View From The Fruited Plains

More on Climate change

2012-01-28T11:52:00.001-08:00

Journalist Don Surber relayed yet another climategate email from the East Anglia gang, demonstrating not just the weakness of the man-made climate change science but also reinforces what those who believe in Natural causing climate change have been saying for years. A leader in the man-made climate change, Phil Jones noted, “I have been looking at some long temperature records from Fennoscandia, particularly those put together during the IMPROVE project. This involved Anders Moberg in Stockholm and Hans Bergstrom in Uppsala. Summer temperatures for both these series which extend back to 1756 and about 1740 show warmer conditions than today during many summers from 1750 to 1850.” Translation for those who might miss the significance, Jones is admitting that there were times in the past that our weather pattern were warmer than today. Let me repeat, warmer than today and guess what as Don Surber noted, “Hmm. Doesn’t seem perplexing to me. It was warmer 250 years ago and yet somehow mankind survived.”

Over the past year, I have engaged in debates with believers in man-made climate change and the biggest thing over the past three years that has occurred was climategate or the release of emails showing the weakness of science and how much of what we are being told proved to be questionable science or simply wrong. The emails shows along with subsequent interviews by these same researcher that even these scientists knew that their science was weak but it didn’t stop them from pushing their agenda or do what they can to torpedo those who question their science. The reality is that when a group of scientists states that their science is questionable, then it must be questionable and yet the Kool-Aid drinkers continue to accept the theory that climate change is strictly man-made and not even think that maybe, just maybe that natural events are significant factors today as they have proven to be in the past.

As mention in previous columns, most climatologist has to admit that climate has been both warmer and cooler in the past thousand years. The believers in Natural causes of climate changes have been more right, leaving the question, why are we still listening or for that matter even funding many of these believer in man-made climate change researchers, who have been more wrong than right?

Steven Hayward of American Enterprise Institute noted the result of a recent study in Nature, “This is merely the latest in a series of recent climate modeling studies that conclude that the standard “consensus” forecast of the amount of warming to be expected by a doubling of carbon dioxide has been dramatically overestimated. Which is just about par for the course with most environmental scares. As more studies like this dribble out from the scientific community, eventually we’ll reach the proverbial “tipping point” beloved of so many climate alarmists—only it won’t tip the way they think.” The study that Hayward referenced was a study done by the Canadian version of the EPA and concluded that much of the changes in climate has been exaggerated and again, closer to what most in the Natural causing climate changes camp have predicated.

As I have mention in previous columns, the complete faith in man-made climate change has paralyzed our energy policy as we continue to fund non-economic feasible green energy while strengthening crony capitalism in the energy field. The recent Keystone is an example of this process. The real reason that Obama administration refuse to allow Keystone pipeline is due to Obama’s environmentalist allies hating the use of oil whether it is from Saudi Arabia or Canada. On top of this, it turns out that Warren Buffet personally profits as his investment in train transportation of North Dakota oil increases since it eliminates Keystone competition.

Keystone pipeline is one of those no-brainer in which we collect our energy from our Northern neighbors as oppose to countries less friendly, like Venezuela. Then when you add the ready-made shovel jobs associated with the project, you would think that this would be easy decision for any President. Except if you are believer in the world is going to end due to man-made caused climate change, and then it is no longer a no-brainer or if you are wealthy benefactor of the Obama campaign, then is a matter of making money from crony capitalism in the energy field. Bottom line, Don Surber and Steven Hayward pieces on the latest research merely reinforces that there is much to learn about climate change and yes, nature plays a significant role in perpetuating climate change. The only question is how much of role nature plays in climate change and exactly how nature causes climate change. Meanwhile environmentalist extremists along with crony capitalists have hijacked our energy policy!

Two Cheers for venture capitalists

2012-01-22T16:37:00.001-08:00

An economist friend of mine made the point that being called a vulture capitalist is not an insult but a compliment. He began his lecture, “What does a vulture do? They eat and clean the carcasses, thus reducing the chances of diseases spreading through nature.” After taking a sip of coffee, he then continued, “Look, what venture capitalists do is reallocate resources from dying or dead companies to those who still have a chance to survive. Yes, a venture capitalist may choose cut jobs in a company but if a particular company is in trouble, the venture capitalist will transfer resources from the least efficient part of a company to the more productive portion in an effort save the company.”

My friend then diagnose the problem with the Romney campaign when he noted, “If you want to know the weakness of Romney campaign, just look how he can’t defend what he does for a living. The best defense of his previous job has been done by others like the Wall Street Journal piece noting how Bain and other venture capitalist were part of the successes of the 1980’s. Romney is being propped up by his surrogates but he has to defend himself or else, he will lose.”

My friend concluded, “If someone called me a vulture capitalist, I would turn it on them. I will simply point out the importance of the vulture in nature by cleaning the carcass and keeping disease from destroying nature and other animals. The vulture capitalist allows the market to function and allow resources flow where they are needed. The final result is job creation.”

I must admit, I never thought of the vulture in that way but yes, he was right for the vulture does an important service in nature. The venture capitalist is essential to keeping capital flowing where it is needed the most. If the venture capitalist did not exist, many a dying companies will continue to suck capital and keeping needed capital from up and coming businesses. Bain and other companies allowed the United States to prosper and we are now witnessing what happens to an economy when businessmen are vilified and capital is being moved not to where it is needed but to where the politically connected can direct capital. This brings us the Mitt Romney. Romney has shown a reluctance to be bold since he is afraid due to his wealth; he would be criticized to be pimping for the rich. Romney is losing his grip on the Republican nomination simply because he is having problem in defending in what he did for a living. At a time when even some within the Republican ranks are deserting free market principles in attacking Bain and Romney; Romney has been hesitant or unwilling to do a major defense of his former job. This is also shown in his defense of his tax return.

Romney is presently paying a lower rate since he is living off his investment but throughout much of his life, he paid a higher rate so why should he be embarrassed by living off his investment for did he not spend an lifetime earning that rate? No one ever criticized John Kerry for being rich when he ran for the Presidency in 2004? There is one big difference between John Kerry and Mitt Romney, Kerry married into wealth and Romney actually earned his. But if Romney can’t defend being a vulture capitalist, then he won’t win and nor be deserving of being nominated.

More cheating from the left

2012-01-22T16:36:00.000-08:00

I noted in a recent piece that the Democrats campaign against voter ID was not about protecting minority rights but to make it easier for them to cheat and to produce an issue to increase turnout among Hispanic and African-Americans voters.

In Iowa, a Democratic operative got arrested in a stolen identity scheme against the Republican Secretary of State with the idea of trying to create a scandal to get Matt Schultz removed from office. This was not some isolated incident or some nutcase but a gentleman who worked for Link Strategies as the Director of New Media and Link Strategies is well connected to Democratic Iowa Senator Tom Harkin.

So why care about the Secretary of State job? The answer is simple, the Secretary of State verifies the state elections and after Schultz upset Democratic Michael Mauro in 2010, Democrats have been trying to find ways to get rid of Shultz. Iowa will be one of those battleground states and controlling the Secretary of State means the Party in charge could determine who wins a close election.

Consider the case of the Al Franken-Norm Coleman Senatorial election in 2008. Coleman was 725 votes ahead of Franken and this narrow margin triggered a recount with Minnesota. Journalist Matthew Vadum described as a long series of “appalling irregularities” benefitting Franken; irregularities that included number of ballots found in a an judge’s car, one Minnesota county “found” 100 votes due to “clerical error”, another county reported 133 fewer votes than voting machines tabulated and at least 393 convicted felons illegally voted. As Josef Stalin once noted, “I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how but what is extraordinarily important is this- who will count the votes and how.” The Democratic Secretary of State did his job in ensuring Franken won.

The effort to stop voter ID opens the door for massive voter fraud and let be blunt, it is not like the Obama administration will do much to stop any evidence of voter fraud. Nor will be any effort on part of the media to go looking for voter fraud.

The Left understands that this is the election that changes America and they have many victories to protect including government take over much of the auto industry, Dodd-Frank which gives government immense power over our financial markets and the essential government takeover of health care (Obamacare). For the left, the fear that much of what they have accomplished could be reverse; so they are preparing to do whatever it takes to win as the ends will justify the means for they view this as a battle to the death. As I noticed in my previous article, there have been more incidences of voter fraud reported or thought possible and Democratic efforts to win Secretary of State shows the left understand the mechanics of winning elections and they are serious in keeping their power.

The incidence in Iowa shows the desperation that many Democrats operative are showing and the real question that might be asked or should be asked; who ordered Zachery Lewis, the operative caught in the identity case, to move forward or did he really act on his own? My own gut instinct tells me that Lewis is part of a larger conspiracy to remove one Republican from a key state position, a position that could be difference on who wins the White House.

tax reforms

2011-12-31T20:16:00.001-08:00

Henry Hazlet in his classic book, Economics in One Easy Lesson, noted that key to understanding economics is not just look at who benefits today from an anticipated economic policy but the long run. It has been said that in the long run, we are all dead but it doesn’t mean that one can’t review policy as long term efforts.

Hazlet noted in that while one can’t ignore those effected today, it equally bad to ignore those that politicians can’t see being effected. There are winner and losers in many tax debates but the good news is that economic is not zero sum. Tax codes are often used as means to pick winner and losers as it is about raising revenues. Both Republicans and Democrats have used the tax codes to favor their constituents and any reforms of the tax codes does affect those constituents favored by the code and their politicians.

The good news is that there is a new paradigm when it comes to tax reforms with even Obama own deficit commission repudiating Obamanomics in favor of a liberal version of Reaganomics which explains why Obama doesn’t refer to his own commission for solutions. It is tough for those on the left when a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat led commission essentially states that the Obama war on the rich is stupid economics. There are times that good politics produces bad policies and Obama politics of envy is bad policy.

So the good news is that liberal Ron Wyden, conservative Paul Ryan, liberal Erskine Bowles and moderate Alan Simpson all agree on what makes for tax reform: lower marginal tax reforms plus the elimination or reduction of deductions. The commission also admitted that present federal spending is way too high and federal government spending should be capped, the basis for a compromise for entitlement reform is being formed.

The first goal of any tax reform is to increase incentives for investments and encourage more efficiency and the second goal is to raise revenues to provide the needed services (note the word, needed as oppose to want.) For the past four decades, tax revenues often averaged 18-20% of GNP and until the Obama administration, federal spending averaged around 20% of GNP but now Obama has managed to push spending to 25% and federal debt is now over 100%, something we had not seen since World War II.

The deficit commission recommends that spending should be capped at 21% whereas Paul Ryan goal is 18% but the good news is that there is consensus that federal spending should be capped and limited, and there is momentum toward entitlement reform. When Ron Wyden joined Paul Ryan to reform Medicare, it signal that there is a consensus to reforming the entitlements and with Republican nominees supporting the Wyden-Ryan reforms; it shows that in a Republican administration, reform can be done.

There are many different reform packages, each with different details including the Perry Plan which reduces marginal tax rates for both business and individual while making changes in the tax code. There will be no capital tax gain tax plus many common deductions are preserves for those under half a million. The Perry plan goal is to ensure that the majority of Americans see their common deductions maintained but he eliminates those deductions for those in the upper incomes. For the wealthy, they will lose deductions for state and local taxes as well as their mortgages exemption reduced or eliminated but capital gain tax and the death taxes eliminated. The Perry plan encourages the wealthy to invest in job creations and not in oversized homes. Gingrich plan is similar and both the Gingrich and the Perry plan highest tax rates are lower than those of the Ryan plan and the deficit plan. The deficit plan anticipate raise revenues higher than other plans as they eliminate more of the deductions than other plans. There is no doubt in the mind of the deficit commission plan that their plan will raise more revenues than the present or other proposed plans.

The Cain plan may have been the most imaginative since it encompasses a broader path to tax reform. Cain own goal is to switch to a strict national sales tax but his 9-9-9 plan does broaden the tax base as he incudes a sale tax to go with lower business and individual taxes. Cain plan may capture tax sources that others may miss within the underground economy or at least, it forces everyone to pay some taxes. Plus he adds a supermajority provision to raise taxes; making it more difficult to Congress to raise taxes, in particular the sales tax.

The national sale tax disadvantage is that even by its proponents, it will be at least 23% and while it eliminates income and other taxes, the average voter will see 23% increase on the purchase of goods. It is a case that the taxpayer may not appreciate the benefits of the no income tax if he or she is paying 23% increase in a new car.

Cain plan 9% sale tax is less than half of his national sale tax proposal and during the campaign, he did adjust his tax plan to help lower income voters to make it more palatable to voter and reduce the charge that his plan hurts the poor or lower income.

The grand compromise that is starting to simmer from the underground featuring the following, lowering the marginal tax rates in exchange for reduction or elimination of deductions thus broadening the tax base. Cain adds even a third step that broadens the tax base even further. On top of that, there are serious plans to reform entitlements and cap federal spending; an important supplement to tax reforms for tax reforms combined with capping federal spending will be important in preserving the American dream and the American economy.

The key to tax and entitlement reforms is to go beyond those who will lose under these plans and understand that greater number will benefit including many of today’s present who stand to lose the most under reform plans with future prosperity and opportunities.

Voter Fraud

2011-12-31T20:15:00.001-08:00

Why would the Obama Administration or the Justice Department be up in arms over the insistence that a voter have an id to prove that they are who they say are? The answer is simple and two fold. The first is that the left and a good portion of the Democratic Party understand the enormity of this election and want to be able to win at all cost, including cheating. The second is to heighten racial tension with the goal of increasing minority turnout with the theme; those evil Republicans want to deny your right to vote and are attempting voter suppression.

The facts and common sense says otherwise and with the increasing number of voter fraud cases popping up along with solid documentation by scholar Larry Sabato and writer John Fund to show that voter fraud being real, there is no question that the integrity of the ballot box is under assault. Nor are Republicans the only one concerns as many Democrats have realized that the sanctity of the ballot box is a necessity to ensure faith in the process and that every vote that counted is a legal vote.

An overwhelming Democratic majority in Rhode Island passed a voter ID law and as one Black legislator who supported the law noted, it was about doing the right thing. While the leadership of many minority organizations are fighting ID laws, there are enough black and Hispanics legislators who understand that the precincts most negatively affected by fraudulent ballots being counted are minority precincts. The first myth to put to rest is that this is a Republican plot but point out that there are many Democrats and liberals who understand that voting fraud denies not just legitimacy to the election process but devalue the vote of legal voters. The attempt by the left to turn this into a major human right crisis not only devalues the ballot box but undermine the democratic process itself.

The second myth is that voter ID will restrict voter turnout among minorities but the opposite has happen. Southern States like Georgia and Mississippi along with Midwestern States like Indiana have seen minority voter turnout both in real terms as well as percentage of the voter population increase significantly after Voter ID laws came into effect. The reason is for there were issues and candidates that led minorities to vote and in politics, issues and candidates are the driving point for voter turnout just as economic concerns led to an increase turnout among conservative and Tea Party voters in the 2010 midterm elections. Many minorities increase their voter turnout in 2008 as they proved decisive in Obama’s victory.

Many Americans support voter ID laws for two simple reasons. The first being that picture ID are required for many basic things from driving an automobile to buying cigarettes or going to movies. So requiring a picture ID for a voter ID is not any more discriminatory than being forced to have a picture ID to drive a car, plus the facts that minorities voter turnout has increased in states with voter ID’s. The second reason is that most Americans are familiar with voter fraud having a significant history as any native of Chicago knows; the dead often rose to vote Democratic in key elections.

The United States attorney estimated that nearly 100,000 votes cast in Chicago were fraudulent in the 1982 gubernatorial election. According to one report, 55 members of ACORN were convicted of registration fraud in 11 states as 400,000 voters registration of out of 1.3 million turned in by ACORN workers were rejected. Liberal justices John Paul Stevens wrote for a 2008 court decision upholding Indiana ID law, ”There is no question about legitimacy or importance of a state ‘s interest in counting only eligible voters.”

This past year, there have been investigations in ten states resulting in indictments and with all but one case involved Democrats. Which explains why the Democratic Party and much of the left have been fighting ID laws, they want to the ability to tilt the elections in their direction and that obviously include cheating.

I began this essay with the statement; that any political movement or groups who opposes Voter ID’s do so with the idea of wanting to cheat. I added that this gives the left one more opportunity to scare minorities by lying that Republicans want to deny them their right to vote. In a society where pictures ID are required to fly or buy booze among other things, the idea that insisting on a voter ID is any more racist than requiring a ID to buy booze or fly stretches the imagination and that is being charitable. To repeat one more time, to oppose voter ID is to favor illegal voters voting.

Keeping Paul in the Fold

2011-12-25T21:45:00.001-08:00

For Republicans, the time has come to realize that the ultimate goal is to win the White House and form an anti -Obama coalition around the idea of increased economic freedom. I am not a Ron Paul supporter but I know quite a few and their goals on economic ideas are not much different than the average Republican; free market works and interventionist government polices along with crony capitalism doesn’t. Paul has tapped into groups that in the past would not even consider any Republicans. Among the Ron Paul supporters I interviewed included a gay woman who is engaged; a mother of four who proudly told me that her two oldest sons are part of the Paul army and black entrepreneur. That is about a diverse a group as one can reach and the mother of four added that she even talked a 50 year old former John Edwards supporter into joining the liberty cause.

Long term Iowa observer David Yepsen noted, “This year's polls also show social conservatives caring more about jobs and the economy than about abortion and gay marriage. And, unlike in 2008, social conservatives are divided among several candidates. There's no Mike Huckabee to rally around, nor is there an Iowa political machine that strongly influences voters. Making a presidential choice is highly personal, and in Iowa especially, nobody will "deliver" anybody but themselves on caucus night.” Yepsen point is that economics matters with social conservatives as it does with Paul supporters.

There is a divide on foreign affairs with isolationist wing of the Republican enjoying a resurgence and even the more interventionist of the Republicans are less hesitant to engage in foreign adventurism and as Yepsen noted, “ No matter the outcome, Ron Paul's strength indicates a resurgence of the libertarian and isolationist wings of the Republican Party. Hard times and unpopular wars will do that.”

What can easily be seen is that there is a unifying theme that our economic policies are not working and most Americans view the country going in the wrong direction. The problem is that there are too many pots stirring their own ambition at the expense of liberty. Gary Johnson has taken his leave of the Republican Party to run for President as a Libertarian, Donald Trump has shown his true color as he shown self-promotion takes precedence over what is good for the country and now there is rumor about whether Ron Paul will stay in the Party or run as an independent.

The natural process in a political campaign is to go for juggler and in Paul’s case, his foreign policy and his old newsletter offers plenty of weapons but before going for the juggler, the Republicans might want to consider how best to deal with Paul, since his supporters are up for grab and potential member of a future conservative majority. The reason for many of Paul’s supporters’ allegiances is his dedication to a liberty agenda. Considering that many of Paul’s supporters come from the left and moved right, many of these are distrustful of Republicans and while the number of conservatives has grown, the number of voters calling themselves Republicans have not.

For Republicans, there is a way to disagree and there is not to disagree. It is about going after Obama and there is one thing that can said with certainty, the biggest social issue facing us is the size of government. If there was one issue that unites quite a few Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans, social conservatives is that the size of government matters and is now threatening our freedom. The Republican leadership might want to take in consideration, this is the most important election in a generation and failure is not an option. To lose will condemn this nation to second class status and the road to serfdom. Paul supporters are outside of mainstream conservatism but with the right approach and right agenda, we can appeal to enough of them to rebuild an economic free market conservative majority.

Havel

2011-12-25T21:44:00.002-08:00

The world lost one of its great leaders when Czech Republic leader Vaclav Havel died but after his death, a few on the left could not contain themselves. One leftist, Neil Clark, claimed, “Havel did not help make his country and the world a better place.” Clark goes on to note that Havel’s critique against the old regime did not account for previous communist regime accomplishment in the fields of employment, general welfare including women rights and education. In Clark’s mind, communism put the need of the people first. For Havel, who lived under the slavery of communism, this was nonsense, but Clark response shows what many on the left have descended to. It has descended to tolerance for totalitarian impulses if the cause is right.

In the beginning of the Obama Administration, Anita Dunn praised Mao and Mother Teresa in the same sentence and there was the Obama’s appointment of Van Jones, a self-admitted former communist and unrepentant Marxist demonstrating the intellectual rot that occupied the left on its intellectual decline. The fact that anyone still listens to Van Jones is enough of indictment as one pundit wrote that anyone who defends communism should be treated like anyone who defended Nazism, with contempt.

As for Havel himself, he was one of the true freedom fighters in Central Europe, a voice for freedom. Of freedom, he wrote, “I am in favor of a political system based on the citizen, and recognizing his entire fundamental civil and human rights in their universal validity, and equally applied. The sovereignty of the community, the region, the nation, the state–any higher sovereignty, in fact–makes sense only if it is derived from the one genuine sovereignty, that is, from human sovereignty, which finds its political expression in civic sovereignty.” This doesn’t mean he did not have his disagreement with his successor Vaclav Klaus on the how far free market reform should go when he noted, “Though my heart be left of centre, I have always known that the only economic system that works is a market economy, in which everything belongs to someone–which means that someone is responsible for everything. It is a system in which complete independence and plurality of economic entities exist within a legal framework, and its workings are guided chiefly by the laws of the marketplace. This is the only natural economy, the only kind that makes sense, the only one that can lead to prosperity, because it is the only one that reflects the nature of life itself/” Havel began his life as a playwright but he used his talent to resist one of the more repressive regimes in Central Europe and as President, he helped move the country to a democratic capitalistic state.

Today, the biggest threat to Europe is a soft authoritarian state run from Brussels over the entire continent as the welfare state implodes along with the Euro. For the European elites, the only way to save the Euro is to have a central authority to be able control the economic policies of some 27 nations within the Europe. Havel was the voice against the perfect totalitarian and now voices are required to fight the next battle for freedom including economic freedom.

Follow The Money

2011-12-25T21:44:00.000-08:00

(Steven Hayward of AEI noticed, climategate was the single event that changed the debate since the weakness of man-made climate change science was expose and studies like CERN showed the significant of natural causes. Global warming skeptics will be refer to those who support natural causing climate change due to recent development in climate science.)

Climate change debate is not about the science for it was; we would be promoting the abundance of oil, natural gas and coal that lie underneath our ground. The money aspect of the whole debate is often ignored. Climate change alarmist often decry that the opposition is funded by big Oil and other dirty polluters but if you are a climatologist and or in particular one who supports the Anthropogenic climate change theory ; it could be rather profitable. James Hansen, the godfather of the” world is going to end” received a quarter of million dollars in 2004 from the Heinz Foundation while he was endorsing and campaigning for Teresa Heinz’s husband, Senator John Kerry. Last year, he supplemented his income by a cool free quarter of millions of dollars.

Competitive Enterprise Institute Matt Patterson research showed that over the past five years, climatologists income increases doubled over other university professors; demonstrating that there are plenty of government and private foundation grants to go around. Most of the funding goes to those who do research supporting man-made climate change as oppose to reviewing natural causes. (When you consider that climategate demonstrated that there was a conspiracy to ensure that researcher in natural causes of climate change not get published, it stands to reason that research funds will be directed into a specific direction.)

Matt Patterson noted, “Global-warming alarmists often portray climate scientists as poorly paid academics whose judgment is impervious to the influence of money. This seems strange given the billions of taxpayer dollars that have been invested in climate science over the past few years. And as the public-choice school of economics has clearly shown, the opportunity for reward affects even supposedly disinterested professionals.”

I have no problems with professors making money and I have no doubt that many do believe in their cause and their science. I will give James Hansen the benefit of the doubt that a he can’t be bought for a quarter a million dollars but then I don’t want to hear about those scientists who disagree with Hansen and his ilk or those organizations that produce studies that challenge manmade climate change are bought and sold properties of the Big Oil, especially as I am about to show; the biggest scandal is the crony capitalism being practiced in the name of saving environment. Let face it, if you believe that science shows that natural causes are the prime reason, you are less likely to receive funding for your research.

Solynda showed diversion of resources from the government to green technology companies. Millions of dollars are shuffled to various companies but one thing that is coming clear, many of these companies receiving funding just happened to be donors to the President. Many companies, including some of those big energy concerns that the left rails against, are waiting in lines for subsidies and a chance to make billions.

GE Jeff Immelt promoted going green when GE owned NBC while congress was outlawing the incandescent light bulbs. GE lobbied in 2007 for a bill banning incandescent light and one reason was that they were the leaders in the production of compact fluorescent bulbs. Those light bulbs which cost three times as much the old bulbs and least we forget, many of those jobs producing the new bulbs went to China while Immelt and GE made a ton of money. Going green can be very profitable. During the 2010 energy debates, GE help write legislation that would tilt the various proposal in their favor and the big Wall Street firms just as Goldman Sachs supported climate legislation since they would profit from brokering in any cap and trade. If cap and trade was passed, it would have a boon for Wall Street and many major corporations.

BP before the famous oil spill worked with Senator Kerry to obtain favorable terms on energy legislations and John Kerry was all too eager to help. The point here is to take away is that many big corporations stand to make big money supporting green technology and receiving favorable treatment from government. It is called crony capitalism.

Then there is the case of Al Gore who has made millions as a “green venture capitalist.” Gore is promoting green technology and has testified promoting laws that will enhance both the very same green technology and his own pocketbook. Nothing against Al Gore making money but doesn’t someone see a little conflict of interest when a former Vice President lobbying Congress for technology that he personally profit from?

Al Gore is a true believer, but it doesn’t stop him from going to Congress with the idea of having them pass laws that will not ensure his green vision but make it profitable. So follow the money. There is millions to be made in researching climate change coming from private foundation and government, most of it directed in the direction of man-made climate change. This creates financial interest to be on the right side of the issue to advance your career. There are billions to be made by major corporation working with government subsidies, provided you make the right donation to the right political Party, in this case the Democrats. Follow the money and you will see that to be green means more than just being a good steward of earth, it means becoming rich often with the aid of the taxpayers. Being green can be a pathway to wealth.

Piven Strategy

2011-12-23T22:07:00.000-08:00

Francis Fox Piven has been a leading strategist for the hard left, with the goal of overwhelming the present system to force radical changes in society and last December, she took her strategy to a new level to include violence. She called for a new mass movement as she asked the question, “So where are the angry crowds the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs?... they have to develop a proud and angry identity and a set of claims that go with that identity. They have to go from being hurt and ashamed to being angry and indignant …Losing a job is bruising; even when many other people are out of work, most people are still working. So, a kind of psychological transformation has to take place; the out-of-work have to stop blaming themselves for their hard times and turn their anger on the bosses, the bureaucrats or the politicians who are in fact responsible.” Ms. Piven then goes beyond peaceful protest and added, “An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees.”

For those who may not remember, we are talking about riots in which property was destroyed and even death to innocent bystander. Piven strategy is now the strategy of the left. Over the past year, I have discussed what I called the Wisconsin strategy, used in Wisconsin which combined massive protest, attempts to shut down government, intimidation of businesses to join the cause or accept the consequences. The Occupy movement has adapted much of Piven strategy this past year by occupying key areas of towns and did what they could to disrupt normal business as they blocked key thoroughfare just to show their power, occupy businesses, march to homes of selected individuals as part of acts of intimidation, and held a little riot in Oakland. When Occupy Wall Street marched to corporate leaders homes, they included those who funded Democratic causes, just as Jamie Dimon with the message being don’t cross us or else.

Republicans candidates have already been harassed by Occupy advocates and this will only continue as they will do what they can to prevent Republican candidates from enunciating their position. Occupy is just a taste of the future for if Republicans do manage to win the Congress and the White House, the Wisconsin strategy goes nationwide as any attempt to enact needed reform will meet resistance including massive demonstration and possible violence.

For Piven, she won’t be satisfied until the American Empire and neo liberal capitalism ends and her tactics are designed to force a transformation to a socialist state and her tactics is to prevent reform from happening. For her, becoming Greece is the goal, not something to be avoided. Much of Occupy movement included students looking for their loans being forgiven combined with leftist union who looked to expand government and their own membership to seek a new social contract in which the government provides for their needs from a cradle to grave, a brave new world.

European welfare state is headed for collapse and the social contract of cradle to grave care can no longer function with debt exceeding nations’ budget and ability to pay. The United States is not that far behind the European as the Piven alliance of leftist union leaders, the disgruntled, the radical environmentalists are bankrupting America and the funds provided by crony capitalists like Jamie Dimon and GE Jeff Immelt funding the movement paying their ransom as a price to survive.

Piven called for protest to “accumulate and spread, then become more disruptive.” Occupy movement followed her advice as they started peacefully occupying private and public property but eventually they started to disrupt local government and businesses. (One New York business close to the protest eventually went out of business, costing jobs of few of the 99% they claim to love.)

As winter approaches, the Occupy movement simply went underground but throughout 2012 and beyond, the Occupy movement will follow Piven strategy of disrupting their opponents and even some of their allies to keep them in line with the idea of transforming America. Occupy have become foot soldiers of the Democratic left along with more radical of union members but then what would you expect of a Party headed by a Community organizer?

Gold Standard

2011-12-23T22:06:00.001-08:00

Over the past year, the gold standard has now come into vogue as a campaign issue. While most economist dismiss the gold standard as crazy idea or anachronism, no one has yet to come up with an answer to the question, is the dollar standard is collapsing, if so what to replace it with? These are not insignificant questions since the world has been on a dollar standard since the end of World War II, with the dollar being linked to gold till 1971 and the rest of the world was linked to dollar.

We have whole generation of politicians and economist who have never worked with or dealt with a gold standard or any aspect of gold linked to a currency. Lawrence White noted, “The gold standard is not a flawless monetary system. Neither is the fiat money alternative. In light of historical evidence about the comparative magnitude of these flaws, however, the gold standard is a policy option that deserves serious consideration…A gold standard does not guarantee perfect steadiness in the growth of the money supply, but historical comparison shows that it has provided more moderate and steadier money growth in practice than the present-day alternative, politically empowering a central banking committee to determine growth in the stock of fiat money. From the perspective of limiting money growth appropriately, the gold standard is far from a crazy idea.”

For many advocates of the Gold Standard, the advantage has been that monetary policy is determined by forces of supply and demand and their biggest objection to our present fiat system is that the Federal Reserve market committee determines the worth of a currency. This leaves the question, which system protects the purchasing power of the currency. As White stated, the gold standard is not perfect but it does have its advantages, if control of monetary policy and stabilization of currency is the goal.

The Federal Reserve of Minneapolis economists Arthur Rolnick and Warren Weber surveyed countries over decades and found that monetary growth and inflation were higher under fiat currencies versus commodities standard of gold and silver.

Many critics have accused the gold standard of creating period of deflation and certainly in the last twenty years of the 19^th century, the United States experienced a prolonged deflationary cycle. The economy soared as total real per capita grew at a 46% and the real GDP doubled despite the deflationary cycle. So why did the deflation during this period show no real detrimental effect? The reason was due to the fact that output of goods grew faster than gold stock as great technological improvement improved productivity. It could be argued that a Central bank operating a fiat currency could offset productivity deflation by the expansion of monetary quantity, driving prices upwards. The question is should the Fed automatically expand monetary quantity to prevent deflation since productivity created deflation did not dampened investment in the late 19^th century nor did it penalize debtors since nominal interest rates correct downward to offset the repayment in period and yet, there were not massive banking panic in contrast to the United States. So what did Canadians did to prevent a massive banking meltdown whereas the United States banking system collapsed?

The United States deflationary cycle between 1929-33 showed the result of destructive deflation and critics of the gold standard often blame the Feds adherence to the gold standard but it begs the question, why did the Feds miss the deflationary signal? While the United States were vulnerable to bank panics in the past but Federal Reserve did not prevent the banking meltdown, which it could have done by supplying replacement reserves. Canada was also on the gold standard in the same dollars of higher purchasing power.

