Carmen is at it again...embarrassing me on camera no less...
[Update: Blogspot is having trouble with the embedded code, so a better link to this can be found here.]
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
OK. I'm Getting a Little Tired of This
I'm going to take on George Will's criticism of McCain as a D in GOP clothing. It will most likely be paltry, but I'm getting sick of the conventional wisdom.
Will first brings up pharmaceuticals:
Since when has it been a conservative principle to disallow, by law, the purchase of a legal product from outside the United States? He may argue that it imports price controls from Canada, but it's empirically obvious that American consumers are, comparatively, gouged when it comes to drug prices. To disallow the importation of drugs from other countries--again, by federal law--amounts to supporting price gouging by governmental fiat. The aim isn't to reduce profits for drug companies. The aim is to reduce costs to consumers. I doubt seriously that drug companies sell their products in Canada at a loss. As for the supposed cessation of innovation as a result of reduced profits...that's quite a stretch. Without innovation, drug companies will completely lose any competitive advantage in the market. They must innovate to survive. And if profit margins take a hit, they will have to find ways to be more productive and efficient. There is no evidence that drug companies can't be just as profitable with reduced consumer prices. Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue airlines proved that handsome profits can be made in a presupposed zero-profit market. They just have better organizations and are profitable, in great part, because their competition is so poor.
Then there is McCain-Feingold:
"Denigrate the motives"...please. This isn't even a liberal or conservative position--unless ethics have somehow found themselves under the province of ideology. The system is corrupt. I presume Mr. Will is familiar with the Jack Abramoff scandals. And to take a supposed principled stand on free speech by saying anyone should be able to inject as much money into the political process in an attempt to, literally, buy influence is hardly noble. I do agree that, constitutionally, much of McCain-Feingold cannot stand. But the only reason the law was introduced and voted on is because Congress won't make the ethical reform steps voluntarily. They've become accustomed to a system reliant upon copious donations of money because it puts them at a distinct advantage over any future competitors for their office. In other words, they don't want competition or a level playing field. They want a system that weighs heavily in their favor--even if it means prostituting oneself to one's contributors on occasion. Hardly conservative or principled, I should think. McCain is right to roll his eyes at those who oppose the law but make no effort to voluntarily reform the system. (As an aside, I am greatly interested in just how long these men of great principle will hold to it if/when the Ds are getting the majority of campaign contributions).
The the closing gem:
Mr. Will has been one of my favorite columnists for a couple decades now, but this is dangerously close to hyperbole. Jonas Salk didn't work for Pfiser and, it should be noted, gave his patent to the world for free with the quote: "Who owns my polio vaccine? The people! Could you patent the sun?" As for childhood leukemia, certainly drug companies have done much and deserve much credit, but they were hardly singularly responsible for the research and treatment. Thousands of university researchers have been involved for decades (yes, many of them from the generosity of drug company grants--but many more not). My friend's father was treated for leukemia by the University of Arizona and is happy to report complete remission due to their innovative work, not the work of a drug company.
And the further point is this. If McCain supported legislation that is disagreeable with conservatives such as Mr. Will, fine, reasonable people can disagree. But to take two or three of his stances in a political career spanning decades and reduce that to a portrait of his ideology is, quite frankly, absurd. As Mr. Will has written before, then Governor Reagan signed the largest tax increase in his state's history, expanded abortion rights, and signed no fault divorce into law--hardly conservative by today's standards. And, of course Teddy Roosevelt instituted the estate tax (now called the death tax) and railed against the gilded class. Neither of the aforementioned two could be seriously dubbed "not a conservative."
I'm a left-leaning independent (read: disgruntled Democrat) who favors the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, wants partial privatization of Social Security, supports NAFTA, and is very skeptical of unions. Still, I would say I'm liberal overall. And McCain, who has spent a 25 year career supporting smaller government, reduced taxes and spending (even when his party spent money like sorority girls with new credit cards), a supremely strong US military, pro-life legislation, free trade, and who may well kiss a picture of Reagan before he goes to sleep at night is not a closet liberal. Please. What happened to the GOP "big tent?"
Unless the GOP wants to be the party known as corrupt, spending-happy, government expansionist, liberty-allergic, hypocritical, self-loathing homosexuals with a penchant for torture, they need to re-examine themselves and allow for someone like McCain to depart from his party's contemporary conventional wisdom once in a while--particularly when he honestly feels he is putting country above party.
