to get through, as my parents did, I'm sure democrats would be trotting out examples of kids who wouldn't be orphans if only their parents had health insurance.
So why does government grow, even with conservatives in power? Because currently the ultimate insult for them is to be called a "do nothing" Congress. They receive enormous pressure to "do something," so they do it with the only tools they have. And once they do something, it is very hard to undo.
The current government is a perfect example of what happens when there is immense pressure to do something. Do something about Iraq, we get sleepovers. Do something about illegal immigration, we get the amnesty bill. Do something about education, we get No Child Left Behind. Do something about corrupt politicians, we get McCain-Feingold. Do something about intelligence failures, we get DHS. Do something about prescription costs, we get part D.
Most people agree those solutions have serious flaws, but try to repeal them outright and there will be a huge outcry that Congress doesn't care about children, corruption, terrorism, and seniors, even though we would just be returning things to where they were a few years ago. The only politically feasible course of action is to propose another big government program to replace the flawed one, and hope it doesn't actually make things worse.
If you want it to change, we need to make "do nothing" into a badge of honor.
Conservatives know that the government choosing not to solve a problem doesn't necessarily mean the problem won't get solved. Consider how you might advise a friend whose family all has strep throat. He makes enough money to adequately support his family, but they don't have health insurance coverage.
I'll bet none of you answered that there's nothing he can do until the federal government creates universal health insurance. He could work out a payment plan with a doctor, go to a free clinic, put it on a credit card, get health insurance through a state program, get a job that provides health insurance, ask family for help, ask his church for help, or simply get lots of fluid, rest, and OTC medicine and only figure out how see a doctor if that doesn't work.
I pose that example because I remember being in very similar situations more than a few times as a child. Yet, if you listen to the socialist democrats, you'd think I'd be dead by now. If people didn't manage to get through, as my parents did, I'm sure democrats would be trotting out examples of kids who wouldn't be orphans if only their parents had health insurance.
So why does government grow, even with conservatives in power? Because currently the ultimate insult for them is to be called a "do nothing" Congress. They receive enormous pressure to "do something," so they do it with the only tools they have. And once they do something, it is very hard to undo.
The current government is a perfect example of what happens when there is immense pressure to do something. Do something about Iraq, we get sleepovers. Do something about illegal immigration, we get the amnesty bill. Do something about education, we get No Child Left Behind. Do something about corrupt politicians, we get McCain-Feingold. Do something about intelligence failures, we get DHS. Do something about prescription costs, we get part D.
Most people agree those solutions have serious flaws, but try to repeal them outright and there will be a huge outcry that Congress doesn't care about children, corruption, terrorism, and seniors, even though we would just be returning things to where they were a few years ago. The only politically feasible course of action is to propose another big government program to replace the flawed one, and hope it doesn't actually make things worse.
If you want it to change, we need to make "do nothing" into a badge of honor.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Democrats Accidentally Help in Iraq?
Maybe it's pure coincidence, but exactly one week after President Bush released the interim benchmark report on Iraq, together with all the partisan bickering that went along with it, two major blocs in the Iraqi parliament that were hindering political progress suddenly decided to end their boycott, according to the article at http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1945E804-745D-4A92-8C70-3C0D24219DF6.htm.
So despite their best efforts to show that progress in Iraq is not possible, congressional democrats may have accidentally helped encourage that progress by demanding accountability. There is still a lot of work to do, but these groups coming back to the table is a huge prerequisite met, and I'm excited to see what becomes of it in the next few months.
If the Iraqi Parliament does manage to pass some major legislation because of bickering in the U.S. Congress, it will make Joint Chiefs Chairman General Pace seem prescient when he said earlier this week, "But the strength of the U.S. government is its ability to hear all voices and then act. Our enemies don’t understand that. They don’t understand democracy at all. They hear the dialogue in our country and assume it to be weakness. We hear the dialogue and understand it is the strength of our democracy. Over time, it gets us to the right place."
I think it's interesting that good news like this always seems to come from Al Jazeera first, then maybe a day later Fox News will pick it up, and it usually doesn't even get mentioned on CNN or anywhere else.
So despite their best efforts to show that progress in Iraq is not possible, congressional democrats may have accidentally helped encourage that progress by demanding accountability. There is still a lot of work to do, but these groups coming back to the table is a huge prerequisite met, and I'm excited to see what becomes of it in the next few months.
If the Iraqi Parliament does manage to pass some major legislation because of bickering in the U.S. Congress, it will make Joint Chiefs Chairman General Pace seem prescient when he said earlier this week, "But the strength of the U.S. government is its ability to hear all voices and then act. Our enemies don’t understand that. They don’t understand democracy at all. They hear the dialogue in our country and assume it to be weakness. We hear the dialogue and understand it is the strength of our democracy. Over time, it gets us to the right place."