Alan Greenspan endorsed the idea of controlling fiat money supply by imitating the behavior of the gold standard. At a congressional hearing in 2001, Greenspan noted, “Mr. Chairman, so long as you have fiat currency, which is a statutory issue, a central bank properly functioning will endeavor to, in many cases, replicate what a gold standard would itself generate.” In 2003, Greenspan added that inflation of the 1970’s was due to the lack of a gold standard restraining central bankers. He told a congressional panel, “The general wisdom during the period subsequent to the 1930s was that as we moved to an essentially fiat money standard, that there was no anchor to the general price level. And indeed, what we subsequently observed is, as you point out, a very marked increase in general price levels, indeed, around the world as we removed ourselves from commodity standards, and specifically gold. I had always thought that the fiat money system was chronically and inevitably an inflation vehicle, and indeed, said so repeatedly. I have been quite surprised, and I must say pleased, by the fact that central bankers have been able to effectively simulate many of the characteristics of the gold standard by constraining the degree of finance in a manner which effectively has brought down general price levels.”

Today inflation is not approaching what the double digit inflation of the 70’s, but the recent expansion of monetary policy could lead to further inflation. The other problem with a gold standard is that any government could simply go off the gold standard but a government could also print excessive amount of money. The deflation at the beginning of the Great Depression could have been managed by better monetary policy and there are those who argued that it was not the Gold Standard that caused the Great Depression but the Fed mishandling monetary policy that aided it along Herbert Hoover interventionist policy of increase spending, increase taxes and higher tariffs. Nixon ended the Bretton Wood arrangement by closing the gold window when the Fed expanded dollar supplies in the late 60’s, thus ending dollar link to gold.

Today, the fate of the dollars is in the hand of Federal Reserve and proper management of a fiat currency works if the Federal Reserve mimics a gold standard but proper control of fiat currency belongs with political leaders with wisdom. Presently, the United States is led by a President whose policies is leading America off the cliff with spending trillions without any growth oriented policy to spur growth nor is Congress showing any restraint. With present Federal monetary policy, are we trying to prevent a deflationary spiral with real estate prices continue to drop or a new wave of inflation with oil prices and food prices rising? We have no clue, which should be scary to voters.

We are at a crossroads with the dollar standard imploding and there are no other currencies to replace it. Euro is threatened with collapse, the Chinese banking system is hardly mature and they are already guilty of manipulating their currency. There are no true alternative to replacing the dollar standard unless with a basket of currencies but can anyone have confidence in an international banking system based on the whims of central bankers who’re presently not managing their currencies very well.

Is this the time for reestablishing a Gold Standard and if so, how do we make the transition? There are many questions left to answer but when a government ceases to control its budget or its currency, disaster is the result. Could a dollar link to dollar the solution?

A Christmas Carol

2011-12-16T21:05:00.000-08:00

It is said every year; the commercialization of Christmas is terrible. Personally, I do not buy into that philosophy that somehow, giving of gifts is evil and refraining from celebrating Christmas is not much different from how Scrooge celebrated Christmas. For many, Christmas is representative of the greed that consume modern day America. Somehow to participate in Christmas is to be materialistic causing you to miss the real reason for Christmas- the birth of Christ. For Scrooge, money was something to be collected and to hoard- not to be spent. Scrooge failed to spend money on himself much less his own business. Scrooge does not spend money on his office, his home or his workers. When Bob Crachett wanted to add an extra piece of coal to keep his office warm, Scrooge vetoed the idea.

Charles Dickens writes about Scrooge’s home, “It was a very low fire indeed; nothing on such a bitter night. He was obliged to sit close to it, and brood over it, Before he could extract the least sensation of warmth from such a handful of fuel. The fireplace was an old one, built by some Dutch merchant long ago, and paved all round with quaint Dutch tiles, designed to illustrate the Scriptures.” Scrooge lived in an antiquated home and he did not even spend money to keep his own home warm. He denied himself the joy of his own income for money was merely a scorecard to show his success and Scrooge selfishness applied even to himself. It is said that charity begins at home and man who can’t share with himself is not very likely to share with others.

Contrast Scrooge with his nephew Fred, who spends on Christmas and enjoys the gaiety of the holidays. Even the Crachetts celebrate Christmas with their meager savings for money is no object in rejoicing the birth of Christ. For Scrooge, he lived a business life that was more amoral than moral or immoral. To him, business was business but as Marley reminds him, “Mankind was our business.” A businessman must serve his customer or he will not be successful.

Christmas represents the universal message of peace and forgiveness and you do not need to be a believer in Christianity to buy into these virtues. “A Christmas Carol” is a story of giving and receiving, of redemption and reclamation. The spirits seek to reclaim Scrooge immortal soul and reform the previously selfish man, whose only thoughts never extended beyond his nose.

It is at Christmas, that we give of ourselves to others. It is the season that we give each other gifts, to show our love for significant others, for our friends, for our spouses and children. For Christians, Jesus’ birth was a gift to mankind and this a gift we can never pay back. Three kings arrive from the East with their own gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh for the new King. Christmas is the symbolic season of unconditional love and giving. When lovers or friends begin to keep score, the relation is soon over. Giving should be unconditional if you love someone and you should be as appreciative when receiving a gift from others. Giving is a form of showing love and how much you value your relationship with others. Somehow, the world would be poorer and not just materially without Christmas.

As for Scrooge, he was redeemed. He learns his lesson well as Dickens write, “Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good as master, and as good a man as the good old city knew…it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man possessed the knowledge.”

His change is what Christianity represents. He began to invest in his business, both in the office by allowing Crachett to use more coal to heat the place and raising Crachett’s salary. Christianity is about second chances, third chances, fourth chances and unlimited chances. It is about giving and receiving. Christmas represent those qualities as we seek love and forgiveness from those who are closest to us. It is the spirit of the season that warms us. For a Christian, we can never repay the debt owed God, who sent his only son to break the power of sin. So, sometimes we can’t repay the debt that others have given to us in the past. What we can do is to share our bounty with others, beginning with those who are the closet. Charity begins at home. Christmas does, indeed, represent the spirit of Christianity.

Paul's secret Army

2011-12-15T19:39:00.000-08:00

2012 is the year that conservatism begins the process of identifying itself for the 21^st century while changing the face of a major Political Party. The Democratic and the left goes into the election confident of an ideology that resembles more of a monarchy in which Obama, Pelosi and Reid play the roles of Kings and Queens and we are mere followers. For the left, the constitution is an antiquated idea to be ignored while the experts of the political class govern. For conservatives and libertarians, it is the constitution front and center, a reminder that government is to serve the people and not rule over them; a crusade to return balance to a nation where the Federal government has broken from its restraint and threatens much of the liberty declared sacred.

Ron Paul represents one aspect of this battle to identify conservatism and many of his army of supporters live in the political underground and hidden from the media, pollsters and most Republican strategists. One is example of the invisible portion of Ron Paul's army is Rachel. Rachel is a single gay woman, a mother of a teen age son and engaged to her significant other with a formal marriage ceremony just over the horizon. A former Democrat, she has moved right past what many would call traditional conservatism and right smack into libertarianism and she is joined by Beverly, a mother of four including two teenagers whose Beverly declared proudly part of Ron Paul’s army. Like Rae (Rachel fiancé nickname for her), Beverly was a long term Democrat until recently when she noted,” I was a Democrat until Vice President Joe Biden came to Cedar Rapids with Chet Culver during the 2010 elections and spoke. I was so upset over some of the things that Mr. Biden said that I switched my party from Democrat to Republican. Our officials are spending money because it's available. This 'available' money has ruined thousands of lives.”

What drives both Rae and Beverly to Ron Paul is his emphasis on liberty, in particular personal liberty. For example, Rae and Beverly agree with Paul opposition to the war on drugs, as Rae observed, ““We need to end the war on drugs, I believe only the drug cartels benefit from this and it's a waste of money,” a point that Beverly agrees with. Another aspect that Rae discussed was Paul own views of social security as she observed, “Social Security... someone making 30,000 a year should get $3000 a month after 40 years of work, they probably only get what? $1000 of that... Ron wants to give people the option to opt out.” Like many voters in their mid-30, Rae realizes that the fiction that is social security is not only bankrupt but when she finally retires; she will see nothing in return for her “contribution.”

The one aspect that Rae and Beverly agree along with another Paul supporter Karl is Paul skepticism on the Federal Reserve. For them, it is not just about auditing the Federal reserve, which they all agree on but also a more radical review on the role of the Federal reserve and if it is even needed. Ron Paul singlehandedly has managed to place front and center, the relation of the Federal Reserve role in the economy; including its role in the present recessionary times we live in. In the last 19^th century, Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan rose from the Midwest to challenge William McKinley while declaring that man should not be crucified upon a cross of gold as he rebelled against the Gold Standard of his day. Ron Paul views the returning to the Gold Standard as a means to restoring economic freedom and setting up an independent standard outside of government to judge monetary standard. In Paul’s view, the Federal Reserve and other central banking systems has burned our future economic prosperity upon a fiat currency and wants a return to an earlier standard that declares that our dollar should be as solid as the gold that backs it and not give the politicians the freedom to debase the currency as they expand their own power.

Ron Paul crusade has struck a chord in Ron Paul’s supporters that go beyond mere political Party as all three of these Paul Supporters are members of a cause, not a Party. All three indicated if Paul is not nominate, they would most likely stay home (even though Republican Gary Johnson is now pursuing the libertarian party nominee and it will be interesting how many Paul supporters move to the Libertarian side.)

While Rae and Beverly are former Democrats, Karl is an independent and runs a company that includes managing an African-American Radio station and like the others, his first order of business is liberty and like the others, he supports the non-interventionist foreign policy of Ron Paul. For all three, they want to see American troops return home but one should not confuse Ron Paul and the libertarian vision of foreign affairs as totally isolationist. In the 1920, the Republican isolationist were not just oppose to foreign adventure overseas but they also supported protectionist measures to aid American manufacturers at home and keep foreign good out. Libertarians are free traders, so they believe in international trade to complement their support for free market policies at home and their non-interventionist foreign policy is based that overseas adventurism leads to bigger government at home. Rae observed that free trade is part of an overall agenda that reduces the power of the federal government at home including the elimination of federal bureaucracy. Beverley added, “Ron Paul is right about FEMA, HUD, the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve and national security,” as she joined Paul call into a major retrenchment of the Federal Government.

There is a core that all three of these Paul supporters hold and that is the biggest social issue facing America is not abortion or other social issues but the size of government itself. As Rae noted, “Things like pro-life, religion, equal rights, and the environment don't make a difference if you don't have your freedom.” For a Ron Paul supporter, the overreaching social is to stop an ever increasing government that is strangling our basic liberties from economic freedom, political freedom and even religious freedom. Ron Paul like other conservatives and libertarians in this election are seeking a new social contract that calls for government to return to a more humble role in our life. If the Left seeks a social compact that details government responsibility to take care of Americans, the Paul social compact details how the government needs to retreat from its paternal role to a role where government protects our rights and give us the opportunity to succeed whereas the people accept responsibility for their lives. A friend of mine observed that this election deals with voters who wants liberty but not willing to accept the risks or responsibility and those voters who are willing not just demand liberty but take the risks and responsibility to maintain it. The Obama social compact relieves voters of their responsibility to maintain liberty but once the government removes the risk and responsibility associated with Liberty, it is not long before Liberty itself is extinguished.

Ron Paul supporters view their battle as a battle for renewal of liberty, which brings us to the conservative challenge of the 21^st century. There is a consensus among conservatives beginning with Tea Party members, old fashion Reagan Republicans (which I count myself as one), libertarians and new supporters of liberty like Karl, Beverly and Rae; government is no longer the protector of our liberty but is slowly strangling our freedom. There is a major debate on how American conservatism will approach this issues as there are divides on abortion, foreign affairs with most conservatives not sold on Ron Paul non-interventionist foreign policy, same-sex marriage, and drug legalization. The one area that does unite libertarians and conservatives is the need to restrain and reduce the size of government in the economic realm and the political realm. Paul attack on the Federal Reserve has it a nerve and about every major candidate has joined Paul in supporting auditing the Fed and no longer will the Federal Reserve be treated with reverence by a Republican administration but instead with a wary eye. All of this is due to Ron Paul.

The real challenge for the conservative movement is how they tie an ever growing movement together, a movement in agreement on the need for smaller government and return to a belief of the Constitution but a movement still looking for the specific plan to put all together. Ron Paul is but one leader of a movement still looking not just to identify itself but struggling to unify itself to oppose the leviathan government threatening to bankrupt America and strangle its liberty.

Political Strategy

2011-12-11T18:22:00.001-08:00

In the 1990’s, Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Texieria developed a Democratic strategy to win back white working class but today Mr. Texieria has moved toward a new strategy to replace the white working class with well-educated socially liberal whites with less affluent minority voters, in particular clinch the Hispanic vote for a generation. For Democrats, the goal of 2012 is to keep losses among blue collar whites to a manageable level. Democrats lost this cohort by 30% in 2010 and Democrats need to reduce this deficit by 12-15% to increase their chances of winning and keep this group from overwhelming their other constituencies. By discounting the white working class, Obama strategy is to keep losses among white voters at least 17 percent, a level similar to what John Kerry received in 2004 and Obama actually outperformed Kerry among White voters in 2008. Ruy Texieria along with John Halpern just finished a paper called “Path to 270” that explains this new strategy.

So how can a strategy based on losing the majority voter block become a path to victory? The reason is simple, Texieria begin with a premise that minority voters turnout will be at least 2% higher than in 2008 and 5% greater than 2004. Even a small loss of minority share will not hurt the Democrat chances in 2012, something that Texieria considers likely. A second part of the strategy is to hold court with upper mobile whites while keeping losses among working class lower than 2010. The latter strategy views upper mobile white support of liberal environmental policies to go with liberal ideas on same sex marriage and abortion as a plus. Many upper mobile whites work for government including as public school teachers and other members of public sector unions. As working class workers decline, so does the impact of private sector unions and the increasing prevalence of public sector unions means you have an important constituency to support government spending.

Obama path to 270 include Colorado, Nevada, Virginia plus North Carolina and hope to retain Ohio and Pennsylvania to ensure the 270 plus electoral votes. As one pundit noted, this is the FDR coalition being buried by the Democrats. Weekly Standard Jay Cost declared, not so fast as he noted that throughout the Midwest, states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, white working class makes a significant impact in those states whereas states like Virginia and North Carolina, the new coalition of minorities and upper income Whites represent a possible winning strategy to expand Democratic reach into the traditional southern Red States.

So the question for Republicans, how does one thwart the Left strategy? The first key is recapturing white working class and one policy that would pay dividend is energy development. The Keystone pipeline has allowed a fissure among private sector union workers and the environmental left since this pipeline means jobs for working class Americans. Obama is playing a waiting game until after 2012 but no one really knows what final decision will be but for Republicans, this is an opportunity. Keystone is but a tip of the iceberg when it comes to energy. The left has looked for green technology as a means for economic growth and appeal to the sensitivity of upper income whites but the problem with green technology is that there is very little evidence that green technology creates jobs and most evidence shows the opposite that it cost jobs! Nor does it help that many who received government aids were Obama’s donors and Green technology has become embroiled into the Crony capitalism for much of the green technology can’t survive without government aid

The United States has plenty of energy within reach and there are shale oil and natural gas throughout key regions in the United States and not just in Texas. North Dakota shows the potential of energy development as unemployment is close to 3% and the state has tight job market. Many of these jobs features white collar jobs associated with engineering degrees and plenty of blue collars jobs. As for the upper income, Jay Cost observed, “But in the last five years that growth has slowed substantially. Nowadays, your average professional class Democratic-leaner can no longer count on an ever-rising level of comfort, and thus does not have the luxury of privileging “self-expression” over standards of living. “

It is the economy, stupid and job creations will be important in the 2012; energy development becomes a job creation asset. Energy development is spread across the country and even blue states like Pennsylvania and New York have potential to become energy producer; and this will give Republicans a step into what was consider strictly blue states. A strategy emphasizing economic growth can keep white working class votes near all-time high and make it difficult for Democrats to reduce the margin of defeat among white voters.

Another area is minority voters, in particular Hispanic voters. Texieria has conceded that minority vote percentage will not match what they obtained in 2008. Conventional wisdom among political class on both right and left is that Hispanic voters are strictly property of the Democratic machine. Jay Cost dispute conventional wisdom as he wrote, “Democrats shouldn’t bank on doing as well with these voters as they did in 2008. In fact, Obama’s standing with Hispanics is quite tenuous at the moment… Hispanics move with the general population while African Americans stand roughly still. That’s what I mean when I say that Hispanics are a swing group with a pro-Democratic tilt.”

Republicans captured close to 44% of Hispanic voters in 2004, and in 2010, Republican garnered between 34 to 38% of the Hispanic voters. In 1992, center-right contenders George Bush and Ross Perot obtained 39% of Hispanic voter and Republican shares among Hispanic votes exceeded what Democrats got from evangelicals in 2004 and 2008, so the idea that any Republican strategist would ignore the fastest growing minority, a minority whose allegiance is still up for grab is not just political suicide, but the path toward irrelevance. Obama margin among young voters can be significantly traced to the higher percentage of minorities among younger voters. Hispanic as group has significant members of the low-income working class but Hispanics also are entrepreneurs and small business owners. So there is a class of Hispanics ready to move into the GOP. In a Recent Resurgent Republican survey, Republicans can only count on less than 50% of Hispanic conservative voters in battleground states so the first task for the GOP is to convince those minorities who favor our position to vote Republicans. The situation is even direr among African-Americans as Jay Cost observed that GOP would be lucky to receive 10% of black conservative votes. If the GOP could garner 50% of conservative blacks and they could have at least 15% of African votes on that alone. That 15% combine with nearly 40% of Hispanic voters could be enough to ensure not just the White House for the Republicans but a shot at filibuster proof Senate.

Democrats are counting on minority being increasing percentage of voters in 2012 but even among Democratic strategist, they expect a drop in actual percentage of minority voters and if Republicans can add a few extra vote from minorities, this could be the difference of taking key battleground states and taking both houses of Congress or losing the White House and Congress. The left strategy is a based on demographics growth of minority voters and upper income White voters, while many of the key Republican constituent are showing declines as a share of the voter including white working class and evangelicals. Republican strategy should be developing job creating plan that will strengthen white working class voters while making serious inroads into minority voters. If the latter strategy is successful, then the Democratic game plan will not only be thwarted but Republicans can rebuild a new conservative majority for the 21^st century.

Job creation

2011-12-11T18:20:00.001-08:00

With the recent addition of yet another set of emails exposing the scientific corruption involved in climate science, the knife is being twisted into the credibility of much of the climatogists whose mantra has been, “The world is going to end and man is to blame.” The recent exposure of science running amok gives more credence to the skeptics’ case that maybe, man is not responsible for climate change or man’s involvement pales in comparison to nature. The importance of this is that now as the climate change debate has shifted to a more scientific and realistic scenario, nature is the primary cause of climate change and there is little we can do about it; it does open the door to a more credible approach to energy development.

As I wrote last year, “Americans have been bombarded with bad science on this issue and for now, many Americans are becoming less trusting of the science so heavily politicized. Here is the reality of climate change. Climate change will happen because it has happened in the past. Just in the past 20,000 years, we have seen ice ages and warmer periods. Just in the past 2000 years since the time of Christ birth and death, we have seen warmer climates and cooler climates that had nothing to do with man’s impact. Maybe man has a role in climate change but as the past has shown, nature has played a significant if not the dominant role in significant climate change.”

The significance of this is simple, there is less of a scientific reason, let’s make even more clearer, no scientific reason, not to pursue the development of our abundance of oil, coal and natural gas. For Republicans, the collapse of the Climate change science means forcing a decision on a sound energy policy based on production versus an energy plan that is crony capitalism combined with decreasing production of those sources we have in abundance. The Obama plans leads directly to higher costs by his own admission and he has personally added that he had no problem bankrupting the coal industry. Columnist Don Suber noted that West Virginia turned red on a national scene when it became obvious the Democratic Party opposed the coal industry, which is West Virginia leading business. There are two objectives, the first being challenging the conventional wisdom that man is the sole determining factor in climate change and we need to reduce fossil fuels. Once the conventional wisdom is change, then it becomes easier to set aside a policy that emphasis production of the fuels we have in abundance, natural gas, coal and oil. North America from Bering Sea to Gulf of Mexico and points in between, is on the verge of being the Saudi Arabia of the 21^st century with more reserves available than any place in the world. The new technology is making it possible to drill in areas thought unavailable just a couple of decades ago. The second objective is Drill, baby, Drill.

Drill, baby, Drill is a job creation that can tie working class and a good portion of the upper middle class to the Party that makes it happen. A friend of mine reported to me about a trip to North Dakota where even McDonald workers were capable of making a living wage with hourly pay significantly beyond 10 dollars an hour. (She mentioned that some Wal Mart and McDonald workers were making closer to 15 dollars an hour, I can’t verify that but I do believe her.) There is a labor shortage in North Dakota and the state is close to full employment as one could possibly get. Imagine if this scene is repeated nationwide? In West Virginia, Democratic Joe Manchin won the 2010 Senate special election when he ran ad shooting a gun at a piece paper purported to be the Cap and Trade Bill and the state has voted Republican three straight elections because of energy policies.

The political left has abandoned the working class and the Republican have a golden opportunity to fix this group permanently to the Republican coalition and there may be a side bar addition. Many Hispanics tend to concentrate to blue collar jobs and certainly, openings among white working class would extend to Hispanic blue collar. Hispanic workers are half as likely as African-American to work in government and even Whites have a higher participation in government work. For Hispanics, construction jobs created by energy development could allow this important group to look kindly upon the Party that is for job creation, in particular among construction jobs created by energy development and spin offs from energy development.

The one thing that has hampered energy development in the United States is the fear of manmade climate change but with the advent of climategate and the manipulation of data by selected scientists to promote the fear of manmade climate change; the average American no longer believes in climate change being a strictly manmade phenomena. This has given Republicans an open door to develop an energy plan that is not only will reduce energy cost but create jobs in the millions!

Occupy

2011-12-11T08:19:00.001-08:00

Big Hollywood John Nolte has been a busy fellow, updating and trying to keep up with various acts of violence and other disgusting behavior among Occupy movement, which is starting to peter out. Most recently, one letter to Hollywood Republican wrote about what a bunch of peaceful folks that LA occupier were and what kind of fool we were oppose to Peaceful demonstration. (Just to make sure we got the point, he even capitalized PEACEFUL so we would understand his point; it was peaceful.)

Mr. Nolte has documented 417 acts of violence and when one understand that the vast majority, if not all of the Occupy movement occurred in some of America’s most liberal cities; the various efforts to remove demonstrators came as a result of threats to public safety. (I will point out that this is probably some 415 more reported than what was reported with the Tea Party demonstration over a course of two years.) In Los Angeles, Mr. Nolte documented overt anti-Semitism signs, attempts to occupy private properties including trying to shut down a local Burger King and a local bank, blocking freeways, occupiers arrested for throwing items at police, one guy caught masturbating in public, several assaults including one individual trying to set a vender on fire, and a newspaper report in which city employees wore hazmat suits to clean up the ground. Nolte only gave us just the tip of the iceberg and in his most recent column, he quoted leading Democrats including the President supporting Occupiers, so the leadership of the Democratic Party finds themselves allied with a movement bordering on anarchy.

As Mr. Nolte noted, to compare the Tea Party to the Occupy movement is absurd and while Tea Party were accused of being a bunch of racist (with no actual proof of this), the real Nazis Party actually supported Occupy along with a real KKK member David Duke and the number of anti-Semitism comments found in the open at the Occupy movement shows an increasing Anti-Semitism appearing on the left.   Mr. Nolte stated, “What I’ve collected below is far from comprehensive but still shows over 75 incidents of sexual assault, violence, vandalism, anti-Semitism, extortion, perversion, and lawlessness…The MSM could easily tell the story of how this violence-prone movement is becoming an increasing threat to our society. After all, my research below is the result of nothing more than Twitter and Google. Among others, The New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, and the LA Times have willfully chosen not to use the resources at their disposal to give the public an honest look at this growing menace. In their partisan minds, truth doesn’t trump agenda.”

The majority of those involved did so in their beliefs in a need to a change policy but there is a significant minority involved in violent actions and we can certainly judge this movement based on this significant minority since there have been very little condemnation of the violence by the Democratic establishment. As liberal pollster Doug Schoen observed, some 30% of those Occupiers had no problems with the use of violence, so we are talking significant numbers. As the movement peters out and police start cleaning the various pockets of the Occupy movement, it should be noted that the movement will not disappear, but it portends a disturbing future for a major Political Party.

As I have mention in other blogs and discussion with political pundits, the Occupy is but an extension of the Wisconsin strategy taken nationwide. In Wisconsin, the left provided a three prong attack; first occupation of the capital with much of the foot soldiers taken from the public sector unions, massive protest outside along with some old fashion union intimidation as downtown Madison stores were told either put an anti-Walker sign up or risk boycotts by the unions and finally, the legislators simply left the state to deny the Republican a quorum and make it impossible for Governor Walker to govern. Money poured into the state from outside sources and the GOP found themselves outspent by the left. This has been the consistent refrain among the various special elections this year, the left tactics have essentially been the same with the additional benefit of being able to outspend Republican and conservatives.

Occupy movement with support of the unions provide the foot soldiers for the movement and considering that much of unions today are public sector, the goal is to increase government spending. As John Nolte noted, the main stream media covered up much of the violence committed by the Occupy movement and the Occupy got far less scrutiny than the Tea Party, where truth was the first causality when the media discuss the movement.

The movement will be used to harass Republican candidates and one example of this strategy was a group of Occupy movement attempted to shout down Michelle Bachmann in South Carolina and the movement, along with unions, long term strategy will be help to Obama win in 2012 and if that doesn’t work, make it difficult for a Republican administration to govern.    The movement will be part of the Obama’s class warfare attacks of the 1% versus the 99% while getting those 1%, who are part of Obama’s crony capitalism to fund the scorch earth attacks on Republicans.

The Tea Party was effective in moving the GOP to right on economic issues and making the budget with the goal of shrinking government an important goal.   The Occupy movement has succeeded in pushing the Democrats ever farther to the left, which brings us to our present dilemma.   The Tea Party has allowed the GOP to emphasis economic concerns as a top priority and this help garner independent votes in 2010. For GOP, it is the economy and yes, it is the economy! For the left, a more dangerous sign is now occurring as the Democrats move ever more leftward. When Senator Pat Toomey promoted a compromise similar to what Obama own deficit plan came up, he was rejected out of hand. For the Democrats, it is the politics of envy and class warfare; with proposal that are designed to punish producers as oppose to promoting economic growth.

Ann Coulter in her book “Demonic” noted that much of the Democratic Party is comfortable with mob rule and certainly, the Occupy movement shows a political Party ready to use the mob as part of a strategy to win an election and if that fails, attempt to stop the Republicans from governing. It is a Party, bereft of ideas but a Party comfortable with the street mob. The Obama deficit commission led by Erskine Bowles began the process of putting a compromise for future proposal to reform our tax system and entitlements, but Bowles proposal will go nowhere until this administration is voted out of office and whole new generation of Democrats can rise to replace the leftist domination of the present Party.

Women in combat sports

2011-12-03T20:35:00.000-08:00

Women are becoming more prominent in Mixed Martial Arts and boxing, not just as fighters but promoters as well. Or they are becoming fans in increasing numbers. Trish Poe, an aspiring model, writer and photographer, is representative of a new generation of combat sports fan. (She helps promote MMA companies including Lockdownfight gears on her Facebook page when not working as a model or photographer.)

Ms. Poe has been involved in the Mixed Martial Arts since she was six years and regularly trains to keep in shape and as she noted, “The reason that I train and fight relate a lot to those of the reasons why a man does it, a woman can do anything a man can.” This attitude reflects many of what I have observed of boxers and MMA stars and Ms. Poe is also symbolic of why MMA has grown. As Trish Poe told me, she began her career at an early age of 6 and this reflects the advantages of MMA have over boxing today. When my dad and others his learned self-defense, they were sent to boxing ring but today, many will go to the local dojo to learn self-defense. During World War I and World War II, boxers were recruited to help soldiers learn self-defense, today a soldier will be taught techniques based on MMA.

There was a time when boxing gyms populated small towns but today, the ability to learn boxing is limited by the availability of gyms whereas there are more than enough dojos where one can learn the basic of Karate and martial arts. Many high schools have wrestling programs and if one lives in Iowa, wrestling is a big sport and many wrestlers drift toward MMA due to their knowledge of the ground game. Over the past several years, women have become more prominent in sports. Ms. Poe reflects what many women involved in boxing and MMA believe, when she told me, “As long as you have and give enough love and dedication to the sport you can succeed.” Ms. Poe takes that same attitude with her in her photographing and modeling career.

When asked her favorite fighter, she told me the UFC Welterweight champion George Saint Pierre who she views as a well-rounded and discipline fighter. MMA have been successful in attracting young fans like Trish Poe, who admitted, “I like many sports but MMA is the only one that has caught my full attention.” Gaining the attention of young fans is the key to a sports long term success.

Emily Klinefelter is representative of a new breed of combat sport, a woman who has done both before injuries shorten her career. She noted, “I knew nothing about fighting, or boxing, or MMA when I first set foot in the gym. I was only 16 when I first started, so at first I think it was more that boxing was just something "cool" to do. After a few months I got more serious about it and realized that I really enjoyed the one-on-one combat aspect of sparring and competition.”

Interesting, her frustration with boxing and bored with the sport led her to try the MMA. She noted, “MMA was always thrilling to me because there was so much more that could happen in an MMA fight than in boxing. Also, I wasn't nearly as competent on the ground as I was on my feet so the fear that I could be put on my back contributed to the thrill of the fight.”

Presently, Ms. Klinefelter owns and run a MMA gym in Iowa City which features training in boxing, Muay Thai, and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu plus she is also a head coach of a boxing program and leads amateur boxers in competition. When asked about problems with women in combat sports, “First of all, I think many coaches view women differently than men and either don't want to coach women, or think women are inherently less athletically competent than men and thus hold women to a lower standard.” Another problem that hurts women is the lack of female training partners and limited opportunities for matches. (Emily Klinefelter added that her coaches had no preconceived notions about women lack of ability and treated her like a male fighter.)

Emily Klinefelter discussed that it is nice to train with men but it is good to have other women who are similar in size and experience level and she had her younger sister to train with throughout the years. (Katy Klinefelter had an excellent amateur and an undefeated professional career.) With increase women participation in combat sports will lead to improvement in women skills. Having trained and lived in Iowa, she added, “Women in big cities obviously suffer less from both of these two problems, but for female fighters in smaller towns this will likely continue to be an obstacle for a very long time.” She added that she would like to see three minute rounds and 12 rounds for championship bouts, and noted that in Iowa, women do fight same rounds and round length as men. She stated, “A title fight for women is 20 total minutes of boxing, versus 36 minutes for men. There is no reason women can't fight the same round length and number of rounds as men. These restrictions are insulting, unfair, and unfounded. The same goes for amateur women who box 4x2 minute rounds when amateur men box 3x3 minute rounds.” Another problem she noted, “However, the vast majority of majority of states where boxing is biggest restrict fights for women.” Like Ms. Poe, she views the combat sports as her primary love.