Will first brings up pharmaceuticals:
In ABC's New Hampshire debate, McCain said: "Why shouldn't we be able to reimport drugs from Canada?" A conservative's answer is: That amounts to importing Canada's price controls, a large step toward a system in which some medicines would be inexpensive but many others – new pain-relieving, life-extending pharmaceuticals – would be unavailable. Setting drug prices by government fiat rather than market forces results in huge reductions of funding for research and development of new drugs. McCain's evident aim is to reduce pharmaceutical companies' profits. But if all those profits were subtracted from the nation's health care bill, the pharmaceutical component of that bill would be reduced only from 10 percent to 8 percent – and innovation would stop, taking a terrible toll in unnecessary suffering and premature death. When McCain explains that trade-off to voters, he will actually have engaged in straight talk.
Since when has it been a conservative principle to disallow, by law, the purchase of a legal product from outside the United States? He may argue that it imports price controls from Canada, but it's empirically obvious that American consumers are, comparatively, gouged when it comes to drug prices. To disallow the importation of drugs from other countries--again, by federal law--amounts to supporting price gouging by governmental fiat. The aim isn't to reduce profits for drug companies. The aim is to reduce costs to consumers. I doubt seriously that drug companies sell their products in Canada at a loss. As for the supposed cessation of innovation as a result of reduced profits...that's quite a stretch. Without innovation, drug companies will completely lose any competitive advantage in the market. They must innovate to survive. And if profit margins take a hit, they will have to find ways to be more productive and efficient. There is no evidence that drug companies can't be just as profitable with reduced consumer prices. Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue airlines proved that handsome profits can be made in a presupposed zero-profit market. They just have better organizations and are profitable, in great part, because their competition is so poor.
Then there is McCain-Feingold:
McCain is, however, an unlikely conciliator because he is quick to denigrate the motives, and hence the characters, of opponents. He promiscuously accuses others of "corruption," the ubiquity of which he says justifies McCain-Feingold's expansive government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of campaign speech.
"Denigrate the motives"...please. This isn't even a liberal or conservative position--unless ethics have somehow found themselves under the province of ideology. The system is corrupt. I presume Mr. Will is familiar with the Jack Abramoff scandals. And to take a supposed principled stand on free speech by saying anyone should be able to inject as much money into the political process in an attempt to, literally, buy influence is hardly noble. I do agree that, constitutionally, much of McCain-Feingold cannot stand. But the only reason the law was introduced and voted on is because Congress won't make the ethical reform steps voluntarily. They've become accustomed to a system reliant upon copious donations of money because it puts them at a distinct advantage over any future competitors for their office. In other words, they don't want competition or a level playing field. They want a system that weighs heavily in their favor--even if it means prostituting oneself to one's contributors on occasion. Hardly conservative or principled, I should think. McCain is right to roll his eyes at those who oppose the law but make no effort to voluntarily reform the system. (As an aside, I am greatly interested in just how long these men of great principle will hold to it if/when the Ds are getting the majority of campaign contributions).
The the closing gem:
Applause greets faux "straight talk" that brands as "bad" the industry responsible for the facts that polio is no longer a scourge, that childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence, that depression and other mental illnesses are treatable diseases, that the rate of heart attacks and heart failures has been cut more than in half in 50 years.
Mr. Will has been one of my favorite columnists for a couple decades now, but this is dangerously close to hyperbole. Jonas Salk didn't work for Pfiser and, it should be noted, gave his patent to the world for free with the quote: "Who owns my polio vaccine? The people! Could you patent the sun?" As for childhood leukemia, certainly drug companies have done much and deserve much credit, but they were hardly singularly responsible for the research and treatment. Thousands of university researchers have been involved for decades (yes, many of them from the generosity of drug company grants--but many more not). My friend's father was treated for leukemia by the University of Arizona and is happy to report complete remission due to their innovative work, not the work of a drug company.
And the further point is this. If McCain supported legislation that is disagreeable with conservatives such as Mr. Will, fine, reasonable people can disagree. But to take two or three of his stances in a political career spanning decades and reduce that to a portrait of his ideology is, quite frankly, absurd. As Mr. Will has written before, then Governor Reagan signed the largest tax increase in his state's history, expanded abortion rights, and signed no fault divorce into law--hardly conservative by today's standards. And, of course Teddy Roosevelt instituted the estate tax (now called the death tax) and railed against the gilded class. Neither of the aforementioned two could be seriously dubbed "not a conservative."
I'm a left-leaning independent (read: disgruntled Democrat) who favors the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, wants partial privatization of Social Security, supports NAFTA, and is very skeptical of unions. Still, I would say I'm liberal overall. And McCain, who has spent a 25 year career supporting smaller government, reduced taxes and spending (even when his party spent money like sorority girls with new credit cards), a supremely strong US military, pro-life legislation, free trade, and who may well kiss a picture of Reagan before he goes to sleep at night is not a closet liberal. Please. What happened to the GOP "big tent?"