I think it's interesting that good news like this always seems to come from Al Jazeera first, then maybe a day later Fox News will pick it up, and it usually doesn't even get mentioned on CNN or anywhere else.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
History Repeating Itself
Scientists have discovered how long it takes for history to repeat itself. Actually just one scientist — me. My wife says I'm not really a scientist because my degree is in computer engineering. I counter that anyone who has passed quantum physics as part of a Bachelor of Science degree has earned the right to call himself a scientist if he so chooses.
Part of that degree was an honors class in political science. With only seven students in the class and a ten page paper due every two weeks, I actually had to pay attention, and though I don't draw from that knowledge to make a living, I consider it invaluable in my side job as a good citizen. Some people say political science isn't really a science, but it embodies all the analytical aspects of science, although designing experiments is prohibitively expensive.
My credentials hopefully having been established, I have determined that we are currently experiencing a temporal cycle of about 32 years. I expected it to be longer. After all, there are still some members of Congress who were in Congress back then, who I thought should have learned from past mistakes.
The 2004 election, like the 1972 election, pitted the president of an unpopular war against a strongly anti-war candidate. In both cases, the anti-war candidate lost. Many parallels have been drawn between Vietnam and Iraq, but no one on either side seems to be contemplating some of the parallels between the aftermath.
No, I'm not referring to the genocide that occurs from a premature withdrawal. That's an important point, but has been covered many times by many people. I'm talking about the aftermath to our foreign and energy policies that started with the 1976 election. Most conservatives are currently busy attacking President Clinton's policies that allowed 9/11 to happen, probably because his wife is running for president on his coattails. Instead, they should be attacking Jimmy Carter, because we are about to repeat the 1976 election, not 1992.
My wife and I rented the movie "Miracle" earlier this week. It tells the story of the 1980 U.S. Hockey team, but portrays a lot about the political environment of the late 70's, in order to show how the game was "more than just a game."
My wife was shocked by some of the events, which she didn't know about because she was only two years old at the time, and they probably spent about 10 minutes on it in her public school history classes. I repeatedly paused the movie to answer her questions about the historical background behind scenes of the movie. The average citizen has already forgotten that lesson of history.
People were so afraid of repeating Vietnam that they went completely the other way. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the current regime in Iran were all made possible by Carter's foreign policies, the policies that democrats want to resurrect in 2008.
After 32 years, Vietnam has finally started to make progress on democracy and human rights. It took 32 years to fix the damage caused by withdrawing too soon. On the other hand, we are just now having to deal with the problems of Al Qaeda and the Taliban that started 32 years ago. What problems is our lack of resolve causing that will surface 32 years from now? The logical progression is a nuclear 9/11, but don't forget domestic problems such as insolvent social security, health care problems, and skyrocketing energy costs which are already foreseeable.
I say we learn from our past, avoid repeating the 1976 election, and go straight to repeating the 1980 election. Don't make me pull this article out in 32 years and say, "I told you so."
Part of that degree was an honors class in political science. With only seven students in the class and a ten page paper due every two weeks, I actually had to pay attention, and though I don't draw from that knowledge to make a living, I consider it invaluable in my side job as a good citizen. Some people say political science isn't really a science, but it embodies all the analytical aspects of science, although designing experiments is prohibitively expensive.
My credentials hopefully having been established, I have determined that we are currently experiencing a temporal cycle of about 32 years. I expected it to be longer. After all, there are still some members of Congress who were in Congress back then, who I thought should have learned from past mistakes.
The 2004 election, like the 1972 election, pitted the president of an unpopular war against a strongly anti-war candidate. In both cases, the anti-war candidate lost. Many parallels have been drawn between Vietnam and Iraq, but no one on either side seems to be contemplating some of the parallels between the aftermath.
No, I'm not referring to the genocide that occurs from a premature withdrawal. That's an important point, but has been covered many times by many people. I'm talking about the aftermath to our foreign and energy policies that started with the 1976 election. Most conservatives are currently busy attacking President Clinton's policies that allowed 9/11 to happen, probably because his wife is running for president on his coattails. Instead, they should be attacking Jimmy Carter, because we are about to repeat the 1976 election, not 1992.
My wife and I rented the movie "Miracle" earlier this week. It tells the story of the 1980 U.S. Hockey team, but portrays a lot about the political environment of the late 70's, in order to show how the game was "more than just a game."
My wife was shocked by some of the events, which she didn't know about because she was only two years old at the time, and they probably spent about 10 minutes on it in her public school history classes. I repeatedly paused the movie to answer her questions about the historical background behind scenes of the movie. The average citizen has already forgotten that lesson of history.