Amy Green has been fan of the sweet science of boxing since she was in grade school and watch fights with her dad. She remembered watching the Ali/Frazier trilogy and loved the heavyweights in the 70’s. Her dad loved Roberto Duran and both followed Sean O’ Grady, a very good fighter from Ms. Green home state. She joked that, “My mother really liked Ray Leonard probably more for his commercial appeal than his boxing.” She noted, “Boxing caught my attention because it's such a daring, crazy, dangerous and beautiful sport.”

Ms. Green has her own publicity company plus she is a contributing writer for billycboxing.com and PrimeRound Magazine. She credits women pioneers Jackie Kallen, Rachel Charles and Terri Moss for opening the door for others like her to make it. She stated, “For the women that fight, it's still a tough road. A lot of that struggle comes from the promoters not taking a chance on women's boxing, and other problems can be attributed to the sport not having the depth of fighters the men's divisions do, which makes good competition scarce and forces many times, bad matches.” Emily Klinefelter agreed when she told me, “Most boxing fans do not demand women's matches on cards and promoters don't care to put many women on their shows. There are definitely examples where female boxers do carry a significant fan following. Two that come to mind are Holly Holm and Mary McGee. I think the key to success for these women is that they have a promoter behind them that took a risk and made them regulars, and even headliners on their cards.” Amy Green added, “ For every sorry PPV undercard I've paid for to watch an overpriced men's fight, there are very exciting female fighters working and waiting to take their place and give the audiences a lot more bang for their dollars.”

If Ms. Poe and Ms. Klinefelter love the combat sports as their sports, Ms. Green loves other sports when not working the boxing scene. She told me, “NFL- Packers are my favorite team; and the NBA since we have the OKC Thunder an hour away and do watch a little baseball- big Yankees fan.”

Amy Green, like many of our generation, grew up watching boxing and still that is her combat sport whereas Trish Poe, similar in age to my children, grew up following Mixed Martial Art. Both sports produced the theater of the unexpected and there is nothing more exciting that the knock out, for the one brief moment that often moves in slow motion can end a fight. Drama follows the two women enter the ring or the Octagon and only one will leave victorious. That is the beauty of the two combat sports.

A few thoughts

2011-12-03T20:33:00.001-08:00

This is the potpourri of ideas while I prepare a major thesis for readers on building a new conservative majority to counter Obama’s strategy for 2012. The first idea deals with Andy Stern love affair with the Chinese model, which shows an increasing lack of support for Democratic procedure by the left. Mr. Stern love letter to the Chinese model mirrors Tom Friedman own columns in which he dreamed we should all be Chinese for a day to dispense with this messy democratic procedure to deal with our problems. Stern notes that any economic activity must be done with the approval of the Chinese government and while Chinese have opened their economy from their communist past; Stern, like the Chinese, view property and economic rights as gift provided by the government and properly controlled by the government.

Stern, a union leader, willing to accept the Chinese government controlled union or certainly doesn’t seem to be bothered by it in his writings. What the article showed is first the economic ignorance that passes for brilliance among the left as he fails to comprehend that China success came when it abandoned the central economic planning of Mao and China progress came when the communist unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit among billion of poor Chinese. Stern is more interested in the Chinese “Seven year plans,” noting that in the United States, our planning goes from election to election cycle. Stern major thesis is that economic decision is something for a bunch of all knowing government planners to sit around a table and decide our fate. Stern, like much of the left, has moved toward a centrally planned federal government where all economic decisions are made. Some folks call this socialism but we dare not speak the s- name to describe what Stern and Friedman are evolving into. Freedom and economic liberty is no longer a major concern among the left, thus their love for the Chinese model.

Over the past months, Frank DeMartini and I have been in running debates with various lefties dealing with our writings. The thing usually goes something like this, Frank and I are nothing but mind numb robots or we should automatically accept their reason for they are so smart and we are so dumb. In a piece on Europe, I noted that the Euro is threatened, the welfare state collapsing, and that Europe has choice of even more centrally planning to keep the Euro alive or start the retreat from the Euro. One critic responded I did not know anything about Europe and I needed to read the European Union constitution to know that Europe is paradise or something to that affect. While being called stupid, my point that the Euro was in trouble, financial instability spreading, and the welfare state imploding in many of the southern European countries continued unabated. My writings on Europe choices proved prophetic as the latest plan to save Europe has ECB printing Euros while the Germans essentially determine the economic policies of fellow European powers. Sound like to save the Euro, the European elites are ratcheting up more central control to promote economic integration of the various European economie to make the Euro experience happen. Germany and the EU are setting up a system to determine the budget of individual countries, irrespective of voters. The European dream is becoming the European nightmare. As my critic observed, when one challenged his or her own superiority, wisdom begins. So as I told my critic, now that your superior knowledge been challenged and found wanting, when does wisdom begin?

Then there are the famous responses that both Frank and I got involved with my piece on Tax Rate Matters. The left talking point is simple, we are merely returning upper rates toward the Clinton years and when we take from the rich or if the government through government spending gives money to the poor and middle class, economic prosperity happens. The problem with these arguments as I pointed out repeatedly is they got the economic history of the 90’s wrong and they have no clue on what their own side is actually proposing. Clinton began his term by proposing his version of Obamacare, then called Hillarycare after his wife who designed the plan, and raising marginal tax rates on the wealthy. The first two years of the Clinton years mirrored the last year of the Bush’s administration when it came to economic grwoth but after the GOP took over Congress, what happened? Well, Hillary care was defeated before the 1994 election and after 1995, Clinton abandoned much of his wife leftist agenda and went to the middle. Clinton reduced the growth of federal spending, passed free trade treaties, reduced capital gain taxes, and reform welfare along a Republican model. What lefties don’t tell you is that Obama doesn’t want just to raise the top rate but capital gain tax plus there are other tax increases proposed or passed as a result of Obamacare. In other words, instead of seriously cutting the budget deficit, reducing the federal government percentage of GNP, or flattening the marginal tax rates just as his own deficit commission recommended, he is rejecting Clintonomics and going full throttle on a more expansionist plan. Both Frank and I are were still considered mind numb robots using right wing vomit producers as our sources. Go figure.

Which brings me to final thoughts, I made the point that there is new consensus forming outside of Washington; entitlements need reforming, government spending is unsustainable, and tax reform is needed beginning with lower marginal tax rates and reducing or eliminating deductions. The only disagreement is over details not the principle. Obamanomics has been intellectually defeated and Reaganonmics reaffirmed and this election will determine if we continue on the failed path of Obamanomics or switch to a more superior economic model. The second point, made clear by Andy Stern, the left has moved away from its liberal roots and taken on a more authoritarian root to economic power. From the mob rule of Occupy Wall Street, the National labor review board stopping by fiat where companies can relocate to Stern support of the Chinese model, one has to be afraid of what is happening to modern liberties and freedom. The left is promoting a less free America.

Veepstakes

2011-12-01T06:27:00.000-08:00

Right now it is Gingrich versus Romney but let us speculate on who would make a good Vice President. Of course it depends on who win. Who would help Romney as a Vice President candidate? Romney will need to pick a candidate with connections to the Tea Party and social conservatives who are suspicious of Romney. The list of candidates for Romney will begin with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. McDonnell is a popular governor of a key swing state and has shown the ability to move conservative agenda against occasionally hostile Virginia legislators. He is a conservative who attracts independence plus there is key Senate race so McDonnell coat tail maybe enough to carry a Republican candidate against the popular former Democratic governor Tim Kaine.

The second choice will be Marco Rubio. Rubio is a well-spoken conservative who is Hispanic in another key state. The disadvantage of Rubio is that he has been on the national scene two years, which may not long enough. But then, the difference is that Rubio will be running for Vice President and not President and the second is that he was the Speaker of the Florida House whereas Obama spend much of state legislator career voting present. Rubio can assure Republicans Florida and again, his coattail may be just enough to ensure a Republican Senate victory. Nor does it hurt that he is Hispanic who can possible add a few extra Hispanic votes, maybe enough to swing victories in key battleground states just as Colorado and New Mexico.

The third choice could be Bobby Jindal. Jindal has shown to be a successful governor as he has balanced Louisiana budget, unemployment is below the national average and he defended his state effectively against Obama mishandling of the BP spill. Jindal has been a congressman, worked on health care on a state level and an effective governor. Not bad experience for a forty years old, heck, it would be a good career for someone is sixty. Jindal youth will not be hindrance with his experience but he does not add as much as the ticket as both McDonnell and Rubio with key states and key demographics. All three of these candidates are attractive to Tea Party members and social conservative.

What if Gingrich wins? Gingrich is appealing to Tea Party and social conservative but for many conservatives, there is a belief that he had deviated from conservative principles in years past. So for Gingrich, does he reach for a Tea Party candidate such as McDonnell, Jindal, or Rubio? Or does he go for a candidate with business experience and been vetted?

I would not be surprise that Presidential candidate Gingrich actually select Mitt Romney. Romney has shown that he has improved his presentation and certainly, he has moved to the right for the past years and during the debates, he has been steady. Romney has business experience, been a governor and has shown the ability to defend his economic plan during the debates plus he might be able to appeal to the moderates and independents. Of course, it could also work in reverse, a Romney-Gingrich ticket. The advantage of this ticket is that both men will be vetted by the fall of 2012 and toughen for the campaign by going through the primaries. Whatever skeletons are already known and by June or July, voters will decide either to ignore the skeletons since they want Obama out or if the Skeletons will be enough to end either men campaign, in particular Gingrich. (In which case, Romney will be nominee.)

Republicans are ready to march through hell and back to be rid of Obama but the issue will be to move the center to the right and bring moderates along. Which candidate will do that and which Vice President nominee adds to the ticket, not just by attracting voter but adding competence and the ability to defend our ideas to the electorate.

End of Era

2011-12-01T06:26:00.001-08:00

The recent passing of Ron Lyle got me to thinking of the era that Mr. Lyle fought in. Lyle became a contender during the 1970’s, which could easily be described as the golden era of Heavyweight boxing. Rarely had so many great fighters reigned at top, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and George Foreman plus there were some pretty good fighters among the contenders, Lyle being one of them.

Lyle was a rugged fighter who combined solid boxing techniques with power, which allowed him to contend with boxers like Joe Bunger but enough power to not only withstand barrages from heavy handed sluggers like Earnie Shavers but beat them. Lyle had the biggest problems with boxers as he lost two fights to the ever cutie of boxer, Jimmy Young; who made every fighter who fought him look bad.

Lyle two signature fights were the ones that he lost. In his slugfest with George Foreman, he nearly knocked Foreman out before ending up on the canvas himself. This was one of those fights in which two heavy handed sluggers simply winged shots and it was a last man standing type of affair. Lyle didn’t win the fight but he did manage to be part of the one of the great fights of the 70’s.

His other signature lost was against Muhammad Ali. This was a fight in which Lyle almost outsmarted the great one as he refuse to fall for Ali tricks. Ali tried to entice Lyle into tiring himself out by throwing punches at Ali rope a dope defense but Lyle refuse to fall for the trick. Instead, Lyle peppered Ali on the ropes and then moved away; forcing Ali to chase for brief moments and Ali found an unwilling participant for his tricks. An Ali quick right hand in the eleventh round sent Lyle head spinning 180 degrees before Ali unleashed a barrage of punches and the fight was stopped. The fight was hardly a classic as Lyle did just enough to get ahead on the scorecard and Ali spent a good portion of the fight on the rope, hoping to counter Lyle from behind the rope a dope defense. Ali found himself having to take things in his own hands and stop Lyle in the eleventh round but for 10 rounds, Lyle was the Heavyweight Champion of the world on two of the three scorecards, the third having the fight even at the time.

Lyle career wound down near the end of the decade as Gerry Cooney stopped Lyle in the first round. At the age of 54, Lyle came back and won three fights by knock outs before retiring for good. Lyle was one of those forgotten fighter of a great era dominated by giants but for many boxing fans my age, he was one of those good fighters who provided entertaining fights.

If Lyle represented the contender the side of the Heavyweight golden era, Joe Frazier represented the elite in an era where elite fighters rode the top. Frazier like George Foreman and Larry Holmes, who took over the top of the division at the end of the decade, was overshadowed by Ali. Ali dominance both as a fighter and public figure often eclipsed the other great fighters of the era. Ali ability to find a way to win allowed him to stay on top of the division and his one endearing quality, rarely recognized by pundits at the time, was his ability to take punches. By the time he fought Lyle, the speed was still there but not as quick as the Ali’s of the 60’s and his ability to dance and move for fifteen rounds diminished by age. Ali still had his third fight with both Ken Norton and Joe Frazier over the horizon but one could see the erosion of skills even then. Ali’s guile and smarts allowed him to stay on top while able to handle the power of both Frazier and Foreman and that allowed him to win most of those key battles.

Joe Frazier own misfortune was simply be part of the same era as Ali and Foreman. He lost two of three close fights to Ali and Foreman stopped Frazier twice; these latter defeats overshadowing a great career. Today, we recognized Frazier for the great fighter he was and know that in most eras, he would have simply dominated. He had fought in the 50’s; he would have been as dominated as Rocky Marciano. Frazier death along with Lyle reminded us of a time win America actually had great heavyweights at the top. Today, the great heavyweights reside across the Atlantic and America had not seen a great heavyweight since the Evander Holyfield peak years in the mid 1990’s. Frazier and Lyle belonged to an era long past but not forgotten, the Golden Era of Heavyweights.

Back to grind

2011-11-30T06:35:00.001-08:00

It has been a while since I have blogged on my own blog. Back to it.

36th district

2011-06-03T20:12:00.001-07:00

While much of the political world gazed elsewhere, Californians from the 36th congressional district voted in a special election. California has adopted a jungle style of primary, with the top two moving on to the general election and there were some good news and some lessons for conservatives. The good news is Republican candidate Craig Huey managed to make it through to the general election; thus giving the voters of the 36th District a real choice as oppose to a choice of which hard core lefty to send to Washington. The second news is that Republican candidates attracted 41.4% of the vote, which represent significant growth from 2010 midterms. Huey message was simple, government is too big and needs to be restrained and he found an audience even in a blue district. It will be tough to win the general election against Janice Hahn but Huey and the rest of the Republicans showed that there are voters listening.

As one conservative strategist remarked to me, “If Craig Huey can stay the course on big government and defending the constitution he will be in good order.” I will add that this was as much a victory for the grass roots as anything since the Party machinery appeared ineffective and Huey self-financed his campaign. (I will add that Americas PAC, which I head and Americas Majority Foundation were involved in the initial campaign with a small scale minority campaign.) Bottom line lesson is that when the message of limited government is promoted hard, it can win.

Contrast that with what happened in New York 26th district where the Republican candidate Janice Corwin got defensive on defending the Ryan budget and allowed the narrative of why smaller government benefits her constituents get away from her. The Democrats are now campaigning hard against Ryan budget and targeting Republican seats now! I have mention in the past that the Democrats are engaging into a strategy of the permanent campaign and in New York, introduce ads showing grandma literally being thrown off the cliff.

The proper strategy in California and elsewhere should be based on producing a conservative permanent campaign to counter the left. One area to attack the left is through their base and forcing them to spend resources to defend their base. One crucial base includes Hispanic and African-American voters and this base is vulnerable since they are the biggest victim of Obamanomics. While Blacks still support Obama in great numbers, those numbers are down from 2008 and it doesn't help that African-Americans have suffered as a group worse from the ill effects of Obamanomics. Hispanics voters are disappointed with Obama's lack of action on immigration reform and they too are hurt by Obamanomics as unemployment among Hispanics is substantially higher than white’s non-Hispanic workers.

Hispanics entrepreneurs are forming businesses at near record pace but their ability to grow their businesses are being compromised by Obama's economic plan and with private jobs being created at a snail pace; destroying their opportunity to move up the economic ladder. We have opportunities to make gains among minority voters and emphasize that the Republicans will be the Party of hope and change in 2012 since Obama's vision of hope and change have produced nothing but unemployment and hopelessness.

In the California 36th District, Asians make up a substantial demographics and many of these individual own their own businesses and looking to move up the economic ladder just as Hispanics, only to see those opportunities to be short circuited just like other minorities. For Republicans, talk the American Dream and how those dreams are being turn into the American Nightmare of permanent welfare and underemployment by Obama and the Democrats. Talk about how Democrats like Janice Hahn are more willing to align themselves with the leaders of Teachers’ Unions while fabric of LA education crumble; putting yet another obstacles in the way of many minorities to advance due to bad educational theories destroying the needed knowledge base to survive the 21st century.

What Republicans lost over the past month is the mantle of the party of reform. The Ryan plan like other Republican ideas are designed to reform health care and over the long haul, put patients back in charge of their health care decisions. We run Medicare just as it was still 1965 and system is on the verge of bankruptcy; leaving many seniors in the lurch now! The Obama plan is for bureaucrats decide if grandma will be thrown off the cliff or simply left to die. The Republicans ought to be able to win with that message!

climate change

2011-06-03T20:11:00.000-07:00

of man created climate change. There are two important thoughts to consider. The first thought is that United States have abundance of recoverable energy sources including, oil, natural gas and coal plus the Congressional Research Center concluded that the United States may have the most supply of energy sources in the world within technical reach. The second thought is that as long as we are blaming humanity for climate change, none of this energy will ever be developed.

The good news is that the Gallup Poll noticed that in the United States, the majority of Americans either believe nature is responsible or nature in combination with man is. This research has been confirmed by the Americas Majority Foundation, an organization I work with. The average Americans understand instinctively that man by himself is not the primary reason for climate change and that nature plays a significant role. The only question is how much man plays a role compared to nature. Actually, this is a common sense approach considering that climate have been changing for eons without the assistance of humanity; so the idea that nature doesn’t play a role is counterintuitive.

Just in the past millennium, we have seen changes in climate with a warming trend around the medieval period followed by a mini-ice age that may have existed for 500 years and another warming trend that probably began in the middle of the 19th century. The past century have seen minor fluctuations with a warm decade in the 1930’s followed by a cooling trend from 1940’s through the 1970’s; before beginning yet another warming trend. Some scientists even talked of a new ice age in the 1970’s but now we are talking getting fried, or both; depending upon the weather of the day.

There is much we don’t understand about climate and our planet but we act as if we already have all the answer, never mind that many scientists have changed their minds radically over the past four decades. Climate science is more hubris than science; man-made climate change is a theory looking for facts and scientists looking for grants.

If the United States is to ever have an energy plan that actually calls for Americans producing their own energy sources like, oil, coal, nuclear, natural gas and yes even an windmill or two plus a couple of ear of corn for the gas tank; then climate change science needs to be challenged. The Climategate scandal of a couple of years ago exposed the serious questions about the research as exposed through the words of the scientists themselves on emails. These scientists were caught trying to rewrite climate history and their efforts were the equivalent of writing about Joseph Stalin and not mentioning the purges of the 30’s, or discussing Nazis Germany and not bringing up the holocaust. The one consensus that scientists now agree on, that the temperature around 1000 ad was as warm, if not warmer than today and around 1400 AD, it was colder than today! The question is what caused the deviation of temperature over the past 1000 years since much of the past millennium featured no massive industrial revolution. What climate science has done is to slow down America’s energy development.

Climategate showed scientific corruption but while much of the media has ignored climategate, the reality is that the science is now shifting as the skeptics are proving to be more correct than their man-made climate change advocates. Which brings us to final point, do we develop the energy located within our borders and create new jobs in the process or do we surrender our opportunity to become an energy exporter?

Iowa Caucus part 2

2011-06-03T20:10:00.000-07:00

On the Eliot Spitzer show, In the Arena, Iowa Congressman Steve King produced a minor earthquake in the Iowa political landscape. Pressed by Spitzer on ethanol subsidies, King made the point that the ethanol industry can stand on its own. For those who are familiar with Iowa politics and the Iowa caucus, ethanol subsidies were one of the main reasons for the caucus and its place on the primary calendar. Many Republican presidential hopeful have pledged their loyalty to the subsidies but this year, there have been a shift of Republicans attitude toward ethanol. On his time for truth tour, Tim Pawlenty told Iowa voters the time have come to wean Iowa off subsidies as part of a larger strategy to reduce energy subsidies in general. The first inclination was to ask Mr. Pawlenty, now that you have given up on Iowa, what about New Hampshire? Pawlenty may have been on to something as Sarah Palin and now King, who represents many corn farmers in his district, both agreed; it is time to end the subsidies. Opposing ethanol subsidies may not doom an Iowa campaign.

Mitt Romney, who has been playing a game of will I or won’t I when it comes to campaigning in Iowa, came out strongly for the subsidies soon after Pawlenty called for the end to the subsidy. With Huckabee out of the campaign picture and Pawlenty calling for the end of ethanol subsidies, Romney might be rethinking his strategy of waiting for New Hampshire. In 2008, Romney went all out in Iowa and lost to Huckabee, wounding his own campaign. Romney strategy this year was to use New Hampshire as the springboard for his campaign but with his public declaration for ethanol subsidies; he may have decided that his more moderate campaign may attract enough voters to win Iowa in a five or six candidate race where the rest will be going after the conservative and evangelical voters. Of course, Romney pandering to the ethanol merely reinforces what many think of Romney, a man who is willing to do anything or say anything to win. In the past, calling for the end of Iowa subsidies meant a candidate was already on his way to New Hampshire. Romney support for subsidies may not be the boost needed to win Iowa.

Iowa businessman Bruce Rastetter and other Iowa big donors’ big mission to entice Chris Christie have proven to be a failure as Christie made it clear; he is staying as the governor of New Jersey. Christie will visit Iowa but not as a candidate.

For many Iowan politicians, their biggest fear is that Iowa caucus will have little impact on the race and some GOP donors view a less than impressive field as hurting the Iowa caucus. Iowans have defended their berth as the first in the nation caucus and if many of the major candidates ignore the caucus and gear up for the primary states afterwards; it weakens the case for having Iowa first in 2016. As long as Iowa impact can be felt, then the early caucus have a reason to exist and one of Iowa major contributions is that it eliminates many candidates before the primary season. Candidates like Huntsman and Romney may find that other primary states more to their liking and allow the conservatives to beat themselves up in Iowa. Another thing that bothers some GOP Iowans is that it will highlight one wing of the Party while ignoring the “more moderate or more establishment” wing.

Sarah Palin is a star in her own right and her bus tour leaves the question, will she or won’t she? There are many reasons for Palin not to run; not the least her negatives may be too high to overcome. Her bus tour may be a trial run to see if a candidacy is possible or judge voters reaction. She is looking more like a candidate every day.

The conventional wisdom among many is that a Palin candidacy sucks the oxygen out of those in the second tier just as Bachman, Pawlenty or Cain; in particular in Iowa. There is one flaw to that; Palin has virtually no organization in Iowa to speak of and Iowa, like New Hampshire, is still depends upon a retail style of politics. As Iowan Senator Grassley once observed, running for President in the Iowa caucus is like running for Sheriff, people want to see you, shake your hand and judge for themselves who you are. Palin can’t expect to win Iowa without at least having some element of organization. Every four years, there are talk of the new campaign but in the end, it is about raising money, putting an organization together and getting out the vote. Palin has yet to do that and the longer she waits, the more difficult it becomes.

Iowa caucus part 1

2011-06-03T20:08:00.000-07:00

Sitting in the Hawkeye state and home of the first caucus, I get the opportunity to see candidates up front and personal. If you want to know why folks are excited about Herman Cain, just spend an evening with him and you will know why. There is a presence about the man and he had the crowd rocking. You had people saying Amen and you were almost felt you were at an evangelical revival; and when he stated, “In America, you have a right to succeed!” the place exploded. Cain has a way to connect with the grass roots, a skill that very few politicians have and this man is a rookie but as he stated when a reporter asked him why start his political career with a Presidential run, “I climbed up the business ladder but I don’t have time to climb the Presidential ladder!”
There is a movement afoot to recruit Chris Christie as many Iowa major money men led by Bruce Rasteller(who worked with governor Terry Branstad recent campaign) are preparing a trek to recruit the New Jersey Governor. Obviously there is much dissatisfaction with the present candidates but it is early in the election season and sometimes a candidate looks good from afar. Christie won’t get in the race if Daniels does but if Daniels does jumped in; Christie will support his follow governor.(If Daniels does not get in the race, then look for Christie to do so.)

Speaking of candidates looking go from afar, will he or won’t he? While many in the Washington establishment want Mitch Daniels, how long will it take before the media attack Daniels as a right wing extremist? How about five minutes after he announces. This guy has introduced Health saving accounts among state workers while taming union bargaining rights among teachers, cut the budget and least I forget, defunded Planned Parenthood while calling for a truce on social issues. So Mitchell may be moderate in temperament but his record is of a man on the right, not the center. This will give the media and Democrats plenty of ammunition.
Iowa caucus is one of those unique event that begin almost immediately after the Presidential election, as any one who wants to be President treks to Iowa and the media follows. For many in Iowa, the caucus has several goals, the first being to protect ethanol and farm subsidies, the second; Iowa gets extra attention that won’t occur during the general election and the third, good for tourism. Let face it, going to Iowa in December and January is hardly paradise; unless you like snow and cold. So every four years, every media personality comes to Iowa to pay homage to Iowans and we Iowans love the attention. For years, many have criticized having Iowa being the jumping point of the Presidential campaign and with good reason; and while Iowa does not predict the winner, it does weed out the competition. After Iowa, we will have a two or three man race or maybe I should say a two or three man or woman race; keeping Michelle Bachman in mind.

Newt Gingrich presidential aspiration has blown up before it began. Gingrich criticism of Ryan’s budget has ended his shot of winning Iowa or any other primary as one Iowa Republican told Mr. Gingrich, “You’re embarrassment to our Party, Why don’t you quit now before you make a bigger fool of yourself.”

Gingrich is doing an Iowa tour after his Presidential but most of the tour has been dragged down in his statement and subsequent apology, which is not a great way to begin a campaign. While some observers like Dick Morris view this as only a setback, I view this as Armageddon for the Gingrich campaign and I don’t see it going beyond August. Hopefully, he has chance to get his old job back with Fox.

Iowa is a state where underdogs can make breakthrough. In 2008, Mike Huckabee made his breakthrough in Iowa and this allowed him to last into the spring before McCain wrapped up the race. The most famous underdog who made it out of Iowa was Jimmy Carter, who changed the rules of the nomination by winning Iowa and going on to become President. It was Carter who made Iowa the mainstay for politicians seeking the White House since he showed that an underdog can boost his or her chances and Iowa does have some advantages for a guerrilla campaign. It is a small state that is inexpensive to campaign in compared to other states plus there is plenty of political activist willing to do grunt work of going door to door. It is easier for candidates to meet with voters, even though this is starting to change.

If Carter’s victory emphasized Iowa importance to an underdog campaign, Steve Forbes used his wealth to attempt to win the Iowa Caucus with an ad war to win the caucus. Forbes in both 1996 and 2000 used his wealth to buy up ads and this promoted the caucus to beyond candidates meeting with Iowans in homes to candidates speaking in front of large audience.

In 2000, Dan Quayle had a meeting in front of 50 people in an activist’s home but Cain recent performance was conducted in a hotel convention center in front of 250 party regulars. So some of the retail politics have been lost but there is still much retail politics going on and this does allow candidates to see how their lines work among audiences. For candidates like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman, Iowa offer an inexpensive chance to make an impression and get into the race. In 2008, nearly 110,000 Iowans showed up for the caucus, and what wins is who has the best ground game in Iowa. Underdogs can compete with better financed candidates with a ground game. Huckabee depended upon evangelicals to carry his message and upset Romney and McCain while Iowa ended the Fred Thompson campaign.

As the caucus progress, I will keep readers inform

Iowa Caucus

2011-05-19T11:16:00.000-07:00

Sitting in the Hawkeye state and home of the first caucus, I get the opportunity to see candidates up front and personal. If you want to know why folks are excited about Herman Cain, just spend an evening with him and you will know why. There is a presence about the man and he had the crowd rocking. You had people saying Amen and you were almost felt you were at an evangelical revival; and when he stated, “In America, you have a right to succeed!” the place exploded. Cain has a way to connect with the grass roots, a skill that very few politicians have and this man is a rookie but as he stated when a reporter asked him why start his political career with a Presidential run, “I climbed up the business ladder but I don’t have time to climb the Presidential ladder!”

There is a movement afoot to recruit Chris Christie as many Iowa major money men led by Bruce Rasteller(who worked with governor Terry Branstad recent campaign) are preparing a trek to recruit the New Jersey Governor. Obviously there is much dissatisfaction with the present candidates but it is early in the election season and sometimes a candidate looks good from afar. Christie won’t get in the race if Daniels does but if Daniels does jumped in; Christie will support his follow governor.(If Daniels does not get in the race, then look for Christie to do so.)

Speaking of candidates looking go from afar, will he or won’t he? While many in the Washington establishment want Mitch Daniels, how long will it take before the media attack Daniels as a right wing extremist? How about five minutes after he announces. This guy has introduced Health saving accounts among state workers while taming union bargaining rights among teachers, cut the budget and least I forget, defunded Planned Parenthood while calling for a truce on social issues. So Mitchell may be moderate in temperament but his record is of a man on the right, not the center. This will give the media and Democrats plenty of ammunition.
Iowa caucus is one of those unique event that begin almost immediately after the Presidential election, as any one who wants to be President treks to Iowa and the media follows. For many in Iowa, the caucus has several goals, the first being to protect ethanol and farm subsidies, the second; Iowa gets extra attention that won’t occur during the general election and the third, good for tourism. Let face it, going to Iowa in December and January is hardly paradise; unless you like snow and cold. So every four years, every media personality comes to Iowa to pay homage to Iowans and we Iowans love the attention. For years, many have criticized having Iowa being the jumping point of the Presidential campaign and with good reason; and while Iowa does not predict the winner, it does weed out the competition. After Iowa, we will have a two or three man race or maybe I should say a two or three man or woman race; keeping Michelle Bachman in mind.

Newt Gingrich presidential aspiration has blown up before it began. Gingrich criticism of Ryan’s budget has ended his shot of winning Iowa or any other primary as one Iowa Republican told Mr. Gingrich, “You’re embarrassment to our Party, Why don’t you quit now before you make a bigger fool of yourself.”

Gingrich is doing an Iowa tour after his Presidential but most of the tour has been dragged down in his statement and subsequent apology, which is not a great way to begin a campaign. While some observers like Dick Morris view this as only a setback, I view this as Armageddon for the Gingrich campaign and I don’t see it going beyond August. Hopefully, he has chance to get his old job back with Fox.

Iowa is a state where underdogs can make breakthrough. In 2008, Mike Huckabee made his breakthrough in Iowa and this allowed him to last into the spring before McCain wrapped up the race. The most famous underdog who made it out of Iowa was Jimmy Carter, who changed the rules of the nomination by winning Iowa and going on to become President. It was Carter who made Iowa the mainstay for politicians seeking the White House since he showed that an underdog can boost his or her chances and Iowa does have some advantages for a guerrilla campaign. It is a small state that is inexpensive to campaign in compared to other states plus there is plenty of political activist willing to do grunt work of going door to door. It is easier for candidates to meet with voters, even though this is starting to change.

If Carter’s victory emphasized Iowa importance to an underdog campaign, Steve Forbes used his wealth to attempt to win the Iowa Caucus with an ad war to win the caucus. Forbes in both 1996 and 2000 used his wealth to buy up ads and this promoted the caucus to beyond candidates meeting with Iowans in homes to candidates speaking in front of large audience.
In 2000, Dan Quayle had a meeting in front of 50 people in an activist’s home but Cain recent performance was conducted in a hotel convention center in front of 250 party regulars. So some of the retail politics have been lost but there is still much retail politics going on and this does allow candidates to see how their lines work among audiences. For candidates like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman, Iowa offer an inexpensive chance to make an impression and get into the race. In 2008, nearly 110,000 Iowans showed up for the caucus, and what wins is who has the best ground game in Iowa. Underdogs can compete with better financed candidates with a ground game. Huckabee depended upon evangelicals to carry his message and upset Romney and McCain while Iowa ended the Fred Thompson campaign.