Unless the GOP wants to be the party known as corrupt, spending-happy, government expansionist, liberty-allergic, hypocritical, self-loathing homosexuals with a penchant for torture, they need to re-examine themselves and allow for someone like McCain to depart from his party's contemporary conventional wisdom once in a while--particularly when he honestly feels he is putting country above party.
Edwards Ends Campaign
John Edwards throws in the towel. Good. This will truly make it a binary choice for Ds now and let Hillarah and Big O go at it without the obligatory recognition of Edwards. According to the linked article, he won't immediately endorse either candidate. Not sure why, strategically. He should know better than anyone where both candidates stand on things and has been up close and personal with them more than any of us.
Conceivably, he could be looking for a job with one of them and wants to hold off until after Super Tuesday to see if a clear winner starts to emerge. Robert Novak has already reported on rumors of Obama making him Atty General, but that's just chatter right now. It seems like he should urge his delegates to to go one way or the other prior to Super Tuesday though. I can't help but think that he likes one more than the other and, if concerned about his party, should say who he thinks will be best for his party and his country sooner than later. Hell, he owes it to his own supporters.
An Edwards endorsement won't make or break either of the two left, but if I were a supporter of his, I would at least like to know his opinion.
Conceivably, he could be looking for a job with one of them and wants to hold off until after Super Tuesday to see if a clear winner starts to emerge. Robert Novak has already reported on rumors of Obama making him Atty General, but that's just chatter right now. It seems like he should urge his delegates to to go one way or the other prior to Super Tuesday though. I can't help but think that he likes one more than the other and, if concerned about his party, should say who he thinks will be best for his party and his country sooner than later. Hell, he owes it to his own supporters.
An Edwards endorsement won't make or break either of the two left, but if I were a supporter of his, I would at least like to know his opinion.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Man from Arizona
John McCain becomes the second man from my home state to get the GOP nomination in the last 50 years. Like the previous nominee, Barry Goldwater, he is an outspoken maverick with little to no reservations about calling a spade a spade, fighting for what he thinks is right, or being unpopular for a while if that's what it takes to get something done the right way. He even seriously jeopardized (and continues to jeopardize) his candidacy by being
irretrievably supportive of an unpopular war.
No matter one's view of him on the issues or him as a person, it cannot be denied that this may be one of the great political comebacks in *all* of American history--particularly recent history. He was written off for dead in June and July by most everyone, including me (he was on the same flight as me from Phoenix to DC in late June--flying coach), was broke, had to shake up his staff, go into debt, swallow his pride, and fight. Now he has all but won in the most competitive GOP primary in decades--perhaps half a century or more--and could become leader of the free world.
Now, though praising him in all the above, I strongly disagree with him on a number of issues. In fact, pretty much his entire platform. I don't want him to be president and think many of his views are naive at best, disastrous and deadly at worst. But, I respect him and think he is a good man as a principled conservative.
So why do so many conservative pundits seem to loathe him? (Andrew Sullivan, a conservative himself, has a good roundup of GOP pundits here). A Senator who worships Reagan, has spent an entire career espousing fiscal discipline, smaller government, rights of the unborn, supremacy of US military strength, and free-trade doesn't qualify as a conservative anymore? Apparently, unless one espouses a scorched earth policy of "destroy the Ds, torture the enemy, and throw out the damn Mexicans" one isn't a conservative anymore.
Need I remind the GOP pundits that Reagan actually gave complete amnesty to illegal immigrants? Can anyone imagine Reagan supporting torture? Whatever...the GOP is in serious, serious disarray.
irretrievably supportive of an unpopular war.
No matter one's view of him on the issues or him as a person, it cannot be denied that this may be one of the great political comebacks in *all* of American history--particularly recent history. He was written off for dead in June and July by most everyone, including me (he was on the same flight as me from Phoenix to DC in late June--flying coach), was broke, had to shake up his staff, go into debt, swallow his pride, and fight. Now he has all but won in the most competitive GOP primary in decades--perhaps half a century or more--and could become leader of the free world.
Now, though praising him in all the above, I strongly disagree with him on a number of issues. In fact, pretty much his entire platform. I don't want him to be president and think many of his views are naive at best, disastrous and deadly at worst. But, I respect him and think he is a good man as a principled conservative.