People were so afraid of repeating Vietnam that they went completely the other way. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the current regime in Iran were all made possible by Carter's foreign policies, the policies that democrats want to resurrect in 2008.
After 32 years, Vietnam has finally started to make progress on democracy and human rights. It took 32 years to fix the damage caused by withdrawing too soon. On the other hand, we are just now having to deal with the problems of Al Qaeda and the Taliban that started 32 years ago. What problems is our lack of resolve causing that will surface 32 years from now? The logical progression is a nuclear 9/11, but don't forget domestic problems such as insolvent social security, health care problems, and skyrocketing energy costs which are already foreseeable.
I say we learn from our past, avoid repeating the 1976 election, and go straight to repeating the 1980 election. Don't make me pull this article out in 32 years and say, "I told you so."
Friday, July 13, 2007
Worse Than Failure in Iraq
One of my favorite web sites is titled "Worse Than Failure." It details software projects that are so bad, it would have been better if they had never been made.
Democrats are proposing solutions to the Iraq war that are worse than failure. Contrary to popular belief, they do not want to pull every last U.S. soldier out of Iraq. That would merely be failure. What's worse than failure in this case?
Democrats want to leave some specialized units to conduct narrow, targeted attacks on Al Qaeda. While that sounds good on the surface, the people who are angry with us "occupying" will still be angry, and we will also lose the confidence of those who want us to be there, the people who have finally started trusting us enough to fight with us against Al Qaeda, the people who tell us where we can find Al Qaeda in order to conduct those targeted attacks that Democrats love.
I want to ask Democrats to put themselves in the shoes of the Iraqi people for once. Imagine being constantly threatened by a powerful, vicious group who beheads and even bakes the children of people who do not support them. Then imagine a group of soldiers wants you to snitch on them, but will not stick around to protect you when Al Qaeda retaliates. Al Qaeda has no compunction about collateral damage. They have decimated entire villages in retaliation, and every Iraqi citizen knows it.
The bottom line is targeted attacks don't work without general security. Political reconciliation doesn't work without general security. Economic growth doesn't work without general security. Reconstruction doesn't work without general security. Diplomacy doesn't work without general security. If we don't use our resources for general security, we may as well not be there at all.
Not only that, for the last few years we have been there only at the invitation of the Iraqi government, on their recommendation to the United Nations. They continue to invite us and tolerate our disruptive presence because there is a perception we are helping overall. If that perception changes by us making only half-hearted committments, we will be asked to leave altogether. We cannot expect their support when we are only there to advance our own interests, without regard to theirs. Iraq is our ally, not our colony.
Democrats know all this, so why are they advocating half measures that are worse than a full retreat? Because it's popular, and they want your vote.
They advocate phased withdrawal because it sounds better to voters, even though it isn't any better than a sudden withdrawal if there isn't stability to back it up. They advocate withdrawing most of the troops because it's popular. They advocate leaving a small force behind because voters want to keep fighting terrorism. They blame problems on the Iraqi government because they don't want to blame our troops. They debate bill after bill in Congress that will never become law, because they hope they'll score political points for trying. They say they will increase diplomacy, while neglecting to point out there is no incentive to bring Al Qaeda and Iran to the table.
If events in Europe are any indication, there will be a spectacular terrorist attack on American soil, or at least a big attempt, shortly after the new president takes office. When public opinion swings again, who knows what the Democrats will do? Will they retreat and appease even further, repeating the mistakes of the Carter administration? Will they continue in Bush's footsteps, accepting that fighting terrorism is difficult, but worth doing wholeheartedly? Or will they take some mediocre middle ground which is worse than failure?
Democrats are proposing solutions to the Iraq war that are worse than failure. Contrary to popular belief, they do not want to pull every last U.S. soldier out of Iraq. That would merely be failure. What's worse than failure in this case?
Democrats want to leave some specialized units to conduct narrow, targeted attacks on Al Qaeda. While that sounds good on the surface, the people who are angry with us "occupying" will still be angry, and we will also lose the confidence of those who want us to be there, the people who have finally started trusting us enough to fight with us against Al Qaeda, the people who tell us where we can find Al Qaeda in order to conduct those targeted attacks that Democrats love.
I want to ask Democrats to put themselves in the shoes of the Iraqi people for once. Imagine being constantly threatened by a powerful, vicious group who beheads and even bakes the children of people who do not support them. Then imagine a group of soldiers wants you to snitch on them, but will not stick around to protect you when Al Qaeda retaliates. Al Qaeda has no compunction about collateral damage. They have decimated entire villages in retaliation, and every Iraqi citizen knows it.
The bottom line is targeted attacks don't work without general security. Political reconciliation doesn't work without general security. Economic growth doesn't work without general security. Reconstruction doesn't work without general security. Diplomacy doesn't work without general security. If we don't use our resources for general security, we may as well not be there at all.