As the caucus progress, I will keep readers inform.

Canadian Electons

2011-05-09T19:05:00.000-07:00

Canadian elections show important lessons for American conservatives. It begins with sound policy making for good politics, as Canadian Steve Harper has managed to lead Canada through the past economic crisis by out performing the United States Keynesian economic theories on steroids. There was time that Canada government debt share of the economy was significantly higher than her neighbor to the south along with weaker currency compared to the United States. In the early 90’s, the Canadian dollars toppled downward forcing the Liberal government to begin serious budget cutting.

The Conservatives continued the budget cutting and Harper; a cautious politician came into office with a goal of restoring Canadian defense, reducing taxes and further cutting government spending. The Canadian economy has improved quicker despite being a smaller economy integrated with the larger United States economy and the Canadian dollar is now stronger than the United States; showing that good policies produces results and the conservatives won a majority for the first time since the 1988. The Canadian conservatives represented a unity of Western conservatives with the old Progressive Conservatives that were nearly wiped out in the early 1990’s and this would be equivalent of the Republican establishment uniting with the Tea Party. Harper appealed to Canadians working and middle classes including immigrants, a lesson for Republicans going into the 2012 elections.
For many of the working class, mobility in Canadian society is important and the Tories made stride in Ontario due to this point. One Canadian polling company noted, “The historic middle class or bourgeois bastion of liberal-conservative establishment have become the fortress of anti-establishment NDP while the less educated and hence lower status Canadian are set to become the stronghold the impregnable fortress- of the Conservatives.” Some Canadian pundits on Election Day added that some of the right wing liberals voted for the conservatives and deserted the NDP.

The lesson for Republicans is three fold. The first is that free market policy works better in producing a long standing recovering. The second is that good policies translate into votes and third and final lesson is that many middle class wants opportunity to move up the economic ladder and not have it swept away from them.
For many Americans, the Obama’s recovery has passed them by and they have either become ward of the state, forever prop up by yet another extension of unemployment benefits or worry about the job that they have. Those who have jobs, their salaries have stagnated while they see the cost of gas and food going up. Republicans have to present not just opposition to Obamanomics but a plan that will present the promise of future growth and future opportunities.
For many Main Street businesses, Obamanomics promise higher cost, higher taxes and restriction of future growth. This brings us to the left side of the equation. In the 90’s; Canadian liberals like their Democratic counterpart in the United States moved to the center due to necessities. In the case of the United States Democrats, the collapse of Hillary care and the massive congressional defeat forced Clinton to the center. The Canadian economy forced Liberals to get their financial house in order but in this past election, the New Democratic Party (NDP) became the new opposition and what is left of Liberals must now decide how to rebuild. The NDP is the hard left party and now the left of center opposition to the Conservative is simply the left opposition.

In the United States, the left has taken over the Democratic Party and what is left of its center died in the last congressional elections; Canada is no difference now as the left extremists has taken over the direction of the left-center opposition. This makes compromise impossible on key issues including the budget.

The Canadian conservatives provided a game plan and they already had results to show; thus they had credibility. The Republicans are in a more difficult position since the Democrats control not just the White House but the Senate as well, but it should not stop them from producing a budget and forcing the Democrats to make hard decisions. Let the Democrats be the Party of big government and higher taxes; as long as Republicans can convince the public that the Democrats will not stop at taxing the rich, but tax the middle class as well. Finally, the Republicans should note that as soon as the Bush tax rates were extended and not raised, employment solidified and that the only pro growth program are based on Republican principle that tax rates matters. Keynesian economics have failed to generate a strong recovery, but to win an election; you have to propose an alternative. Canadian conservatives produced an optimistic vision and Canadian voters agreed. Republicans must present an optimistic vision showing Americans that the next generation will see their prosperity greater than their parents. Right now, most younger workers look at the future and all they see is decline.

Three Candidates

2011-05-09T19:04:00.000-07:00

Staying in Greenville over the weekend, I had a chance to watch some of the GOP Presidential debate and came away with a conclusion; that many on the so-call second tier would make a better President than the present occupant in the White House.

There are three candidates that intrigue if only because they have a chance to play significant role in the Republican Party over the next year and beyond.
Gary Johnson won’t win or for that matter, he will be the second most popular libertarian Republican candidate; running far behind Ron Paul. His significance lies less in the number of votes he receives but the ability to project that Libertarians can actually govern effectively. Unlike Ron Paul, who has spent his political career in Congress after running for President as a Libertarian, Governor Johnson actually served two full terms as Governor in New Mexico, a tenure that included many vetoes and budget cutting. Johnson biggest claim to fame is that he supports legalization of drugs but he has shown that he can manage a state; important portion of his resume in an era in which many voters will be looking at executive experience. Johnson doesn’t just appeal on Libertarian principles but point outs that there is a cost-benefit ratio favoring small government principles.

Herman Cain is the anti-Trump, a non-politician businessman who brags about the fact he is not a politician. As the anti-Trump, Herman Cain is not a celebrity; at least among most Americans. What Cain offers is knowledge on the issues. For many years, beginning when he was an executive at Godfather Pizza, he has been involved in national politics. His first brush with national politics came when he challenged Bill Clinton during the Hillary care debate. When President Clinton told him, “Don’t worry, you will get subsidies” for the proposed employers mandate, Cain responded back, “Quite honestly, your calculations is inaccurate. In the competitive marketplace, it simply doesn’t work that way.” From that point, he became the chairman of National Restaurant Association and had a stint as a member of the Federal Reserve.

Cain has spent the decade as a writer and a talk show host, which has allowed him to debate and discuss the issues. In some ways, his career path is similar to Ronald Reagan, who spent some three decades as a speaker and writer and this allowed Reagan to work out a coherent worldview before entering the White House. Cain is still in the process of working a coherent plan but certainly contrasted to Trump, Cain is more knowledgeable on the issues. In an interview with Bill O’ Reilly, Trump came off short on specifics or for that matter, understanding the issues. Trump major claim is his straight talk but his big issues were Obama’s birth certificate and slapping a tariff on China. As for Cain, he can claim business expertise for his executive experience (and no bankruptcy) and inside knowledge of how the Federal Reserve works since he served on its board; at a time when King Dollar was King Dollar!
If Cain demonstrated any weakness in the recent debate, it was in foreign affairs when he stated that he would need to talk with experts before deciding on a correct future path in Afghanistan. Cain supporters like Stacy McCain defended his answers but voters will love more details on foreign affairs as the campaign progresses. Cain advantage over Trump is two fold, he is more knowledgeable on the issues and he is likable. The latter is point that can’t be underestimated and certainly, the man showed character when he survived cancer that nearly killed him and now he is running for the President. As one pundit described noted, “He is Steve Forbes with charisma.”

Tim Pawlenty is the anti-Romney, a smooth successful governor with an easy going personality. Romney has run the campaign as he is the preempt favorite, so he has avoided any hint of combat and there is a thought that he might even avoid Iowa; just go straight to New Hampshire. Pawlenty, who was on McCain short list in 2008, is still not a household name but is putting together an organization with hope of a breakthrough in the early caucus and primary state. Iowa is his best chance to jumpstart his campaign but it won’t be easy as he seems to be everyone second choice and in a crowded field, this hurts.

While Cain helped himself with his performance in Greenville, Pawlenty did not hurt himself. Pawlenty easy going personality hides a hard edge politician who is not afraid to mix it up as he shown in fighting the left in Minnesota. His executive ranking by the Cato Institute was an A, showing that he kept his state budget in line. Maybe the best line that he used in Greenville is when he stated that he made a mistake in supporting cap and trade earlier in his career contrasting to Romney, who has yet to admit he made a mistake with Romney Care, which has led to higher cost for health care and broken the Massachusetts budget.

Pawlenty support for climate change policies in the past was his Achilles heel but he has defused by simply say, “Opps, I am wrong.” Contrast this with Romney who has to defend his own healthcare record as governor and so far has floundered in doing so. Beyond that, Pawlenty’s record will not disappoint social conservatives and his fiscal record will not disappoint Tea Partiers. George Will once wrote of Mitch Daniels, he had the “charisma of competency,” but the same can easily be said of Pawlenty.
In the case of Cain, we have a successful businessman without the celebrity status but then we already failed with our present celebrity President. In the case of Pawlenty, we have competency in a time in which just a little competency needed. As Pawlenty noted in Greenville, one correct decision does not make a foreign policy but then one decision doesn’t create sudden competency in an administration short of competency.

Greenville debate

2011-05-09T19:03:00.000-07:00

There were very few tuning into the GOP presidential debate on Fox on May 5th. Advertise as the debate between the second tiers, one came away with the impression that any of those who showed up in Greenville could be President.
The Obama administration and the sycophants within the media have declared the capture of Osama Bin Laden as the game changer but this past week showed off all of Obama’s administration weakness. The military performed their job brilliantly but the administration have managed to blow the victory lap as throughout the week, the administration kept coming up with a different story of what happened. The reality that is starting to show up, Obama essentially gave a kill order; not that is a bad thing. The inability to come up with the same story represented the Obama administration in all of its glory, managed to muck up a brilliant move; a move needed in the war on terror. On top of that, the unemployment rate shifted upward so Obama’s economic plan simply showed an economy struggling along.

In reviewing the debate, there was much to say just for the candidates who showed up. Tim Pawlenty is one of those nice Midwestern politician, who managed to put up impressive record as governor of Minnesota; a very blue state. Unlike Romney, who has yet to fess up to the fact that Romneycare has yet to work as advertise; Pawlenty simply cut his losses on his support for cap and trade and anthropogenic climate change by admitting he was wrong. From that point, he performed well in the debate. As for Rick Santorum, he got the chance to talk about other issues besides the social issues and showed that he was more than one horse pony.
Herman Cain showed that maybe we can dispense with the Donald Trump for President, if we are looking for some one outside the political arena. He offered a coherent defense of free markets and unlike Trump, he is a likeable fellow.
As Washington Examiner Phillip Klein noted, Gary Johnson was described going into this debate as the reasonable Ron Paul but in this debate, Paul proved to be the reasonable Paul. Both Paul and Johnson explained the libertarian vision of the GOP including a non-interventionist foreign policy. I will say up front that I am not enthusiastic follower of the Johnson-Paul foreign policy but Ron Paul biggest strength may be his criticism of the Fed’s policy in 2008 proved to more on mark over the past three years. Paul vision of a king dollar and strong currency will be one of those underestimated issues.

There were no losers among this group in the sense that no one did anything to disqualify them from running for President. Pawlenty showed that he might be an alternative to Romney, who may have been the biggest loser by not showing up. Cain helped himself the most as he showed a likable nature combined with business man efficacy. If Paul makes the Fed the issue, Cain can profit from this. He was the deputy chairman and later chairman of the Fed during the 90’s when the dollar was still king dollar. So Cain has experience in dealing with monetary policy; something that can’t be dismissed out of hand.

Many pundits dismiss Cain but these same pundits take Donald Trump seriously but Cain is more knowledgeable on the issues. The difference between the two is that Cain has been writing and speaking on issues for the past decade including commenting on a daily basis on his radio program; so he had the chance to develop a coherent philosophy on what he wants to accomplish if he does get elected. The Donald has yet shown much understanding on the issues unless you consider slapping a tariff on China and taking over Iraqi’s oil field as serious issues or worrying if Obama was born in the United States, a serious candidate.

Going forward, the Republican Party will prove to be a deeper than pundits and so far most of the candidates available are more qualified than the man presently in the White House. Herman Cain has run big corporations, been a entrepreneur, member of the Federal Reserve and while he has no political experience, he considers this a asset. Gary Johnson was a successful two term as governor in New Mexico and Tim Pawlenty proved to be a successful two term governor of blue state in which he managed to keep the budget in line without increasing taxes. Santorum was a United States Senator for two terms in a what is considered a blue state and yes, he did lose his shot at a third term but he does have more federal experience than the man is presently President. Paul is one of the more captivating characters in Congress, a man who does it his way; a quality to be occasionally admired in a Congressman but not necessarily a good trait for the presidency.

Will you be better off?

2011-04-30T21:38:00.000-07:00

Ronald Reagan asked the famous question in his debate with Jimmy Carter, “Are you better off now than four years ago?” and the electorate agreed with him. In 2012, the Republican Presidential candidate will sorely be tempted to ask same question, but maybe the candidate should ask another question, “Will you be better off four years later?”

In past columns, I have made the point that Obama’s policy has made the recovery weaker and if he had done nothing, we would have been better off. Recent GDP numbers recorded a 1.8% growth and the best we can say is that we are crawling ahead but this number represent a retreat; still early in a recovery. The growth in Obama’s recovery pales in contrast when compared to the Reagan. Over a similar period, unemployment drop was greater and growth more than double what Obama has accomplished. The reality is that Obama’s policy has retarded progress and there is nothing over the next two years that will enhance growth. During Reagan first two years, Reagan allowed Paul Volcker to wring inflation out of the system and then when inflation started downward; the recovery took off. This provided the anchor for economic growth over the next three decades. Reagan economic plan survived beyond Reagan administration, a policy of lower marginal tax rates combined with King Dollars.

While Clinton did increase marginal tax rates among the wealthy, something that Democrats keep harping on but the 1990’s saw a Democratic led Congress walk away with massive government intervention in the economy; reduce capital gain tax, reduced the growth of government and passed free trade agreements. All these moves negated the negative impact of raising marginal tax rates.

What has Obama promised for a second term? Based on his budget, more spending and Obama care will only increase medical health care cost but it will increase cost on doing business in America. When Obama talks about raising the limits for taxation for social security, he is telling many under $250,000 that their taxes will go up since it involves a tax increase into the Middle Class. Hell, Obamacare even involves tax increases involving three quarters of a trillion dollars and this will involved the middle class and small business owners. Obama’s regulatory gambits add even more costs and the Fed’s weak dollar policy is threatening an inflationary cycle while fighting what was and may still be a deflationary cycle. In fairness to Ben Bernancke, he has been given mission impossible since he is the only thing that is keeping the economy slipping down but there is only so much the Fed can do before trouble arises.

So Republicans need to ask not just the question, are you better off now than fours ago but ask even more important, will you be better off in four years? Will we live under the health care restraints of Obamacare or will we be able have more patient reform health care? Will we see taxes go up and more debt in the future or will we actually get our budget deficit under control and begin get our debt under control? What Republicans need to talk about is the future and asks the question, what kind of America you want? Everything that Obama promise will increase the cost of doing business in America, so how does that help economic growth?

The weakness of dollar represent a lack of faith in our economy and it is not just economic quandary but represent the collapse of America standing in the world. King Dollar of Reagan that extended into the Clinton era and King Dollar meant represented America’s leadership role and the weak dollar now represents America leadership world decline. As the question, is the world better off with America’s economically weaker? Are we? Ask those questions and keep asking them until Election Day.

Coburn v Ryan

2011-04-30T21:37:00.000-07:00

The big debate right now within the Republicans is a debate similar to the late 70’s, a strictly an austerity program versus a growth program. Tom Coburn has been a long time spending hawk and one of the few in the Senate who understand the abyss United States is heading. Paul Ryan, like Coburn, has been a spending hawk and leading expert on the federal budget, but Ryan goal is to do what Reagan did the 80’s; combine federal restraint with growth oriented policy. The real difference between the two is that Coburn, it is about cutting spending whereas Ryan’s concern is about economic growth.

This was the debate between George H W Bush and Reagan in the 1980’s primary as Reagan supported Roth-Kemp tax cuts which Bush quipped was “Voodoo economics.” Reagan won the debate and the rest is history.
The same debate exists between Coburn and Ryan. Both men participated in the deficit commission group chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson; Coburn voted for the final recommendation but Ryan said no. (In defense of Coburn, he voted for the recommendation to begin a debate on the items within recommendation.) Both agreed with the general principle that budget needs to be cut and entitlements programs, and both believe that tax reform means reduction in marginal tax rates. The difference is that while the budget commission talks about reforming the tax codes by lowering marginal tax rates; the reduction in deductions represent a tax increase, whereas Ryan own proposal also reforms the tax system but the big difference is that even with closing tax deductions, the tax plan is revenue neutral.

Coburn has made it clear in his own running battle with Grover Norquist of the America for Tax Reform that he is prepared to support a plan that may represent a overall tax increase even if marginal tax rates are lowered, while Norquist own point is that this is a violation of the no tax increase pledge that Coburn has signed. Ryan own thesis is that the tax system needs to encourage to economic growth whereas Coburn believes that tax increases and spending cuts may be necessary to close the deficits. Ryan own thesis is that economic growth means higher federal receipts, but the goal of the Republicans must stand for growth.
Coburn dilemma is that he resides in the Senate which is controlled by the Democrats and the only chance that Coburn may have of getting any budget deal is to include some tax increases. Coburn part of the Group of Six is seeking to put much of the budget commission recommendation into law.

This debate is really about objectives. Coburn goal is to cut spending and reducing the budget deficit his holy grail. Ryan is looking beyond to reduce government spending and his goal is not just reduce spending but priorities. This is not to say that Coburn methodology can’t be reconciled with Ryan but that their emphasis is difference.

Most Americans want jobs as much as they want the cut in the budget so in the end, a Party that emphasizes economic growth is the Party that will win. In the 80’s, the Republicans became the Party of Growth and opportunity society and forced the Democrats to the right in the 90’s.

Coburn has been a valuable member of the Senate, man who has led the fight against bigger government but maybe the major weakness is that he is not looking at the growth equation whereas Ryan is part of a new generation of leaders who is looking to reversing the Obama’s transformation agenda and once again allow the Republican Party to capture the mantle of growth.

Obama is so smart!

2011-04-27T18:56:00.000-07:00

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has basically given us a piece that explains Obama’s shortcoming as an executive leader; he is to damn smart to get it right. Mr. Milbank noted, “Seeking a template to understand the enigmatic president, I consulted three leading academics in the fields of psychology and behavior. With their help, I put Obama on the couch and came away with a reasonably coherent diagnosis: There’s too much going on in the poor guy’s head.” So trying to get inside Obama’s head, he went to outside sources and their points can be summarized in the following fashion:

1. Obama’s mind is so full of knowledge that he has to work through all the facts before coming to a conclusion. Contrasted to Bush’s, who was just a simpleton with only simple ideas and slogans inside his head.

2. He is a brilliant political and social analyst that it is hard for him “to play hardball” as one of Milbank’s experts stated.

3. The complex thinker like Obama can quickly grasp situations and tradeoffs but sometimes the complexity produces paralysis as he sifts through the options.

There is another answer to all of this. As one pundit said a year ago, could Obama’s problem be that coming into the Presidency as the experience of being only a first term Senator, that maybe he was not ready for a chief executive job? Or instead of being complex thinker, could he simply not have a grasp of the key issues a President need to have on the economy or foreign affairs?

The tendency of the left is to make their own out to be intellectuals, even when they are not. Compare Obama analysis of health care to Sarah Palin or for that matter, review what Palin wrote about QE2 a few months ago and decide which of these two have a more solid grasp of economics? (Columnist Don Suber did a brilliant Piece on Palin’s thoughts on QE2, a piece titled Palin for the Feds. Suber’s point was that Palin saw the shortcoming of QE2 several months ago.)

Or for that matter, review Palin’s talk in India a short while back when she challenged the conventional wisdom that China will be the Super power of the 21st century and instead presented the notions that the democratic nations of India and United States will be the leaders with freedom winning? Palin forsees a future alliance that includes India and America still has the resources to be a leading power, if not the leading power, well into this century. Who knows what Obama thinks of India or for that matter what role United States will still command over the next few decades? And his handling of the Mideast has consisted of halfway measures and confusion where our Allies in the region, those that are left standing, don’t know what our intention are and our enemies gleeful that they have what they perceive as a naïve opponent in the White house.

When I think of Obama, I am reminded of Reagan. Reagan was considered a amiable dunce but the reality was that when he became President, he had studied the world for nearly three decades. It was not just the experience of governing successfully a large state that prepared him for the White House but that he had been giving speeches and writing about the big issues for three decades before entering into the White House. His understanding of the world was superior to his critics and he had a plan ready for the world as it was. This was a key to Reagan’s success.

Obama grasp of the world is shallow at best and he did not come into the White House studying the issues in the same intensity or length of time that Reagan did. This is not to say Obama is not highly intelligent, for to make it through Harvard Law School, you have to be smart, book wise. Being smart book wise is not the same as being street smart or understanding of how our capitalist system works. Obama may be the former, book smart, but he does not have in depth in knowledge of our capitalist system and how it truly works.

Obama indecisive nature may simply be due that he became President before he developed the wisdom or knowledge required to govern. That is one possibility that Dana Milbank won’t consider but it is a more likely reason than he is complex man full of complex ideas and the average American simply don’t understand his brilliance.

Thoughts on economics

2011-04-21T21:07:00.000-07:00

The rally cry for the Bill Clinton first Presidential campaign was, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Conventional wisdom is that when voters decide who will be the next President, it is the economy that decides. For Republicans, the key to winning 2012 elections, begins with winning the argument, what kind of America do we want to live in?
The reality is that for the past two years, what recovery that has occurred is because of the Federal Reserve easy money policy but there is a limit to shoveling money from Helicopters before its side effect become pronounced.

In a world dominated by the dollar, when the dollar declines; commodity prices rises. Ben Bernanke is between the rock and hard place for Quantitative easing has been the engine of economic growth as everything else the Obama administration has done works against economic growth. Threats of higher taxes, a trillion dollar of stimulus spending, a essential government takeover of healthcare adding trillions to future spending, EPA threatening to institute cap and trade via regulation all threatens not only future growth but has inhibited present growth. The reality is that what recovery that has occurred pale in comparison to other past recoveries and the truth is if the Obama administration failed to pass a healthcare package or a trillion dollar stimulus, we would be in the midst of a major recovery, lower debts and lower deficits. The biggest chance for a Republican victory is that Obama is not the brightest bulb when it comes to economic thinking but he does get a A for demagoguery and many times demagoguery works. Obama’s idea of soaking the rich (shared sacrifice) and no cuts in Medicare has polled well.

This brings me to how Republicans should talk about when discussing the economy. When Republicans talk budget cuts, they talk budget cuts but it is just as important to talk economic growth. When talking soaking the rich, just remind your opponent that there is a bipartisan agreement from Obama own budget commission to Ryan, left to right, that any marginal tax reforms means lower marginal tax rates in exchange of reducing deductions. Tax rates matter in producing economic growth. Remind your opponents that it is no accident that three best month of employment for Obama occurred after the deal to maintain the Bush’s tax rates along with additional business and individual tax cuts. Case close, Obama ideology loses on taxes in the real world.

Don’t forget that lower tax rates mean more economic activity, means more government revenues and lower deficits, why is that so hard to understand? And when $250,000 equates to being a millionaire? With another year of dollar declining in value and soon a million dollars won’t be enough to live off. We will be carry our dollars in a wheelbarrow to pay for groceries.

Obama tells us that can’t we just have the same rates no the rich as the Clinton years and weren’t those great years? Yeah but to repeat Clinton years, you have to cut the budget in real terms and as a percentage of the total economy, cut capital gain tax, reform entitlements (remember welfare reform which reduce the welfare roll and cost), balance the budget, and least I forget, pass a ton of free trade agreements. So tell me Mr. Obama, are you going to cut capital gain tax, doesn’t your budget proposal means more spending and higher deficits, ready to repeal Obamacare and how many free trade agreements you are pursuing? So where is your proposal for a balanced budget? So why I don’t like the idea of raising the marginal tax rates on the rich but I might trade that for a capital gain tax cut, entitlement reforms, restriction of spending and a few free trade agreements along with the repeal of Obamacare, if this President proposed it. Don’t count on it.

How many times over the past week we have read Republicans are going to cut Medicare, evil Republicans, but wait a minute didn’t Obamacare cuts Medicare by a half a trillion dollars to fund the rest of Obamacare? Yes it does. The reality is that Obamacare is far more vicious in its treatment of the elderly and besides Paul Ryan plan only affects those under 55 whereas Obamacare maltreatment of seniors begins sooner. While Obama demagogue Republicans, seniors get the shaft.

Summary, make it a debate about economic growth and you can win the debate. Reagan won the tax debate and I would suspect that polls in his days showed the same thing, tax the rich was popular but results do prevail. When his policy initiated a three decade growth spurt, much of the discussion about taxing the rich fell by the roadside. Good policy trumps all!

Three Films for Holy Week

2011-04-19T13:57:00.000-07:00

Cecil De Mille combined showmanship, debauchery and reverence in many of his biblical features. An early important figure in early Hollywood, De Mille was a storyteller and in his 1932 now forgotten, Sign of the Cross. De Mille told a timeless story of love and persecution. De Mille, like Mel Gibson 72 years later with Passion of the Christ, was not shy about using violence and sex to advance his message of Christianity triumph. The movie began with Nero, played by Charles Laughton, reciting poetry as Rome burns and throughout the film, Roman debauchery was contrasted to Christian virtues. And in Cecil De Mille’s films, violence and sex gained the edge in air time when compared to virtue. Using various tricks, his cinematographer managed to make mob scenes larger that they actually were and as additional treats for the audience; there were Christians being eaten, orgies, sex both straight and gay and plenty of murder and palace intrigues.

After witnessing the burning of Rome, Nero was adviced to blame the Christians and begin wholesale reprisals and Christians found themselves in hiding. There was one scene that when two Christians were identified by a mob, they denied their faith and pretend to be philosophers. De Mille noted that even among Christians, courage was not always present in the face of death. A Roman Imperial Prefect saved them from the teaming mob. The reason for this had nothing to do with justice but that the Prefect caught the eye of a Christian woman, who was defending the two Christians (one of whom is her stepfather) against the mob.

The Prefect, named Marcus Superbus, pursued the woman and this only got him in trouble with the Emperor, his rivals in the royal court and the Empress, who desired him. Marcus found himself pitted against his main rival Tigellinus and the Empress, Poppaea. We were treated to two worlds, those of the Christians hiding in the underground and the Romans, who constantly seemed to be engaged in political intrigue and orgies. De Mille appeared to have fun with debauchery and in one scene; the seductress Ancara conducted the infamous “Naked Moon” dance, which combined eroticism and lesbian lust. Ancara lap danced around the Christian Mercia in an attempt to seduce the young woman into Lesbian sex acts, while other Romans look on in delight. Her dance is eventually drowned out by the hymns of Christians on their way to arena and death.
As the climatic scene approach, we saw the apprehensive among the Christians as they face their doom. In the Coliseum scene, De Mille featured all of Roman life in various camera sweeps. The Roman gladiators saluting as they parade past Caesar, spectators waging on the various events, and a victim’s mother quietly sobbed. All were guilty of the coming carnage and no one escapes blame. A thug like Nero only existed with the tacit support of the public and the blood lusts of the Coliseum are done for the public’s benefit. We saw Roman society at its worst as the audience watched animals tear their victims apart and armed gladiators fought each other to the death and all is concluded in a circus of blood.

A most interesting scene worth mentioning was the famous bathtub scene. The Empress bathed in milk and near the side of the tub, two cats slurp the contents up. Empress sat in the tub and talked to one of her lady in waiting. After a short discussion about Marcus, she invited her friend to join her in the tub. We witnessed the aide disrobed and the camera pans away-leaving the rest to our imagination. Ah, Only Cecil DeMille could come up with just a scene that leaves one wondering of could be happening without the need to show it.
Marcus job was to eradicate the Christians but he’s seduced by Mercia. He wanted her but on his term, not her; tempting her with the luxurious lifestyle but in the end, it was he who surrendered to her will. When he attempted to convince her to give up her faith, her faith forced him to follow her to their death. Claudette Colbert, who would later gain fame for her work in light comedy, was the best thing about this movie. She combined sexuality with meanness and showed that Nero was not the only one in the royal court capable of brutality and intrigue.

Cecil De Mille understood his audience. He sneaked sex and a little flesh into his classics and while it was tame by our standards, there was certain eroticism in this movie that left much to the mind. Sign of the Cross succeeded not because of the violence or the sex but because De Mille respected the faith of his audience and used the film to show the virtue of those who prefer death rather denounce their faith. Good triumph over evil. The theme of this movie is forever timeless.

Released 72 years later, Mel Gibson’s Passion of The Christ showed the divide that existed in America at the turn of the 21st century. This was not a Movie for the faint hearted as it treated the audience to a two-hour torture of Jesus. For many Christians, Christmas was the time that we all worship a baby in a manager while we give each other’s gift. On Easter, we celebrated the resurrection while plunging into the Easter Candy. Good Friday was the forgotten day except in this movie as we viewedthe real torture that was Good Friday, from the first time that Jesus is punched to the final scene when he finally died. The Resurrection was but a 15 second ending as we see Jesus walk out of the tomb, with the holes in his hands.

You do not walk out of this movie with an outrage but a sadness and remorse. Just as De Mille castigated the average Roman for complicity in the torture of Christians, Gibson castigated us for complicity in Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus’ duty was to take our burden of sins and put it on his shoulder. At the beginning of the movie, Satan tells Christ that no man can take the burden of all upon his shoulder. Every whip lashed that hit his skins, you are reminded that we are the one who are doing the whipping. Every soldier or civilian that took his shot of Christ was symbolic of us all for we all are taking our shots. When the Roman soldiers tore the skin literally off Jesus, they laughed and enjoyed the moment.
Throughout the movie, Gibson flashed back to moments in Jesus life including the last supper as he told his disciple what must transpire. We witness the betrayal of Judas and Peter. Judas descended into madness before his inevitable suicide and Peter, after his denial, tells the Mother Mary that he does not deserve forgiveness for he had denied Christ. These two men are contrasted in the Bible. After his betrayal of Christ, Judas couldn’t forgive himself or seek Christ forgiveness. Christ forgave Peter.

There was the Political side of the movie as well. With much of publicity before movie centered on Gibson’s traditional Catholic beliefs and his father anti Semitic views, the movie itself was not anti- Semitic. But the concerns of many Jews at the release of the movie were understandable. In the movie, some Jewish leaders wanted Christ killed since his words challenged their own power. As for the Romans, Pilate attempted to wash his hands of the situation but can anyone truly wash himself of Christ’s death? For Pilate, this was a political matter and the last thing he needed was an uprising. His wife viewed Christ, as an innocent man and Pilate believe the same. She wanted Jesus spared and he felt incapable of doing that. In the end, he gave in to the crowd and allowed Jesus to be crucified.

Pilate was the most interesting character outside of Jesus and Mary. Pilate attempted to have it both ways. He told the Jewish leaders that he saw no guilt in Christ but he refused to stop the execution and allows it to proceed. Pilate was as guilty as the mob, maybe even more so since he knew what he was doing wrong.

The cruelest weren’t the Jewish leaders or their followers but the Roman soldiers. The soldiers enjoyed delivering every blow and sense their own superiority over the Jewish people. For the Romans, the torture of Christ represents their domination over the Jewish people. As Jesus moves toward the cross, it was the Romans who became the torturer and murderer of Christ. Pilate allowed the execution to move forward and his soldiers enjoy their work.
Then there was Satan. Satan was ever present throughout the movie. In the beginning, where he tempted Christ to give up his quest and in the final minute of the movie, Satan screamed from the pits of hell before we saw Jesus walk out of the tomb. The use of Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin works beautifully for it gave us the feel of witnessing history. It is not distracting but natural.