So why do so many conservative pundits seem to loathe him? (Andrew Sullivan, a conservative himself, has a good roundup of GOP pundits here). A Senator who worships Reagan, has spent an entire career espousing fiscal discipline, smaller government, rights of the unborn, supremacy of US military strength, and free-trade doesn't qualify as a conservative anymore? Apparently, unless one espouses a scorched earth policy of "destroy the Ds, torture the enemy, and throw out the damn Mexicans" one isn't a conservative anymore.
Need I remind the GOP pundits that Reagan actually gave complete amnesty to illegal immigrants? Can anyone imagine Reagan supporting torture? Whatever...the GOP is in serious, serious disarray.
Don't I Feel Like an Idiot
Wouldn't be the first time. (Actually, it's almost a habit). I wrote earlier about how Obama must win California and mentioned how Hillarah is beating Obama in Florida. That's true, but the Ds are boycotting FL this year because they moved up their primary earlier than the Ds wanted them to, so it's just a beauty contest until the general election. Kinda weird, but bad for Hillarah; good for Obama.
Another interesting factoid about our screwy primary process...California delegates are based on a district by district basis. That's not screwy, but two districts can have dramatically different population counts (from what I understand). So California will likely be salamied up by the candidates. *And* independents can vote in the D primary but not the GOP primary in California. So independents, who normally lean toward Obama amongst the Ds, become critical for Hillarah and Big O--and on a district by district basis. This could get really weird.
What will be the impact of Ted Kennedy on the campaign? And now there is speculation about a potential Gore endorsement of Obama before Super Tuesday. What would that do? This election is damn near bizarre at this point.
Another interesting factoid about our screwy primary process...California delegates are based on a district by district basis. That's not screwy, but two districts can have dramatically different population counts (from what I understand). So California will likely be salamied up by the candidates. *And* independents can vote in the D primary but not the GOP primary in California. So independents, who normally lean toward Obama amongst the Ds, become critical for Hillarah and Big O--and on a district by district basis. This could get really weird.
What will be the impact of Ted Kennedy on the campaign? And now there is speculation about a potential Gore endorsement of Obama before Super Tuesday. What would that do? This election is damn near bizarre at this point.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Another Reason to Oppose Hillarah
Dogs around the nation could be baying and begging for us to stop the pain. Is there anything more annoying than the screeching of middle-aged American women? Maybe two cats f*cking in a trashcan...
[Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan]
[Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan]
Greenwald on Reid
I meant to link to this earlier. Greenwald launches a scathing criticism of Harry Reid's performance, and it might be a little too nice. Reid is a disaster, and a cowardly one at that. Pelosi isn't exactly a superstar Speaker of the House either.
Can you imagine LBJ or Tip O'Neill having trouble with a twit like W in the White House? They would have W begging them to stop humiliating him. Instead, the D leadership continues to cower to this cartoon of a president and actually help facilitate him in seizing power when it comes to FISA, the Iraq war, the War Powers Act, and the Patriot Act. Then, when a few D Senators take matters into their own hands on a hugely important issue and make a very principled stand, he actually threatens them! Amazing. And sad.
The D leadership is pathetic, and Greenwald is right to call Reid on it.
Can you imagine LBJ or Tip O'Neill having trouble with a twit like W in the White House? They would have W begging them to stop humiliating him. Instead, the D leadership continues to cower to this cartoon of a president and actually help facilitate him in seizing power when it comes to FISA, the Iraq war, the War Powers Act, and the Patriot Act. Then, when a few D Senators take matters into their own hands on a hugely important issue and make a very principled stand, he actually threatens them! Amazing. And sad.
The D leadership is pathetic, and Greenwald is right to call Reid on it.
Kennedy Endorsement
Ted Kennedy--along with his son (Rep. in Massachusetts) and Caroline Kennedy--is supposed to announce his endorsement of Obama today around noon. It's not exactly shocking, but it does seem quite surprising that he wouldn't just stay neutral. According to the article, Ted Kennedy rejected a personal entreaty from Bill Clinton to do this. I'm sure the Obama camp has sought his endorsement as well, but still...stiff-arming Billary a week away from super Tuesday? It sure seems like many Ds are looking for a new direction and a new voice--and have found it in Obama.
My Friends
My friends, my friends, my phucking friends for the 501st phucking time, my friends!!!!! Hate to say it, but as much as I like McCain as a candidate and as my Senator, he is getting dangerously close to sounding like Giuliani in that he mentions only three things in a sentence, but with a bit of variety: "My friends, General Patreus is first cousin to Jesus Christ" or "My friends, pork barrel spending has got to stop." That's about it.