Not only that, for the last few years we have been there only at the invitation of the Iraqi government, on their recommendation to the United Nations. They continue to invite us and tolerate our disruptive presence because there is a perception we are helping overall. If that perception changes by us making only half-hearted committments, we will be asked to leave altogether. We cannot expect their support when we are only there to advance our own interests, without regard to theirs. Iraq is our ally, not our colony.
Democrats know all this, so why are they advocating half measures that are worse than a full retreat? Because it's popular, and they want your vote.
They advocate phased withdrawal because it sounds better to voters, even though it isn't any better than a sudden withdrawal if there isn't stability to back it up. They advocate withdrawing most of the troops because it's popular. They advocate leaving a small force behind because voters want to keep fighting terrorism. They blame problems on the Iraqi government because they don't want to blame our troops. They debate bill after bill in Congress that will never become law, because they hope they'll score political points for trying. They say they will increase diplomacy, while neglecting to point out there is no incentive to bring Al Qaeda and Iran to the table.
If events in Europe are any indication, there will be a spectacular terrorist attack on American soil, or at least a big attempt, shortly after the new president takes office. When public opinion swings again, who knows what the Democrats will do? Will they retreat and appease even further, repeating the mistakes of the Carter administration? Will they continue in Bush's footsteps, accepting that fighting terrorism is difficult, but worth doing wholeheartedly? Or will they take some mediocre middle ground which is worse than failure?
Thursday, July 12, 2007
My Benchmarks for the U.S. Congress
Congress has made it clear that they think it's okay to withdraw support from a government if they fail to meet arbitrary benchmarks. Therefore, I have made my own list of benchmarks for the U.S. Congress to meet, or else I will recommend a phased redeployment of its members. The first seven are slightly modified versions of some of the benchmarks they set for the Iraqi Government.
i) Ensure that the rights of minority political parties in the legislature are protected.
ii) Ensure that U.S. political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF.
iii) Reduce the level of crime in the United States and eliminate National Guard control of local disasters.
iv) Ensure that the United States will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, including illegal immigrants, regardless of their political affiliation.
v) Provide U.S. commanders with all authorities to execute the War on Terror, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists.
vi) Establish supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the War on Terror.
vii) Provide funding for enough U.S. troops to support Baghdad and other anti-terrorism operations.
viii) Eliminate all earmarks.
ix) Ensure I will have a fair return on my social security investment when I retire in 2040.
x) Reduce our dependence on foreign oil, without causing energy prices to skyrocket, or supplies to become inadequate.
xi) Reduce health care costs without reducing its quality.
xii) Eliminate all laws and programs that are more appropriate at the state level.
xiii) Eliminate all government services that could be handled by the private sector.
xiv) Prevent all illegal crossings into the country.
xv) Pass a constitutional amendment that requires after two terms, for all federal officeholders to be subject to a separate ballot well before the primary election. This ballot will have a yes or no question on whether they will be eligible for re-election. This allows us to keep the good representatives, but makes it easier to get rid of the bad ones, greatly reducing corruption and increasing accountability to the electorate.
xvi) Keep taxes low.
xvii) Keep inflation low.
xviii) Encourage free international trade.
Don't feel bad, Iraqi Parliament. 8 of 18 isn't bad compared to 0 of 18.
i) Ensure that the rights of minority political parties in the legislature are protected.
ii) Ensure that U.S. political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF.
iii) Reduce the level of crime in the United States and eliminate National Guard control of local disasters.
iv) Ensure that the United States will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, including illegal immigrants, regardless of their political affiliation.
v) Provide U.S. commanders with all authorities to execute the War on Terror, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists.
vi) Establish supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the War on Terror.
vii) Provide funding for enough U.S. troops to support Baghdad and other anti-terrorism operations.
viii) Eliminate all earmarks.
ix) Ensure I will have a fair return on my social security investment when I retire in 2040.
x) Reduce our dependence on foreign oil, without causing energy prices to skyrocket, or supplies to become inadequate.
xi) Reduce health care costs without reducing its quality.
xii) Eliminate all laws and programs that are more appropriate at the state level.
xiii) Eliminate all government services that could be handled by the private sector.
xiv) Prevent all illegal crossings into the country.
xv) Pass a constitutional amendment that requires after two terms, for all federal officeholders to be subject to a separate ballot well before the primary election. This ballot will have a yes or no question on whether they will be eligible for re-election. This allows us to keep the good representatives, but makes it easier to get rid of the bad ones, greatly reducing corruption and increasing accountability to the electorate.
xvi) Keep taxes low.
xvii) Keep inflation low.
xviii) Encourage free international trade.
Don't feel bad, Iraqi Parliament. 8 of 18 isn't bad compared to 0 of 18.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)