As for the two America, there is a gulf that can be seen in the pews of local churches. For many, the attack on Mel Gibson and the Passion was less about his movie and more about the perception that Christianity appeared under attack in America. This movie was a devout movie about one man’s attempt to come to grip with the Christ while exorcising his personal demons, demons he still has. It became a symbol of a struggle that is deeper; when two Americas see each other in the mirror, they see polar opposite. They are both mystified by each other. As the year go by, the political feature of the movie will long be forgotten and the attention will be drawn strictly on the subject matter at hand.

Movie producers have used Westerns as a mean to impart truths about America and the world but the movie Purgatory was religious allegory with a Western background and presented an unusual treatment of heaven, hell and Purgatory.

The thrust of the movie was that a vicious gang moved into a small town called Refugee. The townspeople appeared to be docile and there was not even a jail as the gang took control. One of the those gang members was a young kid named Sonny, who seemed to recognize or he thought that he recognized many of the townspeople from his reading of various dime store stories about the old West. Sonny really didn’t fit the profile of the rest of the gang for he was not vicious but a kid looking for a piece of glory and this gang would be his ticket to fame.

As for the townspeople, they resembled past dead western villains and gun fighters; people like Billy the Kid and “Doc” Holiday. The catch was that many of these famous Western personalities had been killed, executed or died from natural causes, so Sonny imagination was merely running wild.

Throughout the gang stay, the various townspeople showed no inclination to resist the gang control of their town. In one scene, the sheriff asked if the gang members would resist from throwing knives into the wall of the Church and when they refuse; he merely stood at the Church wall as the gang threw knives around him. (The last gang member was challenged to throw a knife straight at the Sheriff’s heart but lightening struck him dead) Sonny was right, that the townspeople were in fact who he thought they are. He did see Doc Holiday, Wild Bill Hitchcock, and Billy the Kid among others. Refugee was in fact Purgatory and these former western bad boys and girls were here for one last chance for heaven.

This is what you could call a mystical Catholic film in that it recognized that the road to hell after death was not so simple. An Indian guide had the responsibility to watch over the townspeople and in the case of a failure, take the guilty party to hell.

Sonny discovered that he really didn’t belong with the gang and maybe his own salvation laid siding with the townspeople in their struggle with the gang. As for the townspeople, they were forbidden to act on their impulses for gambling, whoring, cursing and gunplay were forbidden. The old gunfighters were not even allowed to wear guns. The townspeople resorted to non-violent resistances, leaving the question, was the road to heaven associated with pacifism? Sonny overheard that the gang was going to ravage the town to the ground and Sonny determined to stop it or die trying.

In the final scene, as Sonny was alone facing his old gang and outnumbered 15 to 1 as he accepted his fate and impending death. Then Wild Bill Hitchcock joined him in the street and shortly joined by Billy the Kid, and Jesse James. For Wild Bill, Billy the Kid and Jesse, joining Sonny doomed their soul to hell. They were prepared to suffer eternal damnation to protect Sonny in his moment of need. After the classic gunfight, the gang was wiped out but Sonny was killed- only to be raised back for life in purgatory.

As for Wild Bill, Billy the Kid and Doc Holiday; they were at the gate of hell before an angel in the shape of stagecoach driver intervened. “The Creator may be tough but he is not blind,” he told the three condemned and he took them off to heaven instead. The driver offered Sonny a seat on the stagecoach to the Pearly gates but Sonny remained in Refugee to be with a young woman that he has fallen in love with (and who was the youngest woman to be hanged in Wyoming when she killed her abusive father in her previous life.) The stagecoach driver merely remarked, “There is a place for you when you are ready.”

What can be learned? For the three gunfighters, they were willing to give up everything to defend a stranger and for that, they were rewarded with eternal life. As the bible says, “whoever is willing to give his life” will see the gate of heaven. As for Sonny, his turn from evil and wiliness to die to defend others was his ticket as well. The producers of the Movie concede that there are times that sacrifice of one’s life and even a resort to violence can have a positive role, if it is done to defend others. Purgatory Catholic overtone may not appeal to the Protestants but overlook the theology and understand the message- to give one life for others was indeed holy. And Purgatory gives you permission to enjoin a Western during Holy Week.

Star Wars Lessons

2011-04-09T19:29:00.000-07:00

Spike TV had a Star Wars marathon, so while moving the remote from baseball, golf to watching Star Wars, there are some interesting lessons appeared to . When one combines episode one through six, the most intriguing character is Darth Vader. From the time he was a little boy and seen as a possible messiah and a fulfillment of a prophecy to the final conclusion, Vader’s character shows the corruption of power. I wrote that the final three Chapters were the easier to write and conceive while the first three Chapters told a more complicated story. Vader’s story reflects that complication as his turn to the dark side when he can’t prevent the death of his mother in the second episode and the guilt associated with it. All this power that Vader was learning as Anakin Skywalker and he failed to protect the one closet to him. He seeks the power to protect those closets to him but he finds that the power has a price.

The first three `chapter shows the dissolution of the Republic into a totalitarian state as each loss of freedom is greeted as needed to preserve the Republic. The classic line is made by Padme as she observed the reaction of the Senate vote to give all power to the Emperor, “It all ends in applauses.”

Vader viewed the chaos around him and sought order; order that Emperor promised him if he joined the Dark Side. Vader temptation is that he sought power to control chaos, only he became enslaved to the Emperor’s will. The Dark Side has ensnarled him but it doesn’t stop him from offering Luke at the end of Chapter five the same deal in joining him to overthrow the Emperor and restore order while ending the rebellion. Vader shows us the futility of seeking power to establish order since as Lord Action noted, “Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Luke, the son, is torn being forced to confront Vader, since just a confrontation means one of them will not survive. He too lives under an illusion that he can convert his father and only at the end does he know the price to be paid for just a conversion. Luke view the Empire as a vehicle of oppression from his day living with his Aunt and Uncle.

As for the Emperor, he is pure evil and needs to destroy any remnants of old Republic before setting up his own Empire. He destroyed the Jedi Knights for they were the enforcer of the Republican to ensure justice and he sought to convert Luke to his own evil as he did his father. All that is good must be destroyed and a semblance of good is like a virus that can challenge evil.

Lea tells Vader in Chapter 4, “More oppressive the Empire becomes, the more star systems will slip away.” An African Historian noted that in the history of pre colonial Africa, the more oppressive an Empire, the quicker it fell. This could be seen in other Empires. Longer lasting Empire allowed semblance of liberty or minimum oppression when contrasted shorter longer Empire. The Roman Empire lasted a thousand year but the Soviet Empire did not last a half century. The Empire in George Lucas saga lasted maybe forty years, give or take a decade.

In the first three chapters, the Republican collapses due to bureaucratic inertia and corruption. The opening chapter featured a war over trade routes and attempts of a trade federation to take over a peaceful planet for its resources. As the first three chapters move forward, the Emperor instigate a Civil War within the Republic, causing massive upheavals while asking for the power to squelch the rebellion that he started and secretly supports. Hitler and Mussolini used street violence to intimidate opponents while promising voters they will keep the peace they helped instigate and Emperor does the same thing. With the power of the Jedi destroyed, the Emperor managed to get the Senate to give him ultimate power just as Hitler got his power after he destroyed the Reichstag (while blaming the Communists.)

One Star Wars lesson is that free society can turn into totalitarian society just as Weimar Republican morphed into Hitler’s Germany and the short lived Russian democracy collapsed into Communism in a period of one year after the fall of the Czar. While critics panned the first three chapters of Star Wars, Lucas did a respectable job of telling how a Republic ceased to be a Republic. The Republic collapse began when bureaucracy took control and the rule of law became the rule of men with the powerful holding the cards, through force if needed.

Chapter four through six becomes an easier story since it is about freedom fighters attempting to overthrow the Empire to restore the Republic. Luke begins his quest as Jedi Knight as a bored young farm boy who matures as a leader in the final chapter. His own maturation is marked by impatience that nearly derailed him in Chapter five but he chooses freedom and working with the Rebellion when he turned down the power offered by his own father in their first face to face confrontation. Luke learned that power can corrupt as his father showed him and is often reminded of his own vulnerability to the dark side in both Chapter five and six. Just as his father was tempted, so was Luke.

Gurchan Das, the author of India Unbound, noted that Democracy is better served by modest men and woman who understand his or her own limitation. Luke is consistently reminded by his friends and Yoda that modesty is an important quality for a Jedi Knight.

The one quality often overlooked in a candidate for public office is modesty. The more modest a candidate or a public official, the more reliable he will be in supporting limitation on his own power. Just an official knows that his own power is limited to do good but his power for evil can easily be enhanced with results disastrous for the society. There is a difference between the politician who understands that providing healthcare for all may be a wonderful idea but can also bankrupt the country in the process and one is willing to use the power of government to force all to have healthcare for their own good.

The ability of legislator to do good is limited when it comes to economics but its power to do harm is far greater. Bad policies often produced long term structural damage to society as a whole but a politician can do limited good for a limited group of people without damaging the society as a whole. Das’ point that modesty matters is shown everyday in our own Congress where proposals to fix every manageable problem are often proposed. Wisdom is often in short supply among politician but a good politician often have wisdom when it comes to policy and its limitation. Wisdom is what turns a politician into a statesman.

The first three chapters of Star Wars shows what happens when modesty seeks to be a virtue and the final three chapters shows the results when virtue and modesty are replace by evil. At the final of Chapter Six, the Rebellion succeeded in overturning the Emperor’s rule but what we don’t ever know if the Rebellion is transferred back to a functioning Republic. While there was suppose to a chapter seven through nine in which those questions would most likely to answered, it will never be done. And maybe it shouldn’t be. As one critic wrote, this was the story of Anakin and his son, Luke.

We can only guess if Luke maintains his modesty in regard to his power and his sister Lea rules with the same wisdom and modesty her mother showed in her reign as the Queen of her planet Naboo. We are only left to imagine.

Obama Retreats?

2011-04-09T19:26:00.000-07:00

The latest conventional wisdom is that Obama has morphed into a third Bush administration. This is not the case even if Obama may not closed Gitmo, or started a war in Libya, this is a case of retreat before the next offensive.

Libya is a case in point. Obama reluctantly got involved and only for humanitarian reason but as we speak, the policy is already unraveling as NATO looks confuse on its own aims and Libya has essentially been partitioned for the time being. Obama dependence upon the UN shows a President who has essentially farmed out our foreign policy, hardly Bush like, nor Reagan like. As for Gitmo, he had no choice since even members of his own Party were not ready to go along with the absurdity of closing GITMO without a good plan and trying Terrorist in New York died because New York Democrats said no.

As for extending the Bush tax plan or the recent budget cut was done because his own policy has failed. When the Bush Tax plan was debated last winter, he had members of his own administration or other Democrats outside saying that a failure to pass to it would weaken what has already been a weak recovery. (The three strongest months of employments during the Obama era have come after the Bush tax plan extension, so the wisdom of that move have been shown.)

Obama has already stated that a second term means higher rates and his original budget proposal were more of the same with massive deficits as far as the eye can see. Need I mention that Obamacare is still with us? Obama is being forced to the center, not because he wants to.

Obama is biding his time and waiting until 2013 to begin his second assault in transforming America but for now, re-election is the top priority and a few moves toward the middle is a case of temporary retreat to save what he has already accomplished.

So the left will tolerate Obama moves since where do they go? A primary fight will only aid the Republicans and while some left may feel they are rubes, he still has accomplished much the left can appreciate.

2 Cheers for John Boehner

2011-04-09T19:25:00.000-07:00

This week, we saw what happens when competency comes in conflict with celebrity. Competency triumphs. John Boehner is hardly charismatic but he has shown to be a masterful leader when dealing with the more charismatic Obama and the heavy handed Harry Reid. Boehner proves to be a masterful poker player, letting others garner the headline while he does the grunt work of moving the Republican agenda forward, piece by piece. With many Democrats plus a few Republicans rooting for a government shutdown, Boehner was not certain what was to be politically gained by a shutdown with much left to accomplish.

We can all debate, 60 billion or bust but the realty as Boehner continuously noted, the GOP only controls one house of Congress whereas the Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency. So any bill that comes through the House will either get blocked by the Senate or veto by the President, so Boehner is negotiating with a weak hand or weaker hands that many conservatives realized.
What Boehner did was not just get the budget cut; he helped social conservatives by getting prohibition of taxpayer funded abortion in DC plus forcing Senate Democrats to vote on funding for Planned Parenthood. Least I forget, he managed to save the DC scholarship program that allowed poorer parents the opportunity to send their children to private schools and escape some of the poorer schools in the DC area.

The negative is that 39 billion is chump change overall and I won’t debate that point but so was the original goal of 61 billion dollars. What matters is that Democrats are being forced to cut spending and they are now being forced to fight their own base. Between Obama starting new Middle East Wars, keeping Gitmo open and now cutting the budget, the hard left is starting to look like rubes. (More in a latter post.)

Here is the key point to consider, Boehner has changed the course of the debate by having Democrats talk of cutting the budget and this is important with the main event beginning with the debate over the Ryan’s budget and raising the debt limits. The Republicans know they have a good negotiator on their side. As mention in a previous blog, the Ryan’s budget is the new consensus and it is the Democrats who are no longer the center as they being pushed further to the fringe when it comes to policy.

Boehner has moved policy toward sound policy inch by inch, which is glacial when it comes to the actual danger we face fiscally. With a weak hand politically, he is slowing winning the debate.

As for conservative critics of Boehner, my suggestion is to start raising money and working with conservative groups to fight the battle now. The lesson of Wisconsin is the left have mobilized their base and are now fighting 2012 whereas Republicans are playing defensive games. Wisconsin was a victory by narrow of margins but showed that our ideas have power that can sustain massive attacks but it also shows the left are prepared to attack at all level.

Ryan roadmap

2011-04-09T19:23:00.000-07:00

Paul Ryan Road to Prosperity is less a radical thesis but the new consensus. The 2010 election showed that America were not ready for Obama neo-socialist agenda and since then, several events shown a new consensus been formed or we should say, forming.

When the Republicans forced Obama to extend Bush’s tax rates through 2012, Obama had to admit that his own plan was not working as advertise. While Republicans were forcing Democrats to continue the lower rates of the Bush’s era to save Obama’s own election prospect and keep the economy recovery going, Obama’s own budget deficit commission report throw its own shock.

The report essentially supported a bipartisan version of Reaganomics by emphasizing lower marginal tax rates as part of reformed tax codes reducing deductions for both businesses and individuals, reducing government spending in real terms and as part of the overall GNP and finally, entitlement reforms. Obama ignored the recommendations of his own commission but it showed that even among Democrats outside of Washington and some inside understood that times change.

Within the Senate, Tom Coburn has been leading a bi-partisan group to get the commission budget commission recommendation and now Ryan has produced his own version of the commission report as it is similar to the commission report in that it promotes flatter tax rates with less deduction, entitlement reforms and reduces overall spending in real terms and as percentage of our overall economy.

The major difference between the commission and Ryan plan is two fold. The commission leaves federal spending at 21% of the GNP whereas Ryan plans takes it even lower and Ryan tax plan is considered revenue neutral when collecting revenues whereas Commission uses tax reforms to raise additional funds which why many conservatives oppose the plan. Yet, there is a consensus outside of the hard left parlor that rejects class warfare and working on developing a more entrepreneurial America.

As for the left, they are about to unveil the “People’s budget” which includes massive tax increases on the wealthy, increase spending including yet another stimulus package (since the first one worked so well), add a Obamacare package on steroids including a public option and trillion of dollars of new debt as if we don’t have enough. (Okay, on the latter point, the progressive lobby ensures us that after spending all of this money; we will still balance the budget and grow the economy. They also add that the Easter bunny will bring children candy and the tooth fairy will leave freshly minted twenty dollars bills for missing teeth under children’s pillows. Of course, all money left for missing tooth better be reported as taxable income.)

What Ryan has done is to introduce a budget for the future. In the 1990’s, Welfare reform was based on two premises. The first premise is that the Democrats accept the limitation of government spending and what government can do for the poor. The second premise, the Republicans accepted a safety net for the less fortunate, provided it was limited.

Ryan budget does the exact same thing. Ryan is not ending Medicare or Medicaid but reforming it to save it. Ryan allows a government safety net for the less fortunate while building a more patient center health care overall. As Senator Coburn observed, Government bankruptcy will end our social net as certain as anything else.
Ryan has begun the debate that is as much cultural since it is growth oriented budget that emphasizes economic growth and budgetary discipline plus changes the way we think about entitlement. It is the line in the sand for Republicans and conservatives to rally around, a budget that begins with the premise that it is the American people who are the master of their fate and not mere servants of their government.

Trump, populist or conservative?

2011-04-03T15:00:00.000-07:00

Bill O’Reilly did us all a favor when he interviewed over a period of a week, Donald Trump. Trump demonstrated two things, the first being that he was not all well informed on issues and the second is being; Trump is more populist than conservative.

Forget the crazy birther stuff, I am not so sure that Trump believes this stuff but knows it makes for great print. Trump the celebrity views publicity as good publicity, even it isn’t. This is a man who stars on his own TV show and in between making millions upon millions; he has kept his name in the news through one outrageous act or sayings after another.
Trump is one of those men you may not want on the other side of a real estate deal but in the political arena, Trump is a novice and that became clear in the O’ Reilly interview. After O’ Reilly destroyed Trump over Obama birth certificate, he proceeded to prod Trump on issues.
When asked about tax reform, Trump had no answer what he would do or what the idea tax system would look like. Another aspect on Trump domestic policy is that Trump had little to add or say about what a health care reform should say or a clear idea on how to deal with the budget deficit.

On foreign affairs, Trump philosophy is that he will sit in a room with OPEC or the Chinese and simply tell them either you shape up or you are fire. His trade policy is slap tariffs on Chinese goods if they don’t quit manipulating their currency. (Of course it would be interesting what he would say about the Fed’s present weak dollar policy which many nations view as the United States manipulating our currency.)
Beyond that, there is little substance to derive but the temptation of Trump is the oversize personality that is Trump. As Bill O’ Reilly observed, he is a force by himself, but in response to O’ Reilly inquires, Glen Beck wondered if we needed another celebrity to be President. The only Fox commentator who caught on the empty suit aspect of Trump’s policies was Rove but Laura Ingram essentially gave Trump a pass on China simply by noting that many Americans feared China or globalization. If Laura Ingram is any indication, there will be many on the right who will join Trump in his protectionist agenda, as oppose a more free market approach to trade; a stance that will weaken free market ideas across the board. The failure of Trump to come up a serious plan to cut the budget or reform our tax system is a strong signal that Trump will not be the candidate to support a smaller government approach to dealing with our economic plan.

This is the temptation of Trump, for Trump blames others for our economic woes instead looking toward Washington as being the source of our problems. It is easy to blame the Chinese for job lost instead of a economic plan that has given us trillion of dollars of debts or a energy plan that does little to produce new energy other green technology that will cost us job while making our energy more expensive. OPEC can’t be blame for no drill, baby, no drill.
Trump is a protectionist and he is not the man to fight crony capitalism, for as a real estate developer; he deals with politicians all the time while making deals. It wasn’t that long ago that he gave money to Rahm Emmanuel for his run for the Chicago mayor race, the same Emmanuel who was the chief of staff for Obama. (Nor was it that long ago, like 2008 when Trump thought Obama had the chance to be a great President, leaving one the impression that he probably voted for the guy.) Trump has shown that he can work both side of the street when it comes to politics and that is what crony capitalists do.

Trump major selling point is leadership, a tough somber who will be tough defending our interest international while using the Presidency as his bully pulpit to get his policy past. The question is should conservative support someone who major attraction is his leadership quality as oppose to his ideas? Leadership is important but it also depends for what ideas that leadership is used for. Temptation of Trump is that celebrity and leadership substitute for policy. The left showed what happens when celebrity and leadership is promoted to hide an agenda. The left however knew what they were selling in Obama, even if the rest of the country weren’t in on the secret but in Trump, we don’t know what we are being in sold in Trump.

Atlas Shrugged comes to the Movies

2011-04-03T14:52:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged comes to the big screen. Atlas Shrugged is a political manifesto masquerading as a novel. Ayn Rand foresaw the evolution of 1950’s liberalism along with the welfare state and that evolution included many of the bigger corporation as they become addicted to depending upon government as oppose to depending upon their own skills. Book featured Dagny Taggert, a Randian woman; a woman who cares about making money and turning a profit. Whereas her brother,James Taggert, considers making a profit an end to means, the means being a “good citizen of the country and world”; Dagny believes that making profit and running a successful railroad is a common good all by itself.

By the time Atlas Shrugged was published, Rand was a celebrity in her own right and like George Orwell, a prophet in her own right. Orwell in his book 1984 foresaw a totalitarian future and accurately showed the true nature of communism as it really was not how it was envisioned. Rand accurately described a future that is not far from reality today. Economist Stephen Moore observed, “Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.”

A refugee from Soviet Russia, Rand had no illusion about the nature of communism and understood destructiveness of socialism upon wealth development in a society. As Stephen Moore noted, “For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.”

Throughout the book, the America economy is sinking upon its weight of bureaucracy, redistributionist policies and various government regulations enacted. Many of the bills in the book enacted have innocent sounding names like the “Anti-Greed Act” or the “Equalization of Opportunity Act.” This occurs today as various laws today that have innocent sounding name like the recent $700 billion “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act or the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act” which is the auto bailout bill and Barack Obama signed in the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”, the stimulus plan recently enacted. Or the “Employee Freedom Act”, a law that will eliminate secret ballots for workers in the work place. In Rand’s world, laws are passed to “reduce cut throat competition” with the goal of reducing bankruptcies and then there are the various attempts to equalized resources among companies. In Atlas Shrugged, As Stephen Moore observed, “The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you.
The main character behind organizing a strike of the brightest and best industrialists is the mysterious John Galt. Throughout the book, people ask, “Who is John Galt?” a phrase that adopted a meaning of its own. No one was ever sure if John Galt really exists but we do find out that in a meeting at an Auto plant, a young engineer tells a gathering that he will stop the engine of society. Galt doesn’t make his appearance until nearly three quarter of the book but we are introduced to many characters, a philosophy student who becomes a pirate, a playboy who appeared to be squandering his family fortune, a philosophy professor who works at menial jobs and many executives who simply disappear. As the book progresses; the economy declines with job losses and massive starvation on the horizon. Dagney Taggert and Hank Reardon, the two story heroes, find themselves harrassed by the authority and their own family.

Another aspect is the Science Institute but there is very little science involved. Science conducted is often politically motivated and this was shown when the Institute declares Reardon new metal unsafe at first simply because it competed with the established steel company. There are similarities with the present debate on global warming as many government grants go to those scientists who support the idea that global warming is a man made phenomena and will destroy the planet in short order. MIT scientist Richard Lindizen has written about this politicization of science when he wrote, “Scientist who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

Atlas Shrugged commemorate the entrepreneur and celebrates the wealth creator; most important the human intellect. It is the human mind that's create the ideas that turn into wealth and throughout the Atlas Shrugged, the freedom of the human mind is what is at stake. Rand views the intellect and reason as primary and views the welfare state an attack on the human intellect as those who use the mind to create wealth and in Rand’s mind, create the opportunity that creates wealth.
In the late 50’s, Rand had her own disagreements with Bill Buckley and other conservatives, much of it centering on her hostility to religion. In his National Review article on Atlas Shrugged, Whitaker Chambers observed, “Thus, Randian Man, like Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world.” Chambers viewed Rand Objectivism as a secular version of Marxism and the Randian heroes are part of their own master race. Chambers review essentially wrote Rand and her Objectivism philosophy out of the conservative movement and yet, Chambers admitted, “Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word.” Chambers noted that Rand, “In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls "productive achievement" man's noblest activity," she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau. She might object that she means much, much more; and we can freely entertain her objections.”

Chambers brought a more ideological social conservative ideal to the movement for he never fully trusted or loved the more libertarian movement side of the conservative movement. While others on the NR staff worshipped Ludwig von Mises, a leading free market libertarian thinker- Chambers didn’t envied capitalism nor found Von Mises appealing. His review of Ayn Rand’s book, “Atlas Shrugged” showed his own ambivalent attitude on capitalism. Chambers feared that Rand’s vision of a “technological elite” smacked of a totalitarian future that he just escaped from.

As he wrote on Rand’s atheisms, “”Randian Man, like the Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world…His tragic fate becomes, without God, more tragic and much lonelier….From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber—go.” For many conservatives and libertarians, Ayn Rand was a defender of freedom but Chambers felt Rand’s atheistic view undermined her vision of liberty, for without a belief in God, man will find new gods- like Marxism.

While Chambers and Buckley essentially denied Rand entrance within the conservative movement, others are more forgiving but not blind to Rand’s philosophical weakness. Economist Mark Skousen noted, “Rand articulates like no other writer the evils of totalitarianism, interventionism, corporate welfarism, and the socialist mindset.”Atlas Shrugged" describes in wretched detail how collective "we" thinking and middle-of-the-road interventionism leads a nation down a road to serfdom. No one has written more persuasively about property rights, honest money (a gold-backed dollar), and the right of an individual to safeguard his wealth and property from the agents of coercion ("taxation is theft"). And long before Gordon Gekko, icon of the movie "Wall Street," she made greed seem good.”

Skousen added that Rand rightly points out that these enterprising leaders are a major cause of economic progress. History is full of examples of "men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision." Presently we are witnessing a war on entrepreneurs and investors. Obama own economic vision has very little room for the entrepreneurs and we are witnessing business leaders essentially begging the government for aid. The auto industry is near bankruptcy and in exchange for aid; the government will eventually force them to build green cars. There will be a price for government aid and that price is their business will be run by Washington; not by the market.
Ayn Rand’s characters appeal not to the heart but to reason but it is a reason under no authority other than the individual. Rand characters are heroic and good looking; the sex scenes are narcissistic and essentially stale in the book. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand heroes are classic beauties and forever talking businesses while ignoring family. There are no children present anywhere and no evidence that anyone even had children. Rand makes selfishness a virtue and not a vice. Skousen states, “Rand is truly revolutionary because she makes the first serious attempt to protest against altruism. She rejects the heart over the mind and faith beyond reason. Indeed, she denies the existence of any god or higher being, or any other authority over one's own mind. For her, the highest form of happiness is fulfilling one's own dreams, not someone else's – or the public's.” Rand considers altruism and charity a weakness and not strength to be admired.
This is her undoing along with her hostility to Christianity. Skousen observed, “Her defense of greed and selfishness, her diatribes against religion and charitable sacrificing for others who are less fortunate, and her criticism of the Judeo- Christian virtues under the guise of rational Objectivism have tarnished her advocacy of unfettered capitalism. Still, Rand's extreme canard is a brilliant invention that serves as an essential counterpoint in the battle of ideas.”

Reading Adam Smith provides that answer, for while Smith wrote on the benefits of a free market state, he does not accept selfish independence of Rand’s world. As Skousen states, “In "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," he identifies the first as "sympathy" or "benevolence" toward others in society. In his later work, "The Wealth of Nations," he focuses on the second – self-interest – which he defines as the right to pursue one's own business. Both, he argues, are essential to achieve "universal opulence. Smith's self-interest never reaches the Randian selfishness that ignores the interest of others. In Smith's mind, an individual's goals cannot be fully achieved in business unless he appeals to the needs of others.”
A capitalist goal is to serve the consumers and often a capitalist sacrifice early income to preserve capital for future development. As one Kansas City businessman told an interviewer that he lived by golden rule, “do unto others as you wish they do unto you.” Or as the bible states, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:39) Adam Smith would agree with the later but Ayn Rand only, “love thyself.”
Skousen observed, “Today's most successful libertarian CEOs, such as John Mackey of Whole Foods Markets and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, have adopted the authentic spirit of capitalism that is more in keeping with Smith than Rand. Theirs is a "stakeholder" philosophy that works within the system to fulfill the needs of customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and themselves.” The golden rule forms an important basis of free market economics.

If Whitaker Chambers viewed Ayn Rand’s superheroes similar to the super race of Nazis, it is Randian opponents who are the fascists as they developed a collectivist society with an element of corporatism. They are willing to do anything to save their own position and sacrifice a nation to preserve their own privileges. Certainly as Jonah Goldberg noted in his book Liberal Fascism, there were sympathy for Mussolini among many of the early New Dealers and Hugh Johnson, the head of the National Recovery Industrial Act, had a portrait of Mussolini in his room. Rand saw the future and it was not pretty or can we say; it is not pretty? Rand tells of artist, writers and movie stars who decry the system that makes their success possible and she certainly understood the artist mindset as many of our Hollywood set, writers and artist are forever protesting free market economies while making millions from it.

Atlas Shrugged strength and why it still sells in the millions is that it hits a nerve. In a world in which collectivism is once again raising its head and the attempt to overturn the Reagan era to create a more socialistic state, Rand tells a story of opposition to that vision. Even with her weakness in her own ideas, she does understand the basic lesson; Freedom matters. Will the movie match the message of the book?

Hispanic policy part 2 getting elected

2011-03-30T14:11:00.000-07:00

Utah Republicans have put together a compromise plan worth conservatives to examine. Utah is hardly a bastion of liberalism but they have combined a plan that allows law abiding illegal to stay in the state while allowing background checks on people arrested serious misdemeanors and felonies. In addition, illegal in Utah before May must pay a fine in order to stay and the Mormon Church supported the law.

For many conservatives, they will like the enforcements aspect of the law and Utah view additional workers as adding to the overall economic growth of the state while avoiding the controversy of Arizona.
As I have mentioned in the past columns, the importance of Hispanics votes to future conservative victories. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush observed, “Republicans need to make a better effort at connecting with Hispanic voters. The more connected Hispanics feel to the Republican community, the more likely they are to turn out in support of Republicans on Election Day.” Say what you want about Jeb or George Bush, no Republicans have received more Hispanics votes than these men over the past decade including state and in the case of George Bush over two national elections.

The key issue is how to handle the immigration issues. Resurgent Republican, a conservative organization, reported the result of a study that many Hispanics will support free market policy, but they also favored a comprehensive approach to immigration including Republican Hispanic voters. Republican strategist Mike Murphy observed, “That GOP opposition to some sort of path toward legalization is a “non-starter” for Hispanic voters.” Others just as Texas Lamar Smith would argue that Republican obtained 38% of Hispanic voters in the last election because of being faithful to Republican principles including a more restriction policy.

The GOP must get how to approach to Hispanics voters correct or they will be relegated to minority status and we will be stuck with a Democratic European socialist state, traveling down the road to Serfdom.

Hispanic policy part 1 getting elected

2011-03-30T14:10:00.000-07:00

The good news, Republicans are seeing gains in both congressional seats and electrical college votes. Bad news is that many of those votes are results of increase Hispanics population growth. Which brings us to the big challenge for Republicans in 2012 and beyond, how do Republicans attract Hispanics voters?
In 2010 was an unusual election in which Obama incompetence lead to a massive meltdown among Independents and led to Republicans winning Congress but 2012 will be a different election. Republicans can’t count on Obama incompetence in winning the Presidency, holding the House and capturing the Senate.

In 2010, Immigration did not play as big as factor as it did in 2006 and 2008 including Hispanic voters where economy was the primary factor. Every election is different and conditions are different with some pundits just as Dick Morris viewing Obama a prisoners of events, but an incumbent President also has the power to shape events and the narrative for an election.

In 2012, every vote will count and Republicans need to at least recapture the same states they capture in 2004 which includes Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, states with heavy Hispanic voter concentration. In 2000, Gore captured New Mexico but in 2004, independent conservative 527 targeting Hispanic voters with conservative themes along with the Bush emphasis on Hispanic votes allowed the Republicans to capture New Mexico by significantly increasing Republican share among Hispanics. Overall, the Bush campaign increase Republicans vote total to 40-44% and in states that independent 527’s aided the effort, increase those numbers even higher.