I've heard the same McCain lines and jokes for at least a decade (save the Patreus one, though it is starting to feel like a decade), so perhaps I'm jaded, but the GOP faithful is over 50% right: this guy can't win a general election this year. With sadness, I think even Hillarah could beat him. Love the guy, but dayam! Why didn't you GOPers vote for him in 2000?! It may well be too late now.
I've heard the same McCain lines and jokes for at least a decade (save the Patreus one, though it is starting to feel like a decade), so perhaps I'm jaded, but the GOP faithful is over 50% right: this guy can't win a general election this year. With sadness, I think even Hillarah could beat him. Love the guy, but dayam! Why didn't you GOPers vote for him in 2000?! It may well be too late now.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Hubble Telescope
Awesome Hubble Telescope pics here if you want 'em. They can be wallpaper pics for your desktop if you like.
Hillarah the Comedian
Does she think this is actually somewhere near funny? If so, it's not. It really, really, is not.
Critique of John Edwards
Charles Krauthammer calls John Edwards out. Ouch.
A cynical farce that is particularly galling to left-liberals of real authenticity. "The one (presidential candidate) that is the most problematic is Edwards," Sen. Russ Feingold told The Post-Crescent in Appleton, Wis., "who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq War. ... He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record."
It profits a man nothing to sell his soul for the whole world. But for 4 percent of the Nevada caucuses?
McCain and Romney in FL
Polls will tell you it's a dead heat, but polls haven't been spectacularly accurate thus far (though more accurate on the GOP side than the D side). Florida is a winner take all state and the 4th largest in the Union, so it's obviously a huge win, but I don't know how it would necessarily make or break it for Johnny Mac or Sir Plastic--or the other candidates.
A poor showing for Huckabee could be the end for him. I don't see him picking up a lot of votes in the super Tuesday primaries and he is, reportedly, running out of cash. Giuliani could definitely use a FL win, but if he finishes near the top, I can see him sticking it out until super Tuesday to see how he can do in NY and NJ. If Romney wins, I can see him start to look attractive in California and Illinois--maybe NY as well. If McCain wins, super Tuesday would seem to look more like a coronation, I should think but...in the end, I have no idea ;-). I take comfort in the fact that no one else seems to either.
A poor showing for Huckabee could be the end for him. I don't see him picking up a lot of votes in the super Tuesday primaries and he is, reportedly, running out of cash. Giuliani could definitely use a FL win, but if he finishes near the top, I can see him sticking it out until super Tuesday to see how he can do in NY and NJ. If Romney wins, I can see him start to look attractive in California and Illinois--maybe NY as well. If McCain wins, super Tuesday would seem to look more like a coronation, I should think but...in the end, I have no idea ;-). I take comfort in the fact that no one else seems to either.
Alabi on the GOP Debate
Huckabee talked about building up infrastructure (fine) but specifically mentioned widening I-95 in a populist way and Giuliani talked of having an Apollo program for alternative energy. Just seemed odd to hear GOP candidates talking about massive public works projects.
GOP Debate in FL
Truthfully, I thought all of the candidates did pretty well. No one really distinguished themselves, though Romney did better than he normally does since he didn't have to dance around his record as much as he normally does. (Full video and other clips can be found here).
I did enjoy hearing him speak of the "no religious test" clause in the Constitution when he has repeatedly talked of how important it is to have a "man of faith" in the White House, however. Believing Jesus hung out with Native Americans in Missouri is ok--and out of bounds for consideration of a president--but not believing Jesus was the son of God...that's beyond the pale, apparently.
The two things all candidates seemed to agree on, save Ron Paul, were (1) the Iraq War was a good idea, just poorly managed, and (2) Hillary Clinton will be the next Democratic candidate. On the first point, I can only see McCain winning a general election with that message--and it would still be a very, very tough sell. On the second point...we'll just have to wait and see (though I get the feeling they are hoping beyond hope that they get to run against Hillarah and not Obama).
I did enjoy hearing him speak of the "no religious test" clause in the Constitution when he has repeatedly talked of how important it is to have a "man of faith" in the White House, however. Believing Jesus hung out with Native Americans in Missouri is ok--and out of bounds for consideration of a president--but not believing Jesus was the son of God...that's beyond the pale, apparently.
The two things all candidates seemed to agree on, save Ron Paul, were (1) the Iraq War was a good idea, just poorly managed, and (2) Hillary Clinton will be the next Democratic candidate. On the first point, I can only see McCain winning a general election with that message--and it would still be a very, very tough sell. On the second point...we'll just have to wait and see (though I get the feeling they are hoping beyond hope that they get to run against Hillarah and not Obama).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)