2008, the combination of war weary population, economy and among Hispanics, immigration were issues that allowed Obama to reverse Republican gains in the past two decades. Democrats’ goal in 2012 will be rebuild their coalition by increasing turnout among youth voters, Hispanics and African-Americans along with recapturing moderate voters to turn the tide from 2010 defeat while mobilizing the union votes for a do or die battle.
For Republicans, they need to learn the right lesson and one lesson was that those candidates who did the best among Hispanics were those candidates who did not emphasize immigration “reforms” and talk kitchen economic issues including New Mexico Susan Martinez, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. (In the case of Rubio and Perry, they stressed border security and not a comprehensive immigration reforms but they did question whether Arizona SB 1070.)

It is also interesting that many of those politicians consider harder edge on immigration just as Sharon Angle and Tom Tancredo actually preformed worse among White voters than those like Martinez and Perry, who took a softer approach toward immigration. (One can argue on the reason why White voters rejected selected immigration hardliner in greater numbers but there is no doubt that hard line immigration stances did little to add to the White vote totals among Republicans.)

Republicans can not be satisfied with just having a third of Hispanic voters but need higher total. In a study yet to be published, approximately 35% of Hispanics have retirement plans worth more than $25,000 and over 10% of Hispanics run their own businesses so millions of Hispanics are members of the investor class and millions more own their own business. So there is a base in expanding the conservative majority over the next decade by including Hispanics voters among these entrepreneurs. Republican message of tax and budget reductions along with sensible business regulations will appeal to these voters.

Victory in 2012 and beyond begins with a Republican revival among Hispanic voters.

Sound Energy Policy

2011-03-30T14:09:00.000-07:00

An important study released by Congressional research service received little attention and showed the United States have the highest levels of fossil fuels combined with recoverable oil and natural gas in the world; more than double of Saudi Arabia. As one pundit recently wrote, “We have the most available energy sources and least coherent energy policy.”

The problem with our energy strategy is that we are captive of radical environmentalist theories. As long as we view the world one degree away from total meltdown into global frying, then we will not design a sensible energy policy.

One would assume that after climate gate in which key advocates of man-made climate change, world going to end were caught manipulating the data that one would be more skeptical of the Al Gores’ of the world but yet we still act as if the science is settle at a time that the science of climate change is rapidly collapsing like a soufflé slowing ebbing out. Here are the facts. The science of climate change is unsettled with the so-called climate change skeptics winning the scientific debate and the United States is sitting upon wealth of energy that make not only the United States energy independent but gives us leg up in the 21st century when it comes to having the raw materials to drive economic growth.

European studies show that subsidizing “green technologies” will raise energy prices and reduces jobs; one study even showed that for every job created by “green technologies,” four jobs were lost. Hardly a fair trade off but that is where our energy policy is driving us to. (Obama mantra is drill baby drill provided that drilling is done of Brazil but here in the United States; the war on fossil fuels has led to a policy where our own resources sit in the ground undeveloped.)

The real obstacle is do we have the will to develop the resources available to us? Right now, a sound energy policy have thwarted by a scientific theory of man made climate change that is sorely in need of facts to sustain it. Until we cease to weaken our economic growth by unsound energy policies and even less sound science, then our resources will go undeveloped and we become poorer as a result.

What is the Obama Doctrine?

2011-03-20T22:05:00.000-07:00

What is the Obama doctrine? The recent mess in Libya is symptomatic of Obama foreign policy, a policy with bases in the hard left world view but a world view colliding with realty.

Coming into the White House, Obama came into the White House with the idea that the world so fed up with Bush’s “cowboy doctrine” that he needed to apologize for ills, real and imagined. (It should be pointed out that Bush cobbled together significant foreign support but while he went to the UN before the Gulf War, he never allowed the UN to determine or veto American foreign policy.)

There have been three worldviews forming the basis of American foreign policy. The majority held that America was an exceptional nation good for the world and a wiliness to defend our national interest while defining those interests widely including working with alliances worldwide in the defense of Freedom. You can call this view an Empire of Liberty, in which America power provided an umbrella for liberty to nurture worldwide starting in Europe and expanding worldwide.

This vision didn’t include intervention everywhere but wiliness to intervene where our interest was threatened. This vision was the prevailing view from the end of World War II through the Vietnam War when the left separated the Democrat Party from the consensus. During the 80’s, Democrats like Texas Charlie Wilson still supported the consensus and the Clinton Administration surrendered to the consensus post Gulf War I where moderate Democrats maintain influence after the left failed with getting Hillary care passed and the Democrats lose their shirt in the 1994 elections. The consensus held through the 2000 election and the run up to the second Gulf War. In 1998, a congressional resolution called for regime change in Iraq.

The second vision is a leftist world view that has now come to dominate the Democratic Party today. This vision was accurately summed up by George McGovern in his acceptance speech at the 1972 Democratic convention, “Come home America.” The leftist view is an isolationist view in which America should restrain from interfering in world affair and that it is America polluting the world with its crass materialistic ideals. Vietnam War began the process in which the left challenged the cold war liberal Democratic worldview. John F. Kennedy would represent hawkish liberal Democratic politician part of the America is good worldview and his younger brother, Edward Kennedy would join the other side and help destory the old cold war liberal warrior.

This leftist worldview became standard Democratic policy in 2003 when leftist money men just as George Soros funded the left final takeover of the Democratic Party, thus ending moderate Democratic as part of the Party hierarchy. As it has been said about John Kerry, he was for the Gulf war before he was against it and much of this was due to the complete takeover of the left.

In the 2008, there was very little difference in foreign policy between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama but the left loved Obama for he was one of them. As for Hillary Clinton, she supported the second Gulf War and there was this suspicious that if push came to shove, she would desert the left as she did on the recent Libya conflict.

Obama was the poster boy for the leftist world view and Ron Paul would be the present poster boy for the third worldview, an isolationist conservative world view, a world view that has existed for the past century. This view is similar to the left worldview, “America come home” but for the conservative adherence of this worldview, it is the world that pollutes America and America involvement in the world also means bigger government at home. The right may hate American military adventurism but they don’t view America as an evil empire but a good nation adversely affected by the world.
The problem with Obama is that his worldview has come into conflict with reality of the world as it is and not as he was taught by his leftwing professors. As Libya showed, when America doesn’t lead, bad things happen.

One can argue whether attacking Libya is good or bad since there an argument can be made to act or not to act, a point I made in a recent blog. The problems with Obama doctrine is that it can’t explain action either way nor has Obama explain clearly what our policy is in the Middle East, much less in the world. In his first year, he played nice with Hugo Chavez while undermining Honduras, when a Chavez wannabe attempted to undermine the Honduras Constitution and turn that small country into a Chavez’s satellite. The reality is that he got nothing for this and Chavez now attacks Obama as he did Bush. Appeasement of the world has failed.

Libya showed the Obama worldview colliding with reality and reality not always winning. Obama quite frankly did not know what to do and he failed to enunciate any policy for he could not truly figure out which scenario fit into his worldview. Leaving Gaddafi in power would show America’s impotency but the rebels’ goals were not clearly understood.

He eventually relented to Hillary Clinton, who returned to her husband stance during the Balkans including Kosovo from 1995 to 1998; a liberal version of America’s is good for the world viewpoint. No one truly understand what his endgame since he has yet to explain why intervening in Libya is in our national interest. I suspect that Obama doesn’t truly know the answer to that question and if the endgame means leaving Gaddafi in power in a temporary partition of the country; then this could lead to open ended commitment. This would merely divide our time from other areas of the Middle East and even some leftist critics have pointed out as New York Times Helene Cooper observed that we have greater interest in Saudi Arabia and other Middle East country. What we have is a foreign policy that is not just inconsistent, it is incoherent.

While the world burns in the Middle East and Japan is digging itself out of one of the worst earthquake in history, Obama was in Brazil, supporting Brazil oil development and pledging to buy a bunch of it while we do nothing with developoing our resources at home. Talking of completing being incoherent, let buy Brazilian oil and continued our foreign dependency.

Obama coming into office with ideas of transforming America’s foreign policy but rather it was Afghanistan, Iraq or closing down Gitmos, reality raised its head as Obama couldn’t just bug out of Iraq or Afghanistan without suffering the consequences but Obama biggest failure is follow through on his own policy.

Right now, Iraq is essentially be left alone and instead of building on success, we are abandoning Iraq to the wolves of the region and Obama is looking to leave Afghanistan but will wait until after 2012 when it will be politically safer. For Obama, foreign policy involvement delays his opportunity to turn American into a European social democracy and alter the basics of America’s economic system. His long term is come home America so he can work on the final socialism of America.

The Libya policy is the beginning of a fight for the what is left of the soul of the Democrat Party as the Clinton’s are now countering the more radical aspect of Obama but unfortunately for Clinton, Obama has no real clue what he wants from Libya, forcing the United States into a Libyan quicksand, which Clinton will be blamed. Clinton recent declaration that she would be not be a secretary of state in a second Clinton administration means that she is looking for an exit before she is tarred with Obama’s foreign policy failures as her own.

Ronald Reagan stated, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It has to be fought for and defended by each generation.” Obama needs to be reminded that he is the leader of the free world and America is not just another nation among many nations. Until he understands that, his foreign policy will fail as the leftist world view is laying the seed of disaster not just for us but the world.

Palin vs Obama

2011-03-20T09:22:00.000-07:00

Ah, in reviewing Obama performance in the White House, there is one thing that comes out truthfully; how Obama stacks up poorly against Sarah Palin when it comes to leadership. While I admire Ms. Palin, this is not an endorsement for her Presidential run, if just a run occurs. (The Republicans are full of talent to challenge President Obama in 2012 without Ms. Palin’s baggage.)

What I will do is compare leadership of the two and let the readers decide, would we be better off with a President Palin as oppose to a President Obama? The recent crisis in the Middle East is good starting point since Ms. Palin called for the policy that Obama is now pursuing. While one can disagree with the policy, you can’t disagree with the reality; Ms. Palin was far more decisive in what needed to be done. Obama dithered while Gaddafi went from being ready to be pushed out of Libya or being killed to on the verge of crushing the rebellion, where we are right now. If Obama had chose to set the policy three weeks ago when the rebels held the edge, Gaddafi would most likely be six feet under.

Obama biggest failure is to set forth a vision for his policy and even today, Americans and the world for that matter, don’t know what end game Obama has in mind. With President Palin, the end game would be the end of the Gaddafi regime. (As I stated, one can easily disagree with Ms. Palin position and one only has to read the pages of National Review to know that conservatives are divided and much of the left are shaking their head as the Nobel Peace Prize winner is now involved in his third war. One pundit noted that Obama has managed to kill more Muslims that all but two Nobel peace prize winner.)

Does anyone think that President Palin would have taken some eight months before deciding on supporting the surge as Obama did? Many pundits who are in love with Obama would have viewed his reluctance to set a course early in his administration for Afghanistan as being deliberate and looking at all side before deciding. The reality is more simple, Mr. Obama delayed in making decisions due to his lack of knowledge of foreign affairs to begin with, and a worldview that is not connected to the reality of the world as it is, not as Obama has been taught.

The past months, the Middle East has exploded and even the most knowledgeable of experts would have had trouble deciphering which way the wind was blowing but Obama lack of understanding the world produced an even more dangerous world since Obama is totally confuse about the world itself.

As for Palin, she not only able to see Russia from her home in Alaska but she is also capable of seeing the world as it is; a dangerous place in which America power is one of the few things that keeps a lid on complete disintegration. Nor is she afraid to think outside the box as her recent trip to India showed. On the future, Ms. Palin talked of a vision of an expanding Anglosphere, a growth of the English speaking people values of freedom world wide including the inclusion of India as an equal partner. She told the audience, “Our ties & bonds are deep! And they’re not driven so much by “political leadership summits” & bureaucrats – they’re driven by free people & free markets! That’s why there are no natural limits to the future of U.S.- India relations. And that is why the world’s largest democracies – NOT its largest autocracy – will lead the 21st century.”

She does not accept the conventional wisdom that the 21st century is the Chinese century but a continuation of the last half of 20th century in which freedom continues it own march. Contrast that to the Obama world view, a world view that is based on America ceding power to the United Nations and international bodies while simply being one nation among many. The Obama vision is the diminution of America’s power whereas Palin vision is an America, still exceptional and still strong, leading the world through an alliance based on the strength of the English speaking people, the Anglosphere.

We can take this to domestic policy as well since Ms. Palin description of Obamacare has been validated including the rationing of healthcare, the famous “death panel” and her thoughts on energy policy is based on the idea that production matters. If nothing else, a Palin administration would not have seen a massive stimulus, a less expensive and more patient oriented heath care plan, a more equitable tax reform would be on the table and we would not have seen trillion dollars deficit as long as the eyes can view.

Some pundits may have been impressed with how impeccable Mr. Obama dressed when he ran for President but it is now self evident that Obama major problem is that he simply did not and does not have the understanding of the market forces that make America work. Nor does his leadership reflect an understanding the high stakes he is playing for. He has pushed America into a war it is not certain of, through consultation with our allies, the Arabs, and the United Nations but he has yet to make the case for his policy with the one group of people that counts the most, the American People. (Note, notice how the Arabs are demanding our help in getting rid of one of their own, so can we put the notion that much of the Arab street hate us because we get rid of nasty dictators in the region?)

We are seeing a President who was not ready for prime time with advisors who were not ready for prime time. So how it is that Sarah Palin would have been worse? At least President Palin would not have needed to be educated on the importance of America’s role in the world nor the importance of market economics as the basis for economic policy. But it is now apparent one learns more University of from South Dakota than Harvard.

Women wear the pants

2011-03-19T21:01:00.001-07:00

While Obama was playing Hamlet, to be President or not to be President, Sarah Palin wrote on her facebook three weeks ago, “Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror. NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people.”

It will appear that Hillary Clinton agreed with Sarah Palin as she wanted a more vigourous response to Gaddafi while feeling that if Gaddafi was left standing; the United States would lose prestiage. Wall Street Journal observed, we saw what happens to the world when the United States refuses to take the lead; pure chaos.

In Libya, Obama failure to lead was leading to a rout of the rebels by forces friendly to Gaddafi before the recent intervention of NATO. Even the way we got involved; waiting for the UN and our allies before commiting shows leadership at worst. It is as if Obama was shamed into intervening.

One can argue about the correct course whether the United States should strike against Gadhafi, the process has to be unsettling. Obama ceded his authority to the United Nations and our allies as if we were the followers and not the superpower. Nor did he bother to dicuss with Congress his course of action until after the fact that military strikes were being ordered. This administration waited for permission from the UN but ignored Congress, shouldn’t it be the other way.
The worst aspect is that his totally lack of leadership as he goes off to Brazil while he essentially allowed Clinton to take control. As Pajamas Media Roger Simon observed, “Jets over Libya as H. Clinton assumes the White House.”

The real question is what is Obama’s endgame? No one knows if our goal is to remove Gaddafi or merely set up no-fly zone with Gaddafi allowed staying in power while the country is partitioned. If it is the latter, then we are stuck in a rabbit briar with no way out except in possible defeat.

One get the impression that Obama really doesn’t know what he is doing or what he wants except a diminution of America’s power or America secondary to United Nations as well as other international body as oppose to taking the lead.

Fascism, is it coming here?

2011-03-13T20:13:00.000-07:00

During their rise to powers, the Nazis Party in Germany and Mussolini fascist party in Italy often unleashed thugs into the street to create disorder while at the same time, claiming that if in power, they would produce order from the chaos they have created.

In Wisconsin, we saw an attempt to intimidate lawmakers beginning with screaming protesters, legislators who left the state to keep a vote from occurring and thugs who would show up at legislators’ homes. The goal was to create chaos while presenting the mob as the victim and this is only the beginning. As an editorial noted, “Thousands of screaming protesters provided America with a preview of the union mobocracy coming soon to a legislature, city council or school board near you. State, county and city governments across the country might well find themselves facing the same confrontational tactics that caused havoc in Wisconsin.”

The left have decided to adopt tactics of the 60’s, moving away from political speech and toward confrontational and even violence similar to what groups like the Students for a Democratic Society. Outside agitators moved into Wisconsin by SEIU, Obama’s Organizing for America, and organizations created out of the dustbin of what was ACORN.

Demonstrators broke windows, forced open doors leading to mob actions designed to interfere with the legislation process and even death threats were issued to Republican legislators. This is gangster politics, gangster government beginning at the top and all through what can no longer considered the loyal opposition.

One does not want to use words like fascism to describe your opponents, especially since these labels are often used against conservatives and Tea Party members by opponents who have no true understanding of fascism. I will not say that our opponents are fascist or for that matter the administration but there is no doubt that the tactics used in Wisconsin by the unions and the Democratic Party are undemocratic.

What if this was a Tea Party demonstration, the word fascist would be used every fifteen minutes by the mainstream media (and unless you watch Fox or bloggers like Ann Althouse, you wouldn’t even know about the death threats or the mobs.) If the left and public sectors insist on using similar tactics in other states then there is only conclusion can be concluded. The left is no longer Democratic as they use the tactics of intimidation, mob rule and attempt to shut down government. If you don’t want to be labeled a fascist, then don’t use undemocratic tactics.

If Wisconsin governor Walker had not prevailed in the first round, mobocracy would have prevail. The left will not stop in Wisconsin as recall elections and interference with judicial process attempting to overturn the 2010 elections. Our country is at a crucial point in its history, and whether we stay a nation of law or a nation of men ruled by those willing to use whatever power needed for control.

Rock's greatest

2011-03-12T14:44:00.000-08:00

I picked up a book, 100 Greatest Albums, in which rock critics attempt to select the top 100 albums, a daunting task that leaves one open to criticism. I won’t go into the particulars but instead focus on some of the albums they selected from some of my favorite groups.

The Beatles dominate and there is no real mystery why. The Beatles showed the flexibility in their music but just as impressive, they moved from being a pop band that appealed to screaming teeny boppers to a more adult approach to rock and roll.

Starting with Rubber Soul, the Beatles began that slow climb into more complicated form of Rock starting with the emphasis of lyrics combined with music. Following the lead of Bob Dylan, the Beatles decided it wasn’t just about the beat but lyrics as well. Combining a mixture of folk, a little rock and mixture of blues and soul, the Beatles produced a classic that today sounds as fresh as it did when it came out in 1965.

Revolver followed as the Beatles added eastern mysticism to the mix and this was the album that George Harrison came of age in his own right as a song writer. And what conservative can’t love Tax Man, in which the writer notes the “government takes nine and I keep one” at a time that in England and even in the United States, the top tax rate was 70% and Britain even higher.

Revolver prepared the world for Sgt. Pepper which was mixture of the fun (Maxwell Silver Hammer), the song She’s Leaving Home which deals with one of a parent nightmare, a runaway child. Lucy in the Sky in the Diamonds may or may not be about tripping on LSD but John Lennon does ask us imagine a place, “Picture yourself in a boat in a river… (place) where cellophane flowers of yellow and green grew.”

This was the final maturation process of the Beatles who seemed to make up their own rules including their decision to quick touring to promote their album. The White Album replaced the psychedelic Sgt.Pepper for a more straight forward foray into Rock. This was the album that signaled that the Beatles era was about to end as this album was designed to please the divergent interests of the Beatles. John Lennon with Yoko Ono at his side worked in different studios from Paul McCartney whereas George Harrison was ready to fly the coup with his own career, even inviting Eric Clapton to play the lead on While my Guitar Gently Weeps. (It should be pointed out that George Harrison could play a solid lead himself and I remember listening to him play a version of this song during a concert in Atlanta a few years after the Beatle breakup. The guitar sounded as if Eric Clapton spirit was playing. One could not tell the difference between the Clapton’s version with the Harrison version played that night.)

The Beatles would produce two more albums but they quit on top and went their separate ways, producing some fine music but nothing compared to their golden era. The Beatles reminded us of an era where rock and roll was not just king but at its peak artistically. The Rock scene continued to be popular but never reached the heights of the late 60’s and early 70’s. Much of that due to reaction to the turmoil with America divided over the Vietnam war but another reason was that Rock stars still experimented with their art form. Today, there isn’t much left to experiment and now Rock has settled into what it was in the beginning, teen boppers singing lullabies to teeny boppers.

If the Beatles showed maturation, the Beach Boys never could make the transition though not for a lack of trying. Brian Wilson, the genius writer for the group, could put together a quick little song in a afternoon that could describe the California scene but in 1966, Wilson produced Pet Sounds, his very best effort. Unfortunately for him, the more mature Beach Boys could not convince their audience that it was time to grow up from having fun, fun, fun and just wanting to get around to a more ambitious mood. Sloop John B detailed a darker aspect of the California scene as the writer lamented, “This is the worst trip I ever been on.” This will be Wilson’s high water moment and from there, he dealt with his own demons and the Beach Boys spent the rest of their career unable to move from their initial days of music about surfing, hot cars and hot chicks.

The Rolling Stones contribution to the top 100 include Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street. Just as the Beatles hit their stride with Sgt Pepper, these four albums were the Rolling Stones high water part. The Stones attempted to imitate the Beatles Sgt. Peppers with Their Satanic Majesty Request but this album bombed since the Stones lacked the Beatles skills at expanding their musical repertoire and the album lacked any satanic message. The Stones attempted to find the connection from rock to psychedelic but after this album, the Stones return to rock and blues with the single Jumpin Jack Flash, before moving on to Beggars Banquet. Beggars Banquet included various tunes with bluesy riffs to go with rock with Salt of the Earth, Jigsaw, Stray Cat Blues and Street Fighting Man but the classic song of the album was Sympathy for the Devil. Nicky Hopkins hard edge piano combined with Keith Richards guitar riff provides the background for Jagger singing about Satan wanting our soul.

Let it Bleed continued the trend started by Beggars Banquet as the Stones combined rock with blues but the key song of the album was Gimme Shelter which detailed the disastrous Altamont concert in which Hells Angel, acting as guard, killed a fan in a scuffle. Exile on Main Street was the Stones last great album and the Stones produced a masterful rock and roll album with tunes like Tumblin Dice and All Down the Line plus ballads as Shine a Light. This was the dividing point for the Stones as they went from being a rock and roll band to celebrity status. Like the Beatles, the Stones were no longer about rock but making money. Like the Beatles, the Stones went from being rebellious to establishment as Sir Mick joined Sir Paul. While the Stones produced good albums after Exile, they were mere imitation of their golden age.

Both the Stones and the Beatles produced their best work within the first decade of their existence but as the 70’s began, they have reached their peak and had nothing left to add. Rock groups tend to be like that as their best work is when they hit the big time but after a few years, the magic disappears and rock fans look for the next big thing.

The Who provided the Rock Opera Tommy and Who’s Next as their contribution to the rock greatest. Tommy was Peter Townsend contribution as he went from pop to music history as he told the story of a deaf and blind man who becomes a cult favorite before it all comes crashing down as people were “no longer gonna take it.” Songs like I’m Free and We’re not Gonna Take It are rock masterpieces that can stand on their own.

Who’s Next combines aggressive energy and great riffs as the Who added the sounds of synthesizers with Townsend guitar riffs, Moon frantic drumming and Entwhistle’s pounding bass. Roger Daltry sings of “Teen age wasteland” in Baba O’ Riley and the Who put together a product that even today can thrill one soul.

Groups like Led Zepplin, U2, the Police, the Clash and the Doors have added to Rock history along with Bruce Springsteen, Bobby Dylan, and Michael Jackson. Produced in the MTV era, Michael Jackson Thriller combined Hollywood quality videos with some nasty pop produced by the crown prince of Pop. MTV era put a new emphasis on videos production as oppose to just the music. It was no longer about music but the ability to produce a visual vision of that music. Jackson was one of the first who understood this and Thriller became one of the best selling albums of all time.
Today, MTV is no longer Music Television as it simply evolved into reality TV. Pop is now determined by new teen idols and American Idol has produced its own contributions but what these vehicles have to do is to create any new sound. Justin Bieber is merely a 21st version of Ricky Nelson of the 1950’s. Rock is now coming full circle. Justin meet Ricky.

2012 political campaign

2011-03-08T09:53:00.000-08:00

There are two predictions that I will make and be certain of. The first is that the 2012 elections will be full of surprises. That one is easy. The second is that the nominee for the GOP will not come from any candidates who ran in 2008.

I don’t see Mitt Romney the 2012 nominee since he has to defend Romney care and it didn’t help recently when Obama lavished praise upon Romney care. Mike Huckabee is one of those candidates who look good in polls but one gets the impression that his heart is not really in it or do I get the same impression that Sarah Palin isn’t gung ho for a run; especially in lieu of her parents recently admitting they sleep with guns under the beds. Both Huckabee and Palin are making good money working for Fox, and any run means not only no Fox money but all the headaches that goes with campaigning and in the case of Ms. Palin, all the attacks on her family along with her.

So where do we go? Right now, that is a good question and what everyone thought of being a big field may not be as big as originally thought. M itch Daniels is playing a “should I or should I not" whereas Chris Christie is playing it coy while waiting to see how it all shakes out. Donald Trump is ready to put his hat in to save the world (I am wondering, does this mean no more contribution to Democrats just as the now Chicago Rahm Emanuel and what happens to Celebrity Apprentice?)

The good news is that the second and third tier candidates who did not run in 2008 just as Daniels, Pawlenty, Christie and even Haley Barber are actually better prepare to challenge Obama than the first tier from 2008. Daniels is everyone favorite governor based on his record and while he has stirred enough controversy with his truce talk on the social issues, he does have an impressive resume that actually includes success stories from private sector experiences to his present gig as Indiana governor. (No community organizing on the resume.)
Tim Pawlenty record can’t be ignored as National Review Ramesh Ponnuru noted, he did not change his conservatism in governing Minnesota whereas Romney govern Massachusetts as a moderate. Pawlenty won’t have to convince conservatives that he is one of their own whereas Romney, some four years later after 2008, is still trying to convince the GOP base, he is one of them. Pawlenty also showed that he was willing to fight the left in Minnesota and while he has the reputation of being a “nice guy”, his record shows that this nice guy won’t roll over.

Barber is a former lobbyist but also an effective governor and we all know Chris Christie. Trump will be entertaining as his campaign slogan to Obama will be, “You’ll fired.” Herman Cain, another business man running, can at least put up a business resume as impressive as Trump plus he was a former board member of the Federal Reserve, so he actually understands monetary policy.

And I haven’t gotten into the GOP bench which features Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindel plus how can one overlook Rick Perry, whose governance over Texas has overseen some of the strongest job growth in these down times?

Nor should we overlook libertarian Republicans. Ron Paul will probably run but former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is running as well,. Mr. Johnson proved effective as a two term governor and managed to get re-elected despite supporting legalization of drugs. On the social issues, Johnson will run to the left of Paul, who can be classify as a social conservative. Johnson is not a social conservative and his non-interventionist foreign policy is right out of the Cato Institute handbook. (Johnson supporters can point out that Mr. Johnson held records for vetoes and left the state of New Mexico with big surplus and slash the size of state government, so he actually has a record to fall back on.)

The Tea Party impact on the GOP will mean a healthy debate on the future of conservatisms and the GOP. The Tea Party influence also means that the past history of GOP rewarding those with past presidential experiences will be rewarded is over. 2012 will produce a fresh face and not from the 2008 campaign.

China and US, Decline is not a choice

2011-03-08T09:52:00.000-08:00

The conventional wisdom is that China is on the rise, the United States is in decline and the world is going to end or something to that effect. As I have mention before, decline is a choice and there is no doubt that if present economic policies don’t change, the United States will decline economically and along with a decline with our world status.

I made the observation in a recent column that China behaves more like a teenager out on a joy ride with the family car and couple of beers in the front yard as oppose to a civilization that has lasted 3000 years. The Chinese are definitely feeling their oats and making it clear that China will challenge what it feels is the United States hegemony.

It should be pointed out that to have one world superpower is an anomaly and not the usual state of affairs. However, there is nothing that can stop the United States from being the premier superpower among superpowers in the 21st century as more countries advance to join the world stage.

Mercatus Center George Mason University recently published a study challenging the conventional wisdom that China will become the dominant power in the 21st century. The author, Jack Goldstone, noted, “THE LAST DECADE has seen the arrival of emerging markets, and investors and pundits alike have shown unbounded excitement about the BRICs—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—as the new sources of the world’s economic growth. However, a focus on the BRICs is already out of date. In half of these countries, demographic patterns have shifted, and the future of the world’s growth now looks set to come from a different set of emerging economies, the TIMBIs: Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, and India.”

Goldstone observed that output measured at current exchange rates, United States is still two and half times beyond the Chinese and much of the data supporting China overtaking the United States is based on the premise that the present slow growth of the United States will continue along with the ten percent growth of China indefinitely.

What is missing from this picture is that China pro-natalist policy of Mao has been replaced by a stringent one child policy. Population control, designed to allow Chinese to better use their resources among a smaller number of citizen is also affecting its future workforce.

Up until now, the Chinese workforce grew and allowed more production but the one child policy will produce a declining workforce in the future. Along with Russia, China workforce will not grow but decline. (Russian work force is already experiencing reduction and along with its overall population.) Europe in general is declining in population but major countries like Indonesia, Turkey, Mexico, Brazil and India will see continued increase in workforce as more individuals will enter in ever increasing number.

What does this mean? Goldstone explains, “With demographic trends no longer so favorable to growth, China’s productivity gains will have to come primarily from increasing capital per worker and innovation in technology. China’s leaders understand this all too well, but the prognosis is not good. A recent report by IBM on international use of the latest business technologies placed China at 83rd out of 134 countries—as against 43rd for India and 58th for Brazil.1 Authoritarian countries have never been a flourishing base for innovation; new ideas come from free thinkers who question authorities and existing ways of doing things—hardly a welcome sight in China. The treatment of Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo indicates that freedom of expression is not on the agenda for China’s leaders.”

The more democratic aspect of Brazil and India governance will allow more innovation as free society tends to be more willing to tolerate entrepreneurs. Russia and China will attempt to increase productivity through government policies but the question is how effective government can be in producing productivity increases.

Due to immigration, the United States will see its own increase in work forces even though the percent increase will be less than in the past but still higher than China. (This should be a warning to restrictionists on immigration policies. A program that allows for legal immigration is an economic winner; especially in our economic competition with China.)
It should be pointed out that many of these nations mentioned have their own problems. Turkey is now run by an Islamist Party and the question is whether the more fundamentalist Muslim will interfere with the more secular pursuit of wealth and this is also true of Indonesia. India is plagued by sclerotic bureaucratic control that clog the entrepreneurial spirit of India, and Mexico is now dealing with a drug cartel civil war similar to what Colombia did in the 1990’s. Brazil presently is ruled by their leftist parties that so far have shown good judgment in their economic plan but the question remains, how long can the present leaderships resist their leftist tendency of increasing government control over the economy and slow their own growth down?

The United States is still poised to lead the world economically, if the right policies are followed and there is no guarantee that China or other powers will overtake the United States since they have their own problems that could derail their progress.

Decline is a choice, so is progress.

New Order is coming

2011-02-26T12:26:00.000-08:00

I came across a blog that tells the story about the world today; the old order is breaking down world wide. In the United States, the political class is collapsing before our eyes as the old order is fighting to hold on to power. Wisconsin is the second act as the rise of the Tea Party in 2009 and the Democrat shellacking in the 2010 congressional elections was the first act. The Tea Party represented the first rebellion against the old order as common citizens decided they were mad as hell at the old order failure and was no longer going to take it.

In Wisconsin, the old order is anti-democratic as Democratic Senators refuse to show up for work and their allies essentially shut down much of the state government as teachers call in sick and much of the capital became inhabited by state union workers. The ruling class has made it clear; they are willing to shut down government if they don’t win, Democracy be damned.

Many students simply aren’t getting educated and teacher unions are becoming a obstacles to learning and least we forget, real estate is slumping and will continue to slump; making the recovery slower.

With the increase production of biofuel diverting resources away from food production and the feds pumping out dollars is leading to increase in food prices while oil production is being restrained by government policy. Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable but the rest of world is even worse shape. Finally, one Party, the Democrat is collapsing into a radical neo socialist, incapable of change and governing but yet capable of blocking needed reform.

China work force is getting older and with their one child policy has produced a country with more males than females, while increasing the age of the work force quickly. One pundit once quip, China may get old before its gets rich. China is under one party rule and its ruling class is more medieval than modern. China may never fulfill its potential but its hubris may force a world war in the Pacific with the United States as China is acting less than a country with three thousand year history of civilization and more like a teenager out on a joy ride while drinking a couple of beers. The population is getting restless and instability could be near.

In the Middle East, much of the Muslim failing to come to grip with the modern world as the whole region has exploded with no one certain what it will bring besides higher oil prices and continued instability. The problem is that many in Islam are looking for a society that was suited for the 11 and 12th century as oppose to the 21st century.

Europe is an aging region collapsing under the weight of its social welfare state and a ruling class not supportive of democratic rule but rules it masses through bureaucratic means. Democracy is losing to bureaucracy.

The old order is dying but a new order is replacing it. In the Middle East, a medieval religion will create near term instability before modernity takes over but until then, chaos rules.

Recently, I read a new story that Texas governor Rick Perry wants to design a college degree costing only $10,000, nearly a tenth of what it cost now but this change radically tips the balance away from the old educational methods to new and more daring teaching methods that threaten the old educational order.

As one pundit wrote, “The US is well positioned with its Tea Parties to come out on top of this upheaval. But it will not be pretty here either.”

The old order no longer believes in liberty or for that matter democracy except democracy ruled by bureaucrats and ruling elite. The ruling elites no longer understand the world as it is as they have lost faith in those things that have served us well, like economic freedom supported by a classical liberal state that respect the rule of law and limited power for politicians and government in general.

We are being forced to relearn old lessons as we fail to heed the warnings of the past. As we speak, the stagflation of the 70’s have return but only it will be far worse as the economy sputters here and abroad while the flame of revolution explodes among much of the world. The old order is dying but the new order is not yet in place.

Ron Paul ask the question

2011-02-22T22:37:00.001-08:00

Regardless one thinks of Ron Paul, he does ask questions that need answer; how does one determine the value of currency? What is the duty of the Federal Reserve and or a better question, what should the duty of the Reserve be? Since the mid 70’s, the Federal Reserve have been given two jobs, promote currency stability and full employment. These goals can be contradictory, which is exactly where we are right now. With unemployment at 9%, currency czar Ben Bernacke has expanded the monetary supply but inflation is starting to show up with the rise of commodities and a weakening dollar.
The Federal chairman is caught between the rock and a hard place for economic policies emanating from Washington has not been growth oriented nor is there any chance of one coming anytime soon.

As it is, any reforms or attempts to reduce spending or reform public union bargaining is being met by massive intimidation by public sector unions and the Democrats are already talking about shutting the Federal government so any serious attempt to rein in government spending or institute serious growth orient policies wait until 2012. So what we are left with is the Federal Reserve expanding money supply to deal with deflation but we now at risk of a future inflation run.
Much of the world has noticed as there is a call for a new standard. There is two reasons for many of our trading partners want to be rid of what has been the dollar standard. The first reason is geopolitical for to divorce the world from the dollar standard would weaken the United States place in the world. The second is more defensive namely with a weak dollar, commodities prices go up and worth of dollar being held goes down. The Chinese are wondering why keep buying our debt and hoarding our dollar that keeps going down in value?
As long as the United States maintained a strong dollar as the United States did during the 1980’s and 1990’s, there was no reason to replace the dollar standard. When the dollar weakened, this only gave others a reason to replace the dollar as the main currency but now the question remains replaced with what?

The Chinese have been accused of manipulating with their currency, the Euro is in shambles along with Europe, the Japanese economy has been sub par for nearly two decades and who would want the Russian Ruble as the world currency? While others have suggested replacing the dollar with the Chinese Juan or the European Euro or even a basket of currency; it still begs the question, how much do you trust other government to run their economy correctly? Or for that matter, the IMF be designated the final arbitrator?

Paul biggest question for the rest of us is how do you protect our currency? For Paul, the Federal Reserve monopoly of our currency is a threat in of itself but there is no simple solution. I have written on this and have myself reviewed the revival of the Gold standard or other possible system independent of a governing body control of currency but there is no doubt that others will argue that a central banker makes sense in today’s economy. Or simply no one who is alive has ever lived under a real gold standard and it has been four decades since the Bretton Wood System broke down. The system was based on the premise that other currencies were tied to the Dollar, which was tied to Gold. This forced the United States to maintain a strong currency but in the late 60’s, the dollar weakened and the system collapsed. The 70’s was a period of stagflation which was broken by Reagan growth oriented policy combined with Paul Volcker ringing out inflation and strengthening the dollar. For the next two decades, strong dollar was policy but this broke down with the advent of the Y2 scare, the Gulf War and easy money policy of the Fed, first by Greenspan and then by Bernacke.

Which brings us to the question, what should be the Fed be doing? In an ideal world, the Federal Reserve would be concern with maintaining our currency and preventing inflation, but with the Congress or the President choosing to ignore sound policies; it makes the Federal Reserve job that much harder and confusing.
Ron Paul is asking the question, how do we measure the strength of a currency and who should be responsible in safeguarding the dollar? The next part of the question is what is the responsible of Washington politicians at whose hands we have suffered.

Revolution begins

2011-02-18T12:35:00.000-08:00

The counter revolution has begun. In a discussion with a political associate, I made an observation that the election of 2012 will be won in 2011. Francis Piven Fox wrote in the Nation Magazine, “Local protests have to accumulate and spread — and become more disruptive — to create pressures on national politicians. An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece.”The left have always used street theatre to make their case and this past week, the use of masses to intimidate Republicans in Wisconsin represents the opening salvo of the Democrats attempt to stop Republicans attempt to shrink government stateside and on the federal level.

The Piven ideology over the years counted on overwhelming the system with welfare requests to quicken its collapse and her call for riots was as much a call of intimidation as anything. This is the moment and with the tide going the Republican way, the left has now moved into overdrive with the Obama’s “budget” which essentially stated, there will be no serious cuts and no decrease in government. This was a political statement in which Obama appears not to engage in cutting the budget and force the Republican to make the first move. Obama is not yet ready to deal but to begin the 2012 campaign.
In Wisconsin and Ohio, Republican governors are challenging public sector unions by reining in their power to bargain and reforming healthcare and pension and the public sector union is one of the biggest supporters of the left today. Public sector unions make up more than half of union membership today. Private sector unions are not immune to the up and downs of the economy but public sector unions are not only immune to the economy but are a powerful voice for bigger government since this means more union members and more dues. Public sectors union gained the ability to bargain and organize thus able to shut down government if they don’t get their way.

Wisconsin is the test case for the left and public sector unions as the goal is to shut down the government and force the Republicans to surrender. It is thuggery and one step away from the riots called by leftist thinker Piven.
But it goes beyond the union workers since Organizing for America, a Barack Obama organization, is working with the Public sector union and as Powerline blogger John Hinderaker noted, “What the Democrats don’t like isn’t dictatorship, it is democracy. That is why the Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate fled the state en masse–they prevented a quorum, so that a vote they were going to lose couldn’t take place. Once again, it is democracy they are trying to frustrate, not dictatorship….One could make the point more broadly about the organized labor movement. The unions’ top priority is to eliminate the secret ballot in union certification elections. Why?”
This past week, teachers called in sick forcing massive school cancellation. The question is will the Wisconsin shut down government services by refusing to work? While the questions in Washington DC, would the Republicans risk shutting down the federal government, the reality is that public sector unions are prepared to shut down government on a state level. In Ohio, leftist protestors are protesting John Kasich’s efforts to reform union bargaining rights and protest are gathering against Mitch Daniels unemployment reforms and New York unions are spending millions to fight reforms from a Democratic governor.

For the past year, I have made the point that victory in 2012 begins in 2011 and we are witnessing the opening salvo of what will be one of the most contentious in our history. The American voters will be exposed to lies and misrepresentation like never before for the left now realize that we are serious about restricting the power of government. Their ability to pass health care and financial reform facilitated a government takeover of our health care as well as growing government to size never before recorded in our history. They are within one more Democratic administration of turning America into a European style social democracy. We are becoming less of America and more like Greece with every passing day.

The left also know that if Walker succeeds in Wisconsin, this could mean the unraveling of their own plans and they will fight, literally, fight for their gains. The time is now to win 2012 and battles are being conducted on a majority of fronts. With four key governor elections and a special election in California 36th district to replace the retiring Jane Harmon along with special ballot issues, there will be many opportunities for both sides to sharpen their message for 2012.

If the Republicans are forced to retreat, they will lose in 2012. The Democratic goal is to overthrow the 2010 election and we are witnessing is a battle between democracy vs. mob rule.

Huffington Post

2011-02-15T21:34:00.000-08:00

Arianna Huffington merger with AOL is simply an evolution of the media world but the real question is what does AOL get for their $315 million? uffington began her career fighting with feminism and attempting to help her moderate ex husband getting elected as Senator ( a task that she failed at) before becoming part of the New Gingrich inner circle, the “conservative side kick” to Al Franken on Comedy Central before becoming infected with leftist populism.
Her latest gig was the Huffington Post, advertised as a means to get beyond the “various political poles” evolved into a leftist daily. Huffington Post combined political commentary, occasional serious news along with the latest in sports, arts and entertainment. It became a New York Time online, only more entertaining. Ms Huffington set up a “citizen journalism” network in which she was able to get thousands of bloggers to contribute new stories for nothing than a privilege of being part of the Huffington Post.Huffington proved to be entrepreneur when it came to internet journalism and showed that she could push the news agenda as many of her stories were often carried throughout the old media.

Now she brings the Huffington model to AOL, who is now looking to be more than a internet entry point but a full fledge news circuit with leading pundits, some of which might be paid. AOL have a team of writers presently but Huffington expands the AOL universe and Huffington will have access to millions of more visitors for her leftist political leanings.

Which brings us to the lesson of the buy out, the media is evolving before our eyes and the traditional media is channg in front of our eyes. The print media is moving from the street corner and front door to the internet. The biggest problem for the internet was making money and much of it have been delivered free. This could work as a model when journalist could make money in the print media and television but today, the print media is declining and many journalists are forced to the internet just to write.

Over the past three decades, many journalists immigrated to television with the introduction of the 24 hour cable news and now they are migrating to the internet but pay for writing on the internet is less than for print so the future of journalism is also changing.

So what does this mean for conservatives? Over the years the media have been property of the left (with the exception of Fox news) but the left have successfully migrated to the internet with Huffington Post along with the Daily Kos. The left view the internet as additional supplement to spread their message. Newsweek has merged with the Daily Beast and Huffington Post has now become AOL or is it AOL becoming the Huffington Post?

Conservatives began their end around the liberal media with talk radio, which they dominate and Fox has now become the number one cable news network. Instapundit along with Pajamas Media have attempted to combine a moderate, liberal ,conservative alliance to news coverage and punditry to counter more extreme left that dominate much of the media. The Daily Caller is attempting to become the rightwing version of the Huffington Post.

The biggest effect of these developments is that school of journalism will cease to be worth much since many citizen journalists can simply get started on the internet. School of journalism will no longer be the gate keepers of the media and this eliminate one leftist way of controlling or skewing the news by training new journalists.

For many years, conservatives have ceded culture to the left from newsroom to Hollywood. The new media will allow the right to make inroads in journalism and even Hollywood while competing with the left when it come to the cultural wars. More importantly, the left can no longer monopolize the narrative when it comes to the newsroom.

Herman Cain

2011-02-15T21:27:00.000-08:00

For those who missed, the new era of civility proceeds as noted leftist blog Alternet wrote about Herman Cain and other black conservatives, “\Because of what they believe, but rather because of how they entertain and perform for their White Conservative masters…. We always need a monkey in the window, for he/she reminds us of our humanity while simultaneously reinforcing a sense of our own superiority. Sadly, there are always folks who are willing to play that role because it pays so well… Herman Cain–an ironic name if ever, and one more suited to a tragic figure in a Harlem Renaissance era novella–is not “blackening twice” as some race minstrels chose to do.”

So in the space of a paragraph, Cain is called a monkey, part of minstrels show and performing for his “white masters.” So where is the NAACP to condemn what is a racist statement? Or Media Matters? Or any one for that matter? When I read this, I am reminded by a statement directed to the late Joseph McCarthy, “Have you no shame?” Well does the left have any shame or anything goes?

As for Cain, he has been a successful businessman, a member of the Federal Reserve, a talk show host and now, Presidential candidate. He deserves better.

News from the Anglosphere

2011-02-04T15:37:00.000-08:00

The good news for the United States, the unemployment slipped to 9%. The bad news is that only 36,000 jobs were created and more job seekers simply gave up as less people are employed.

Canada saw nearly 70,000 jobs created and all of the jobs lost in the recession have been regained, putting Canada ahead of the United States. United States has slipped behind Canada when it came to economic freedom over the past three years according to the Heritage Foundation; so this may explain the United States economic recovery is falling behind Canada.

Here is not a way to treat an ally, especially a ally who has troops by our side in Afghanistan and fought by our side in Iraq. The Daily Telegraph reported that the United States gave the Russians the number of Trident missiles the British has. The Trident missiles are made in the United States but the British have been reluctant to release the numbers in the past.

This administration has on a few occasion simply never seem to know who are friends are and in the case of Great Britain, the Obama Administration simply don’t see to care about our special relation or the sacrifices that the British have made in the war on terror

What limits?

2011-02-02T21:03:00.000-08:00

“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be ‘difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power’ and we would have a Constitution in name only.” Judge Roger Vinson

Judge Vinson struck down Obamacare and he went further Judge Henry Hudson by declaring the entire health care law unconstitutional and now the law is in the hands of the Supreme Court, or one should say, in the hands of Judge Kennedy. Of course, the left yelled “judicial activism” but the real question, are there any limits to government powers?

Our founder fathers designed the Constitution as mechanism to limit government, but the left have made it clear over the past two years; there are no limits to government! As Randy Barnett observed, “This novel use of the Necessary and Proper Clause, if allowed to stand, would fundamentally transform our constitutional scheme from limited to unlimited federal power, narrowing the scope of individual liberty. In Judge Vinson's words, "the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This result would, of course, expand the Necessary and Proper Clause far beyond its original meaning, and allow Congress to exceed the powers specifically enumerated in Article I."

The Obama Administration has passed a law that essentially made it clear that individuals have to buy insurances with mandates they made need or not. What is at stake is a society based on individual liberty or a society in which the government will determine what is and what is not good for you. The left have yet to answer the questions, what is the limit of government?

Economic Freedom

2011-01-22T20:42:00.000-08:00

The Heritage Foundation reminds us that economic freedom matters not just in promoting prosperity but political freedom. Look at those nations who are either free or mostly free economically and you see nations who are politically free as well as being among the prosperous nations.

The lesson that this survey shows, economic freedom= economic prosperity. Most interesting is that we review the top ten nations; seven of them have connection to Great Britain as former colonies. While much have been made of the rise of China, what is often overlooked is that those nations associated with the Anglosphere including Canada, Australia, New Zealand as well as United States are not just among the world freest economy but among the world prosperous.

Now for the bad news, this past year, the United States continued its decline to number nine among freest economy. Here are the facts, the United States is still the largest economy, and is the world largest producer of manufactured goods. United States federalism have allowed diverse economic policies and strategies but over the past two years, the federal government has expanded ever faster and the gross public debt is approaching a hundred percent of GDP including the Federal takeover of health care, our banking system and General Motors can easily be accurately described as Government Motors. Canada is now more economic freer than the United States and so far has experienced less unemployment than the United States during the recent economic downturn. Canada has a strong manufacturing base as well as high technology sectors to go with abundant supply of natural resources.

Great Britain fell even further behind when it came to economic freedom. In the 80’s, the Thatcher reforms allowed Britain to outpaced much of Europe throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s but since the 1997, the Labour Party damaged the British competitiveness with increase spending and increased government size. Just as the Obamanomics is slowing America’s competitive advantage, the British have experienced severe decline in its economic performance.

The combined economic output of Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States measure nearly 20 trillion dollars, which makes the Anglosphere nations the most prosperous group and while many are predicting a China dominated century, the Anglosphere still have advantages that could propel the 21st into the Anglosphere century.

China has begun its own transformation but it is still have a way to go. The Communist Party allowed economic markets to exist due to necessity but the Party still maintains ultimate authority over economic decisions. The financial sector, controlled by the government, allocates as much on political criteria as economic efficiency and productivity. There is much more fundamental restructuring left to accomplish.

China industrial and manufacturing is second to the United States but the per capita wealth is still far behind the United States while the Party maintains tight control over all political freedoms including expression, speech, and religion. China is struggling with the migration of many from rural areas seeking economic opportunities to the wealthier urban areas.

China is still a developing nation and much to learn about how to maintain its present economic trajectory and while its growth have been impressive, the idea that we work for China is not simply overwrought but wrong. China is not our equal at this point in history.

China will overtake the United States only if the United States allows it. Economic decline is a choice decided by economic policies instituted by the government. There is no doubt that Obama and the Democratic Party long term economic program will lead to decline but reversal of those policies will lead to America revival.

Presidental thoughts

2011-01-22T20:41:00.000-08:00

(Notes: I am not making any endorsements or will spend time in this piece to dissect weakness of candidates. There is more than enough time to do this. My purpose is to point out that Republican have a strong list of candidates.)

The 2012 presidential elections have already begun and there is one thing to consider, who is in the lead now may not be later. Today polls merely reflect names that ever been present in the news or ran in 2008. Mitt Romney profile is enhanced by his 2008 Presidential run whereas Mike Huckabee has kept his profile through his Fox news connection. Sarah Palin has created her own support network outside of the traditional network with her commentary on Facebook and her program on the learning stations and she has the additional benefit of being on Fox news. So when polls show these three as the top three, it is as much due to voters being familiar with them.

At this stage of the campaign, no candidate has established his or herself as the main candidate, leaving the door open for other candidates. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty proved to an effective governor; rating an A from the Cato Institute for his ability to maintain some element of order on Minnesota budget during his years as governor. Another candidate, Mitch Daniels is a candidate with hearty resume including a successful two term as Indiana governor, a stint as OMB in the Bush administration, President of Lilly pharmaceutical North America and stint as President of non-profit Hudson Institute. Few ever ran for President with just a resume.

Haley Balbour, the present governor of Mississippi, is thinking about being President. His resume includes being a lobbyist and head of the Republican Party; leaving the impression that he knows politics. Among other candidates include John Bolton, the former diplomat, Senator John Thune and businessman and now talk radio show host Herman Cain. Then there is Newt Gingrich, a individual who is forever thinking outside the box but may have been the most effective Speaker of the House as he forced Bill Clinton to the right by getting welfare reform passed (first significant reduction of the welfare state passed since the passage of the New Deal), a balanced budget along with a capital gain tax. Before he became Speaker, he helped defeat Hillarycare, the precursor to Obamacare.

Texas Governor Rick Perry is a dark horse but he has been an effective governor as he managed to place Texas as the state shaping America’s revival. Least we forget, Rudy Giuliani is considering yet another run for the President and there is still memory of his cool leadership on September 11th.

And Republicans have a deep bench for future Presidential runs beyond 2012 or Vice-Presidents consideration in 2012. Bobby Jindal is the young governor of Louisiana who tangled with the Obama administration during the BP oil spill and like many of the others; he has his own impressive resume. Among his accomplishments include President of Louisiana system, Head of Louisiana Health and Hospital, worked in Health and Human Services during the early part of the Bush’s era, congressman of Louisiana first district and now governor. He has yet to hit 40.

Paul Ryan has been one of the sharpest minds for the Republican Party when it comes to domestic policy, always thinking outside the box and this knowledge was display when he confronted Barack Obama during the Health care summit where he literally destroyed the economic assumption right in front of Obama, who had no response.
Chris Christie is showing how to challenge the status quo in New Jersey and his combative style has made him a youtube star. (So far Christie has resisted any national aspiration.

Conventional wisdom is that the top tier of Republican candidates are weak but beyond the top three of Romney, Palin, and Huckabee are a list of candidates with impressive accomplishments and resumes.

Olberman says good bye

2011-01-22T20:39:00.000-08:00

Keith Olberman has left MSNBC and there are more than enough rumors of why but now MSNBC find themselves with an evening featuring the young Cenk Uyger taking over the Ed Schultz slot, who now moves to the 10 pm following Rachel Maddow. Larry O’ Donnell takes over the Olberman’s slot. Why Olberman left, who knows and quite frankly who cares.

For the moment, MSNBC will continue their take no prisoners style of attacking conservatives and generally obnoxious punditry built around expounding upon the latest leftist creed. So nothing will change in the near term as MSNBC has decided to the network for the left and leave the rest to Fox news.

MSNBC is exactly what much of the left considers Fox, strictly bias and built in the image of Olberman. In 2004, MSNBC made a decision and shift to the left and attack Bush. This strategy allowed MSNBC to catch CNN as the leftist alternative to Fox and Olberman became the face of NBC news, sending what was once a proud news network straight into the toilet.

The reality is that evening MSNBC jettison any straight news unlike CNN or Fox, and on weekend, MSNBC became the network of chasing perverts and a tour of all Federal penitentiary. While CNBC continued its straight coverage of business news and Brian Williams continued the pretence of being the straight news man on the main network, MSNBC decided that the future was being one editorial after another.
While MSNBC became the number two cable news network, they still ran behind Fox but after 2008, Fox took off by simultaneously following two strategy; combining straight news with edgy hosts. While MSNBC depended upon being edgy all the time, Fox executives saw the value of being a complete news network and added punch to its business coverage to challenge CNBC.

Fox strategy became obvious when they hired key reporters from other stations beginning with Glenn Beck from Headline News followed by other significant names. The past months, Fox made Juan Williams, noted liberal pundit, a millionaire when he was fired by NPR and most recently, hired John Roberts from CNN to boast an already strong group of reporters.

CNN, whose reputation was being the straight shooter, covered up their liberal bias but at least there was an attempt to be balanced and over the past year, strengthen their conservative pundit staff when they hired Erik Erickson of Red State. In an attempt to copy Fox, CNN teamed Kathleen Parker with Elliot Spitzer but so far, this has failed and Piers Morgan is still running behind Sean Hannity. As Bill O’ Reilly quipped about his CNN competitors, “They are boring.” (It should be pointed out that CNN have used Headline News Network for its more edgy talk shows. With noted leftist Joy Behar and feisty legal reporter Nancy Grace, Headline News features it own version of controversial programs but their ratings often fall behind the other networks.)

For MSNBC, they are trapped for they have decided to attract a rabid group who will desert at the first evidence of moderation but they can no longer fully grow market share since they are merely captive of one ideology and can’t escape their own game plan. They made short gains between 2004 and 2008 but now they are rapidly falling further behind Fox. Without Olberman, whose larger than life personality at least attracted attention, they now have personalities that have done little to make dents. Larry O’Donnell and Ed Schultz have all of Olberman’s flaws including a general hatred for much of America (which means those of us who don’t vote for Obama and the rest who regret their vote) but not his talent. Somehow, one will have hard time imagining O’Donnell holding on Olberman’s audience but MSNBC is hoping that simply the left will tune in simply because they have no other place to hear their views validated day in and day out.

As for Fox, they have established their brand with solid news program combined with solid personalities. While many critics dismissed Fox as a mere creation of the right, the reality is that they have surpassed CNN in news gathering and now compete with the major news network for audiences share. It could be said that more independents and Democrats watch Fox as watch either CNN or MSNBC. Their niche audience is much of America.

Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones

2011-01-21T20:31:00.000-08:00

1974, The Rock and Roll documentary “Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones” was one of the great rock and roll concert films simply because it featured nothing more than the Stones at the their best on stage. Opening with Brown Sugar, the film demonstrated the energy of the Stones at their height. The film focused on their 1972 tour some three years after their disastrous 1969 tour which culminated at the Altamont Race track in which a Hells Angel killed a concert goer (the Stones in one of those anti-establishment mode hired the Angels as body guard, a mistake.)

1972 was a different era and after the 1969 Altamont concert, the Stones produced three of their better albums, Let it Bleed (featuring Gimme Shelter), Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street. (Before Altamont, the Stones produced Beggars Banquet, which in my opinion one of Rocks’ greatest album but those three post Altamont took the Stones to new heights.)

Exile on Main Street was the album that represented a change in the Stones. Yes, they would produce some great albums later in the decade and early part of the 80’s but in the end, they would never scale the mountaintop of their 1969-1972 period. Much of their later stuff was essentially lesser version of their peak years. The 1969-72 periods saw the Stones return to their roots of blues and rock and roll. The Stones were the bad boys counter to the more polished Beatles but after the Beatles break up, Stones became the new king of Rock and Roll.

In Street Fighting Man, Jagger would sing “What can a poor boy but sing in a rock and roll band?” but by Exile the gang would no longer poor but on their way to become wealthy men in their own self and Jagger used his economist background to ensure that the group would end up comfortable. Exile was the dividing line that Rock became a business and message was money. The 60’s gave Rock a voice in the youthful rebellion but by 1972, the rebellion was over and it became time to turn Rock and Roll into multi-billion dollar business. The Stones were not into protest by the time the 70’s but into making music and making a living doing it. No more being a poor boy singing in a rock and roll band but rocking entrepreneurs whose tours would earn millions going from one end of America to another. Exile was the album that separated the early more innocent period of rock into more sober reality. The Rolling Stones became royalty.

In 1967, the Stones produced “Their Satanic Majestic Request” but the album was an attempt to combine psychedelic with Rock as a response to the Beatles “Sgt Pepper Lonely Heart Club Band.” It was a failure and the Stones return to Rock with a vengeance with the introduction of the single Jumpin Jack Flash. Beggars Banquet featured the classic Sympathy for the Devil that featured Keith Richard's guitar rift combined with Nicky Hopkins pounding piano that mesmerize you and included many blues style songs along some hard rocking like Stray Cat Blues, which categorized their many adventures with groupies, a few underage. (Or maybe it was a fictional account but I will let the readers decide.)

By the time, Exile was produced, the Stones survived drug charges, Altamont, and various others misadventures. The 1972 tour was the introduction of much of Exile, including Happy, and Tumbling Dice to the American public.

A Stone concert centered around Mick Jagger dancing and grooving on stage in between singing verses and Keith Richards playing the loyal side kick. Beyond that, Bassist Bill Wyman stood by pounding his bass and Watts simply played the drums. Both of these men were simply ignored the chaos created by Jagger and played their part. The 1972 tour featured lead guitarist Mick Taylor, who replaced the deceased Brian Jones and he added a bluesy guitar rift to the set. This quality became obvious as Taylor solo sang near the conclusion of Love-in Vain, a slow bluesy tone. This was followed by Sweet Virginia which began with Jagger on harmonica and Richards and Taylor accompanied on acoustic guitars. And no Stone concert would be complete without You can’t get what You want, but as Jagger would add, “You get what you need.”

The Stones open the doors for the punk movement later in the decade and outlast the movement. Long after the Ramones and Sex Pistols along with the rest of the Punk parade slipped off into Rock History, the Stones continued to make history. (Or maybe continues to this day to make history since they are not yet officially retired.)

The back up accompany included Bobby Keys on sax, Nicky Hopkins on piano (a rock and roll virtuoso, if you don’t believe me, well listen to Sympathy for the Devil), Jim Price on horns and Ian Stewart assisting on piano. While many of these artist are forgotten today but in their days, they were some of the best back ups in the business and they added their talent for many artists.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Rolling Stones showed rock and roll as its best as a great group performed some of their greatest songs. You can’t beat that.

Obama at Tucson

2011-01-13T21:09:00.000-08:00

After a week, I have decided to write something on the Tucson tragedy even though there is not much to add to what has already been discussed.

To begin with, President Obama acted Presidential by presenting the right tone. While I am not convinced that this was his best speech but at least he did what President are suppose to do in moments of crisis, unite and seek higher purpose.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for those who planned the event. Beginning with T-shirts on the chairs with slogans to the Arizona University President who introduced Obama as the man we needed for such times or something to that effect, it took on a feel of a political rally, undercutting the message that needed to be heard. (My wife, who like most Americans, does not drink or sleep politics, got up in the middle of the event and picked up a book “This has the feel of a political rally, I am going to read until its over.” I wonder how many other Americans felt the same way.)

If the week taught us anything, it taught us the complete bankruptcy of the political left. With their ideas in shatters and Obama forced to triangulate to save his presidency, the wild attack on conservatism and selected individuals showed a movement out of gas after two years of governing.

A model of this collapse is Paul Krugman. In the 1990’s, Krugman was a respected left of center economist whose works would earn him a Nobel Prize for economics but since joining the New York Times staff, Krugman has turned into a angry partisan hack, whose writings represent lazy thinking and even lazier research. It is as if he mails in most of his piece, figuring that hatred for the right that he didn’t exhibit as an economist, will suffice. The fact that it does for his employer speaks volume for the New York Times.
In Krugman new world, the right are not political opponents but immoral cretins to be squashed. For the past week, many Americans got a look at what the left have evolved into, angry bitter partisan, so sure of their superiority but so lacking in grace or decorum. What they accuse the Right of being, they are: nasty, mean and full of violent rhetoric.
The left only solution appears to be the continued shredding of the Constitution with more restriction on speech, right to bear arms and everything else in between. It is a movement on a collusion course with much of America and what it represent. As for Obama, he struck the right chord and repudiated much of what his own side has done for the past week. The question that remains, will Obama mature into a leader or drift back to the lowest common denominator that his movement has threaten to drag his Presidency to oblivion?

Ferentz, Iowa Coach

2011-01-01T22:01:00.001-08:00

This year was a disappointing year for Iowa Football fans and much teeth gnashing about Kirk Ferentz but here are some things to think about.

Kirk Ferentz has probably been one of the most, if not most successful Big Ten coach in the postseason with a 6-3 record. In two of his lost, Iowa lost two close games to favored team, Texas and Florida and the only team that wiped out Iowa was USC. Among the six victories include George Tech in the Orange Bowl, Florida, LSU, South Carolina and recently highly ranked Missouri.

Here is another stat, Ferentz has coached Iowa to four seasons of 10 and 11 victories whereas Hayden Fry had only two 10 victories seasons!

On a day in which the Big Ten lost five bowl games, one should least appreciate that Iowa does do well in the post season and are now riding a three game bowl streaks!

fascism

2010-12-30T22:36:00.000-08:00

Marxism is dead and have been when the Berlin Wall came crashing down. In today world, there are leaders who view themselves as socialists, Leninist-Marxist (like Hugo Chavez) or even communist (Yes, there is still a communist Party in China.). In Latin America, we are not seeing a revival of Marxism but a rebirth of fascism with Hugo Chavez playing the role of Benito Mussolini.

Fidel Castro is the original Marxist-Leninist in the hemisphere but the reality is that no one really believes in Marxism or nor there is any really movement for international communism for communism died with the demise of the Soviet Empire. Castro, like many of his Marxist buddies, has morphed into a fascist dictator, a cult of personality. North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are led by personality cults, Cubans by the Castros, Venezuela by Chavez who views himself a second Simon Bolivar and North Korea have been ruled by the Kim dynasty for the past six decades.

A friend of mine once observed after the fall of the Soviet Empire that he simply observed we were witnessing the replacement of communism with various forms of National Socialism, a Russian version or a Chinese version. While most people equate fascism with Hitler and his Nazis regime or Mussolini but fascism existed before Hitler even took power. In 1946, George Orwell observed, “The word fascism has now no meaning except so far as it signifies something not desirable.” Another scholar Stanley Payne added, “Fascism remains probably the vaguest of the major political terms.” What must be understood is that fascism is not nor ever was a “Right wing” but as National Review Jonah Goldberg stated, “From the beginning, fascism was dubbed as right-wing not because it necessarily was right wing but because the communist left thought this was the best way to punish apostasy.” Goldberg went to note that Nazism and Fascism was right-wing socialism, and further stated, “What I am mainly trying to do is to dismantle the granite like assumption in our political culture that American conservatism is an offshoot or cousin of fascism…Many of the ideas and impulses that inform what we call liberalism come to us through an intellectual tradition (progressivism that led directly to fascism.”

When thinking about fascism, we need to understand what fascism was and what it is not. While Fascism is not easy to define as communism or fascism in its ugliest form, Nazism, it does have one feature; government and the states controls all. If any private companies exist as it does in China or in Venezuela (for the moment), it does so because the government allows it. There are no natural rights for humans for a right only exists if the government allows it.

Through Central and South America, we are seeing an alliance of fascist states, dubbed by Marxist by its leaders but socialism is only a name applied to fool supporters and the international community. In the Miami herald, Carlos Montaner wrote, “Twenty-first-century socialism in Latin America actually consists of five socialisms, as many as the countries that constitute that caudillo-led, anti-republican, chaotic and authoritarian little world.

They unite in anti-Americanism, in the conviction that individuals must be at the service of the State, not the opposite, in their contempt for the market and in the superstition that the caudillo knows exactly what benefits or hurts all citizens, but they're very different.”

I will propose that what Montaner is describing are five different forms of fascism, not the least because all of these governments are led by caudillo anti-Republicans who lead authoritarian or totalitarian governments. In Bolivia, caudillo Eva Morales hate modernity and worships Pachamama (the world Goddess) and if he could, he would return the world to a barter state of some distant pre-Columbian day whereas Hugo Chavez wants to lead a anti-American front in our backyard and over the past decade, have been eroding Venezuela constitutional rights and is now ruling by decree. Montaner observed that Chavez “seeks the creation of a bloc united by the rejection of the political model wrought by the West during the Enlightenment.” In Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega has simply morphed into modern day Somoza, the former dictator overthrown by the Sandinistas

We are not seeing a true consistent socialistic view of society but economic theories that often mixed ancient beliefs with the modern state technology. Morales is similar to jihadist who want to see an Islamic Medieval society since he too is attempting to move is country into a backward vision of a mythical society.

The biggest fascist state today is China where its communist beliefs are hardly accepted by anyone in China, including Communist Party leaders. The Chinese have introduced “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” by combining central planning with a market economy, but an economy still controlled by the party leaders.

Mark Lillia writing in the New Republic observed that many Chinese are reading pro-Nazis philosopher and jurist Carl Schmitt and one student told Mr. Lillia, “I think it very important we study Romans, not just Greeks. Romans built an empire over many centuries. We must learn from them.” For the past decade, the Chinese are making it clear that they consider the United States a rival as oppose to being a partner and there is no doubt that Chinese are not looking to liberalize their political process anytime soon. While the Chinese have allowed markets to work, this was out of necessity as the economy was floundering with massive poverty in the 1970’s not out of ideology. The Chinese are not free market adherants but pragmatic who realize that economic freedom is a necessity for growth but not out of conviction. Economic freedom is not a human right but right provided by the government to serve the state, which explains why freedom of religion or political rights are a reality. What the Chinese have accomplish is to establish fascism with a. The Chinese are serious about their place in the world Chinese face. There are no goose steps or strutting Mussolinis but the Party run the state with leaders have business suits and its attempt to be a dominant power in the world.

This is a follow up to a previous blog about my own view that we are seeing a rise in fascism, a ideology that allows the state to control all but allows its leader to tailor their ideology to their local needs. The Chinese have established a crony capitalism with businesses allowed to prosper but always understanding that their existance is only blessed by the state whereas Chavez pretends to be the second coming of Simon Bolivar, fighting the new imperialist power, the United States. In Boliva, Eva Morales wants to turn back the clock for some pre Columbian civilization that local population merely live off the land and Jidahist wants to establish an Islamic empire guided by Medival thoughts but all of these governments have one thing in common, the state rules all and any rights are mere gifts provided by the state.

Metropolis

2010-12-26T10:53:00.000-08:00

German Director Fritz Lang set his Metropolis in the future and one could say that this future world was utopia for some, the ruling class with the workers living underground supporting the edifice in their own hell. This would be the most expensive silent film produced and came out just before talking films took over cinema. Fritz Lang directed and produced this classic that was co-written with his wife Thea von Harbou, who was politically minded woman with a statement against capitalism.

Metropolis was built and ruled by the autocratic Jon Fredersen, whose society was separated into the planners and management class who populated luxurious skyscrapers above ground and the workers who toil and live in the underground portion throughout the sprawling mega-city Metropolis.

Fredersen’s son Freder enjoyed the luxurious life created by his father but his life is changed when he noticed a beautiful woman accompanied by children of the working class. She quickly left but Freder becomes infatuated with her and made it his goal to find her in the underground world. In his journey to the netherworld, he observed the horror of underground life and witnessed an enormous machine known as the M-Machine violently explode, resulting in the death of dozens of workers.

Freder developed a vision after the explosion of workers being sacrificed to a deity and he confronts his father with what he saw. His father is less concern about the accident but that fact that he heard about it from his son not his clerk Josaphat. After hearing about the accident, Fredersen learns about papers resembling maps found on dead workers from the Grot, the foreman. This cost Josaphat his job and before he is able to end his life, Freder stopped him.

Josaphat aided Freder trip to the workers’ underworld and Freder met with a worker named Georgy #11811, who worked the machine that directed electrical power to the New Tower of Babel. The two exchange roles and Freder finds out how hard the workers work, whereas Georgy enjoys the city life including red-light district with money found in Freder clothes. After a day of hard work, Freder fantasized about being crucified to the factory clock.

Meanwhile Fredersen contacted an old friend and now rival, scientist Rotwang about the papers. Rotwang and Fredersen were once in love in the same woman but she chose Fredersen and died while giving birth to Freder. Rotwang informed Fredersen that the maps of a system of catacombs 2000 years old and they go into the deep underground to observe Maria instructing the workers of a mediator that will come between the workers and planners. While Fredersen and Rotwang observed from a distance, Freder watched from the crowd as he still resided in the underground. In the sermon, Maria tells that society consisted of heart and hand, waiting for the heart to unite the two. She tells of peaceful conciliation of society as oppose to violent revolution but Rotwang proposed to Fredersen a plan to disrupt Maria’s vision.

Rotwang designed a machine man who will resemble the beautiful Maria with the idea of leading workers to violence and demonstrate when he has the machine-man performed an erotic dance scantily dressed to many sons of the wealthy to a frenzy. The goal was to undermine Maria’s message of hope and peaceful transition to a new society with an uglier vision that would allow Fredersen to crush the worker’s rebellion. Rotwang also found out that Freder was in the underground, unknown to Fredersen and managed to have the machine-man programmed to listen to him and to him only. Rotwang means to gain his revenged over Fredersen for stealing the love of his life, and set in motion the events that nearly destroy Metropolis.

What ensued is the chaos he predicted when the workers attacked the machine that made the city work while the youth of the upper city party like there was tomorrow. Rotwang imprisoned the real Maria while the destruction of the machines threatened the homes and children of the workers. In dramatic fashion, the real Maria escaped the clutches of Rotwang and attempted to save the children with the aid of Josaphat and Freder while Rotwang went mad, thinking that the machine-man was his dead former lover resurrected.

The climatic scene featured a fight between Rotwang and Freder with the destiny of Metropolis in peril, while the machine-man, looking like Maria, was burned at the stake by the workers, thinking that the possible demise of their children caused by the machines destruction was Maria’s responsibility.

Lang combined a socialistic vision of society with religious imagery. The classic workers vs. capitalist theme run throughout the movie but so does the idea that there is a peaceful solution to worker-owners animosity. Maria’s portrayed as the new prophet and Freder viewed himself as the mediator between workers and owners as result of hearing her words. It is as if Maria played John the Baptist and Freder the new Jesus who recreate a new world out of an old. Maria gave her sermon in a cathedral setting similar to the large Medieval Churches and the burning of the machine-man/Maria resembled the burning of witches. The machine-man laughed at the workers as he slowly evolved from being Maria into his original shape of machine before finally being destroyed. The gates of Hell opened with the image of the machine-man destruction as the worker realized at the end, they have been manipulated by Devil into seeing justice but they only obtained the destruction of their part of the city with their own children nearly sacrificed.

The movie was produced during the time that German Weimer Republic approached its only period of stability but this was merely the calm before the storm. Soon the Great Depression would bring more instability to the Republic and open the door to Nazism. Soon the coming chaos would separate Lang from his wife, Thea von Harbou. In 1927, both rejected violent revolution but soon, revolution appeared as result of the ballot box as Hitler won election as Chancellor. For Van Harbou, this ballot box revolution represented Germany returning to its greatness and the end of capitalism, as she would join the Nazis movement, thus causing a rift with her husband.

In 1931, Lang produced his first talkie, M, that introduced actor Peter Lorre and the story revolve about a children killer and then began work on his next movie, The Testament of Dr. Marbuse, which was considered Anti-Nazis with many of the lead characters voicing words often used by the Nazis. The movie was banned but this did not stop Nazis propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels offered Lang a job with the new government.

Goebbels viewed Metropolis as an anti-Capitalist and supported its major contention, so he viewed Lang one of his own. This also showed that many in the Nazis movement were comfortable with a socialistic vision of society and from an ideology point of view; Nazis were similar to their communist opponents.

Lang viewed Nazis with suspicion due to his Jewish heritage. His father was Catholic but his mother was Jewish, who converted to Catholicism. While Lang was a nominal Catholic, Christian thoughts permeated his movies and eventually Lang would leave Germany, leaving his pro Nazis ex wife behind.

Metropolis was the last great silent movie and the original movie was pared down from its two hour plus when it hit the States and restoration to its original vision would take nearly the rest of the century. Lang would go on to have a successful run in Hollywood, helping to develop the film noir.

Lang never produced the big budget production in the United States but he helped developed the film noir genre as many of his movie adopted a darker tone as he got older. Metropolis would be his masterpiece that he would never repeat. The imagine of Metropolis resembled H.G. Wells world in the Time Machine with the workers separated from owners only Wells vision was darker and more brutal, hidden within the garden of Eden. In Wells vision, it is the Garden of Eden that hides the reality and in Lang Metropolis, the beauty of the upper world with its beautiful skyscrapers hiding the underground hell where the workers populate. While Lang saw oppression, many of the working class was already moving into the Middle Class not just in much of Europe but in the United States.

In the end, the socialistic vision often ended in violence end and loss of freedom. Certainly Thea von Harbou support for Nazis ended in the destruction of Germany whereas reform that Lang hoped for, occurred in capitalistic West where the heart does indeed work with the hand and head.

thoughts on 2010

2010-12-25T16:57:00.000-08:00

Here are a few thoughts on 2012 and beyond. In a recent piece, Weekly Standard Jay Cost observed that 2012 election will be close and best case scenario for Republicans would be 51-49. Another aspect is that Obama has appeared to hit a floor as Jay Cost observed, “The Real Clear Politics job approval average, linked above, has actually found a marginal softening on the disapproval number in the weeks since Election Day, while the approval number has been consistently between 45 and 47 percent. Neither the Gallup nor the Rasmussen daily tracking polls show much change over the course of the last few weeks on either the approval or disapproval side. All in all, this suggests that President Obama's long slide in approval ratings -- going from the mid-60s at the time of the inauguration to the mid-40s by this summer -- has finally halted. He has hit some kind of floor.”

I will add that in my number crunching goes along with what Mr. Cost has noted so the first thing to keep in mind, this will be a close election and the President has the ability to shape events to his favor. There is one exception to this and that is a economy that goes south or a foreign policy debacle (like Iran getting the bomb) that could make it virtually impossible for Obama to win just as the Lehman brothers collapse ended whatever chance McCain had of winning. The recent lame duck points out the advantage of a President working with a majority in Congress to get his agenda passed. Now let’s talk about the reality of what has transpired and how Republicans can use this to their advantage in 2012.

Extending the Bush tax rates for another two years represent an intellectual victory for Republicans along with the budget commission recommendations. I will not go into the weakness of both events but Obama had to admit that Obamanomics was not working and he was forced to accept the tax extension to quite frankly save his administration. Key members of his economic team past and present noted that a failure to pass the bill could lead to a possible double dip recession. I have highlighted the budget commission recommendations weakness over the past month in various forums and won’t repeat them here. What I will note is that the commission made three major admissions: the government spending as a percentage of the GNP was not only too high, but needed to kept a specific level, the entitlement programs were breaking American financial security and tax rates matter so a lower marginal tax rates along with reducing deductions as part of any tax reform is a must! You can’t spin this or the tax debate as a victory for Obamanomics and the failure to pass the Omnibus bill were a victory for free markets even if there was enough pork in the tax bill or no spending cuts to make many conservatives gag.

Republicans should do the following in the next session. First, advocate a tax reform plan similar based on the commission recommendations (without the additional tax increase). David Brooks, the New York Times Obama loving moderate, suggested a similar action on behalf of Obama (and can we assume that some one in the Obama administration tip him off to write this as a trial balloon.) So why not beat Obama to the punch?

Second begin cutting the budget and understand that much of it will be resisted but be proactive. Propose and legislate and let Obama veto or the Senate vote down the cuts. Include proposals to reform Health care and begin the process of defunding selected regulatory agencies. The recent FCC action on the internet was a bold in your face, stop us if you dare and I say, let’s dare and stop the FCC. Turn into a government take over of the Internet vs. freedom. Ask why the left hates the word, “government takeover of Health care” and the answer is that the truth exposes their agenda. Repeat the mantra for the FCC, “government take over of the internet!” Make it clear to Obama and the Democrats, net neutrality is a no go and if not reverse, the FCC will be defunded.

On foreign affairs, the START treaty is now a reality and much of the Republican leadership caved to a bad treaty. What should Republicans response be? Since Obama has ensured the Senate that there will be no limits on strategic defense and when one read the news that Venezuela is building their own missile capacity that puts much of the Southern United States at risk, make sure that SDI is part of any defense budget. Let Obama either veto it or accept it. And let see if the Russians will buy it if Obama accepts it. What will happen is either Obama will say no way, it is in the treaty or the Russians will say no way, it means that Obama was not honest with the Senate on this provision. If the Russian object, we will present the American people with two choices, either the Russians agrees to renegotiate or we pull out of the treaty under a Republican administration if a Republican President gets elected. (It should be pointed out that Robert Kagan, a treaty supporter, has made a similar case for the Republican insist on funding for SDI.)

Which now brings us to the crux of the 2012 campaign; Obama biggest chance of winning is for the economy to heat up and unemployment go down. The recent action of Congress will at least not hamper economic growth even though it may not bump it up significantly. The question that GOP candidates should ask, since Obama is already talking of reversing what has happened on the economic front if he gets re-elected, can we trust him to do the right thing on the economy or will he repeat the same policy that delayed a strong recovery? If he says that he will raise taxes on the most productive, then we can only assume he will repeat the worst aspect of his economic plan. Who will you trust to do the right thing on the economy?

Lets us challenge the notion that Obama saved us from a great Depression, he did not. He merely delayed a strong recovery and unemployment presently is worse than when he took office. Reagan’s plan produced a stronger recovery and put in place economic growth that lasted three decades. Can Obamanomics produce the same? Since he has already retreated intellectually on this issue on whether tax rates matter and even many of his own Party members have conceded that Obamanomics needs a radical restructuring, the answer is self-evident. No.

Kerouac

2010-12-25T16:53:00.000-08:00

Jack Kerouac wass a contradiction, a writer who along with others of the Beat Generation provide an inspiration to the 1960’s counter culture with his writings on sex, drugs and jazz but also a writer who would reject much of the political agenda of the left as he abhor communism and in the end, still remain loyal to a Catholicism, a Catholicism synergistic with outside influences just as Buddhism.(Certainly not a Catholicism that the Pope would approve.)

On the Road was the novel that gained Kerouac notoriety and it relayed the story of his journey across America. An autobiography wrapped in a novel, Kerouac based his story on his travel with Neal Cassidy from 1947 to 1950. Kerouac through his alter ego, Sal Paradise, narrated the viewing of America’s under belly in a decade in which much of America was viewed as men in grey flannel suits. Sal Paradise and his friend Dean Moriarty view America post World War II as they view the development of a new America developing. Influenced by his band of friends, and the introduction to Dean Moriarty, Paradise observes, “began the part of my life you could call my life on the road.”

When Dean Moriarty arrived in New York, he met Carlo Marx (based on Allen Ginsberg), Sal’s closet friend. In meeting of a “holy con-, an with the shining mind (Dean) and the sorrowful poetic con-man with the dark mind that is Carlo Marx.” Carlo and Dean chat about friendship and their adventures. Sal thoughts turn to the road as he anticipated the many characters he will meet on the road, to find his own adventure.

The first trip began in 1947 as Sal’s friend, Remi Boncoeur, invited him out to San Francisco with possibility of traveling the world via ship. With 50 dollars in his pocket, he took off to view America and finally arrived in San Francisco but he ended up with a job as a night watchman for a camp housing merchants’ marines with Remi. His own lack of commitment plus a falling out with Remi forces Sal to move on. His immaturity showed up as he met Hispanic woman named Terry who was running away from her husband. They become one for a brief moment lasting two weeks.

For fifteen days, they were inseparable as Sal spent time with her family in a migrant camp. While the agrarian lifestyle appealed to Sal, the monetary reality set in as Sal decided to leave again. He was not willing to share Terry’s poverty and off he goes again, where he met up with Dean in Denver.

Sal and Dean began their own journey together. Dean own background included spending time in prison for stealing cars and the son of a alcoholic father. Sal viewed Moriarty as a heroic figure, totally different from what he has known in the past. His friend, Carlo Marx, was a poet so Dean was a different from his friends and there appear to be a free nature not tied to any social demands. In the beginning, Dean was viewed heroic but as the novel proceeds, Dean showed decline or Sal’s maturity, depending how you view it. In the beginning, the road represented freedom but soon, it represented disappointments.

The road began to disillusion Sal and begins to review his past trips in a cynical as his companions were people from lower class. Sal realized that Dean, who he considered a hero early in the book, he finds a man with faults. Dean abandoned his wife and child along with past lovers. Sal explained after one confrontation, “Where once Dean would have talked his way out, he now fell silent…He was beat.”

Sal went for broke with one last journey through Mexico countryside and ended up with Mexico City along with Dean and hanger-on from Denver. The Mexican trip provided some of the memorable portion of the book, as the reader were introduced to a marijuana induced trip through the underside of Mexican culture including a vivid trip to a bordello offering mambo music along with underage prostitutes.

By the time, Sal reached Mexico, he was afflicted with dysentery and Dean left Sal ill, feverish and hallucinating. Sal noted, “When I got better I realized what a rate he was, but then I had to understand the impossible complexity of his life, how he had to leave me there, sick to get on with his wives and woes.”

The novel ended in New York when Dean came back to arrange for Sal and his girlfriend to move to San Francisco but the meeting went awry and Dean returned to California alone.

The novel concluded with Sal sitting on a pier, looking West while reminiscing on God, America, crying children, and realization that “Nobody knows what’s going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn of growing old.” His last thought was “I think of Dean Moriarty, I even think of Old Dean Moriarty the father we never found, I think of Dean Moriarty.”

This book was followed by The Dharma Bums, which represented Jack Kerouac attempt to synergize Buddhism with his native Catholicism. Like On the Road, this book was based on events in Kerouac’s life. The main characters are Ray Smith (based on Kerouac and the narrator) and Japhy Ryder (based on the poet and essayist Gary Snyder.) Kerouac tries to combine relationship of the outdoors, hiking and hitchhiking through the West with the city life featuring Jazz, poetry readings and parties featuring booze and drugs.

After arriving from one of his hitchhiking trips, Smith and Ryder joined by Henry Morley climb the Matterhorn Peak in California. Smith struggled to keep up with Ryder as they climb toward the top but Smith couldn’t travel the last 100 yards but he was inspired to spend the following year as a fire lookout for the United States Forest Service on Desolation Peak.

Between their trip to the Matterhorn Peak and Smith trip to Desolation Peak, we were introduced to one more contrast between the solitude of the outdoors and the city life as we witness drunken three day parties and a suicide. The book featured the debut of Allen Ginsberg presentation “Howl” (In the book Ginsberg is Alvah Goldbook and the poem is called Wail in the book.)

The central character was Japhy, whose penchant for the simple life and his wiliness to share what little he had with others. Japhy Ryder own life style was moving to his own conclusion as he is prepared to go to Japan to live in a Buddhist monastery. The final scenes show Kerouac viewing the peaceful images of Desolation Peak as he contemplates all around him.

The Dharma Bum foreshadows the consciousness probing of the 60’s featuring Timothy Leary “tune out” and Ken Kesey whereas On the Road influenced a new generation of writes including the gonzo journalism of Hunter Thompson style. Thompson writings featured his own journeys through the under side of America’s life often accompanied by drugs induced observations.

Jack Kerouac own life find no peace as drugs and alcohol took it toll including shortening his life when he died at 47. While some would be puzzled to find the writer who explored the under side of life and often experimented with drugs and a libertine sexual lifestyle end up being a closet conservative. Kerouac own writing was a conflict between social convention and outright rebellion. Many of his fellow beat generation were not so conflicted and felt comfortable with the 60’s youth rebellion but not Kerouac. Kerouac as a writer possessed similar trait to writer and Professor Camille Paglia, whose book Sexual Personae showed similar conflicts as Ms. Paglia had always been willing to be open about her gay lifestyle, atheism and leftist politics in the open but often kept her cultural Catholicism in the closet. Kerouac never truly condemned his Catholic roots and his belief in America even while rebelling against it. This conflict was what made his writing intriguing for in On The Road, his attraction to Dean Moriarty waned as he saw the damage that Moriarty leaves behind and in the end, he was forced to confront Dean’s own selfishness and whether he can truly follow.

The Dharma Bums was another example of this conflict as Kerouac searched for greater meaning in life and he is not quite ready to abandoned Christianity while believing in Buddhism. He attempts to reconcile these two beliefs as he looks for the one unifying God that unites us all. What Kerouac showed as Paglia showed as well, the concept of cultural Catholicism. This term represents how many lapsed Catholic abandon the mother Church but yet still lives aspect of that belief; not truly able to abandon the Church altogether.
Kerouac may have been simply too much of an individual to be enticed by the political left any more that he could be enticed by communism or Marxism for these beliefs have their own conformity.

The 60’s rebellion would turn into the political correct movement or limited speech on various Colleges as certain thoughts are taught as truth and the rest superstition. The Left today is more conformist in their thoughts and behavior as the many of the Beat Generation felt the establishment was in the 1950’s. Kerouac simple rebellion could be reflected in the views of Bull Lee who wishes for an America in the late 19th century and early 20th century in which there were no drug laws and a wild west that still existed where a person could move in total freedom. Kerouac rebellion was a libertarian rebellion against a more constraining America but he did not view the alternative to America leading to more freedom.

The beat generation brought a new set of ideas and styles that impacted many writers in the 60’s and even today. Kerouac rebelled not just against the establishment but he rebelled against many of his fellow beat generation. On The Road shows the seed of that divide between Kerouac and his fellow beat writers and The Dharma Bums follows up on that conflict between the beat scene and the look for something bigger. In the end, Kerouac simply could not found what he wanted in the Beat generation or his many trips and today, he was forgotten by many of this generation but maybe it is time for him to be rediscovered.

Random Notes

2010-12-17T09:16:00.000-08:00

Here are a few random thoughts that put the week in perspective.
Thought one: A friend of mine observed that with the passage of the recent tax bill; those of us living will not see their taxes go up. Those who will die after January 1st will see their taxes go up.

Thought two: The most intolerant place in the United States may be San Francisco. First, McDonald can’t serve happy meals with toys since it appears that parents in San Francisco can’t say no to children when it comes to McDonald and NOW is suing Hooters since Hooters cater to children. NOW point is that Hooters waitress are adult sex workers masquerading as waitresses and this is evil for children who might be tempted into becoming Hooters sex workers. Don’t know if Hooters add toys to their children value meals.

Thought three: Congress is forcing auto manufacturers to institute a minimal noise levels for hybrids and electric cars since they hardly make noise. It appears that blind people will be vulnerable to being run over since they can’t hear the silent but obviously dangerous hybrids. And I thought hybrids were created to save the world only to find they are deadly threat. Another victory for the environmental movement.

Thought four: When Reid pulled his 1.2 trillion dollar spending bill, it represented the first victory for the Tea Party and strengthen the Tea Party contingent within the Republican Party. The real battle begins after January 1st when the new Congress takes over but this simply proves elections matter. And the Tea Party matters.

Thought five: What is the hurry in passing the new START treaty? With many questions left to be raised and much to discuss like whether this is actually in our national interest, it would be nice to actually first have Senators read the bill and then debate before passing or rejecting. It can wait for another month or so.

Thought Six: The FCC wants to regulate evening news, the internet, and radio. What happen to free speech? In a world in which you have various news sources from network news, radio, internet, cable television and satellite; why do we even need an FCC anymore? The only reason to regulate content is to regulate speech itself. The FCC is now becoming the leading threat to free speech in America. Time to dump the FCC.

Thought Seven: In the Midwest where I live, it is very very very cold. Wishing for a little global warming. Need I say more?

Isolate the Left

2010-12-11T15:48:00.000-08:00

The month of December have been an incredible month as we find ourselves living in interesting times, beginning with a bipartisan budget committee that recommended lower marginal tax rates on individuals and businesses, reform and cut entitlements, and called for limiting government spending as part of the general economy.

Then we have a debate in which Obama had to reject his own class warfare to design a tax plan to stimulate the economy and foreclose any chances for a double dip turn down. And while Congress negotiate whether to keep tax rates where they are, Sarah Palin gave her support for Paul Ryan Roadmap, Republican alternative to put American on fiscal health.

A new consensus is being form that is isolating the political left and its begin with marginal tax rates matter. Between Ryan roadmap and the budget commission plus every proposal in between, everyone is in agreement that tax rates need to be lower and a tax system that emphasizes lower marginal rates along with reduce deductions to allow a more market approach as oppose the government using the tax system to pick winner and losers.

Another aspect that is now becoming the new consensus is that government takes too much of a share of our economy. From the budget commission to Ryan roadmap, there are coherent plans to reduce government role in the overall economy from its present levels. Between the budget commission to Ryan road map, there are detailed ideas to reduce entitlements liability upon future generation, adding agreement to reducing spending while liberating future generations from throttling commitments that they can’t bear.

As the recent tax debates have shown, the Democratic left don’t understand our economy system or simply don’t care how or if wealth is even created. As I have stated before, it is the Democratic left that stands against the new consensus and Republicans should keep in mind that history is now on their side as modern day Keynesian economic theories have collapsed world wide.

For Republicans, the key over the next two years will be to isolate the left while proposing plans that emphasize tax reforms and serious budget cuts based on Ryan road map as well as some of the ideas put forward by the Budget commission. Force Obama either to surrender to more sound policy and isolate Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party, which is the largest remaining segment of the Party left after the massacre of the 2010 elections.

The political left is the minority in American Politics, treat them as such.

The budget deal

2010-12-07T06:34:00.001-08:00

In the 1970’s, Jerry Brown (yes that Jerry Brown who was just elected governor this past year) opposed Proposition 13, which lowered property tax rates but was overwhelming passed by the people. After the Proposition passed, Brown won re-election as the governor who made the Proposition work, a bit of magic to say the least.

This past Monday, Barack Obama came to the podium and essentially said, “Republicans, you are right, tax rates matters in a slowing economy.” He surrendered to the GOP and turned his back on his own rhetoric and own ideas. The question that remains, will he be as adapt as Jerry Brown in running in 2012 by campaigning, “I made the tax system work better for us all?”

There is one reality, Obama enhanced his own shot of re-election since he did the steps necessary to prevent a double dip recession and he might just even lower unemployment with the various tax reduction included. What Congress did was to combined classic free market ideas (maintaining the tax rates lower) and old fashion short term stimulus (the temporary reduction in payroll tax, the various gimmicks that Obama wanted to include from his previous propositions and the complete write off for business over the coming year in one package design to perk the economy up just in time for the 2012 elections.
If Obama had done a similar plan in 2009, he would have seen a robust economy right now and be on his way to easy path to re-election but by putting together a failed stimulus and passing healthcare, he guaranteed a slow growing economy that sputtered and with the extension of the unemployment for 13 months, he also ensured that unemployment will be higher than what it should be.

As I previously stated in recent blogs, the intellectual debate is over on Obamanomics, it has failed and new approaches are called for. This particular package will increase the budget deficit but it may also lead to higher growth than what was expected over the next year. And it now opens the door for serious deficit reduction since the next Congress does not have to deal with taxes immediately and most taxpayers will know that they will not only see their taxes not go up, but in some cases, go down further. The tax issue is off the table and serious debate on restraining government spending will begin.

What the Republicans showed in the first round of budgetary battles, they will not raise taxes to make a deal but the hard part begins along with the demagoguery that will come from the left over the budget battles. The new consensus that has formed over the past year is that government spending as part of the overall economy matters, tax rate matters, government has expanded far too much in our lives and the main obstacles to a more permanent solution is the political left. (The left may yet vote the package down.)

Which brings us to question of 2012; can Obama pull off a Jerry Brown or even a Bill Clinton and triangulate the budget issue?

Tax battles

2010-12-04T19:52:00.000-08:00

This blog is designed to discuss the implication of the tax battle facing Washington today. Let be blunt about one thing, extending the Bush tax cuts will not save the economy but it will not make it worse. The reality is that there is much left to do before the economy comes roaring back but the extension of tax cuts, providing that it is done quickly, will give business some stability to know what they owe and not owe.

The other aspect is that for many investors, do we sell before the end of the year when the capital gain tax goes up to 20% from 15%? If investors are uncertain that the capital gain tax will remain at 15%, they will begin selling off their investments to take advantage of the lower rates. This could bring short term havoc on the market, producing a massive sell off of stocks.

Extending the tax policy, even for a short period time, will stabilize the economy and give business some certainty over the next few years. This could lead to some additional hiring and certainly help many companies, large or small, increase their profit margins. Failure to extend the present law will lead to economic slowdown or an economy still sputtering.

The negative is that there is much left in the Obama agenda that will continue to affect the economy negatively. The implementation of Obamacare will continue to raise the cost of business, thus retarding the growth of employment. FCC is prepared to impose a version of net neutrality and treat the internet as a public utilities and this will slow down one of the fastest growing point of our economy. There is the threat that the EPA will impose it version of control over the economy as it attempts to sneak cap and trade through regulatory control. So extending the Bush’s tax cuts will not produce a robust economy since there are enough bad policies left to retard the economy.

The battle over the tax cuts begins the opening gambit of the 2012 election, and the debate of two different visions of our economy. One is a statist theory that begins with government is the creator of wealth and needed to increase its impact in our lives. The opposite view is that market supported by entrepreneurs who create wealth and government. The recent debate over the Bush tax cuts merely highlights those differences.