Guns vs. Healthcare

I recently saw a cartoon that contrasted the fact that Americans have a right to guns but not to healthcare.  Clever, right?  The problem is that even a cursory look at the comparison shows it to be nonsense.  No one is required to buy a gun for me whereas this right to healthcare would require someone to pay for my medical care if I was unable.

If there was an amendment for healthcare similar to the 2nd Amendment, it might say something to the effect that "the right of the people to purchase healthcare insurance shall not be infringed."  Would banning cross-state purchase of insurance be an infringement?  Would requiring that Americans buy government-approved health insurance plans be an infringement?  Or going the other way, does the 2nd Amendment require every American to own a gun or be forced to pay a fine to the IRS?  Do we need to demonstrate gun ownership on a yearly basis?  Does the gun have to have all sorts of extras that we don't need or want?

 

The Rights listed in the Constitution do not require that someone else provide them.  The Right to Free Speech doesn't require taxpayers to provide a forum in which to speak.  The Right to Practice Religion doesn't require that the government build the church.  By the same logic, a Right to Healthcare should not require the government/taxpayers to purchase it.

 

The confusion here is entitlement vs. right.  Americans have a right to bear arms but an entitlement to Social Security.  Social Security is not a right.  Nor is Medicare.  Nor is health insurance as determined by Obamacare.  These are all programs for transferring money from the person who earned it to someone who didn't.  I'm in favor of Rights - which our government was established to secure - but I'm opposed to entitlements.

No ID Required

Found this interesting article on the difficulties of voter fraud:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367278/report-new-york-investigators-obtain-fraudulent-ballots-97-percent-time-john-fund

Here is a crime that the investigators have demonstrated is almost always successful but we shouldn't be concerned that it is happening.  Just because it's easy and virtually impossible to detect after the fact does not mean anyone is actually doing it.  Sure, there was that poll worker in Ohio who openly admitted that she had cast two ballots for President Obama but that's an isolated case; most fraudsters aren't stupid enough to admit it.

The Earth on Fire

All this cold weather is a clear sign of global warming.  Here's an interesting link:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/2013-one-of-the-ten-coldest-years-in-us-history-with-the-largest-drop-in-temperature/

Read the comments too.  There is a lively debate that offers counterpoints from those who still believe in "climate change."  One commenter had a question that I have asked for years: What caused the warming that ended the glacial period 10,000 years ago?  Certainly wasn't man's use of carbon fuels.  Maybe warming and cooling is a natural cycle?

More Global Warming!

Heaviest December snowfall since 1953, first snow in Cairo in a century.  Darn this global warming!

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-20131213,0,1691393.story#axzz2nMzV6vMp

And then there is this:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/coldest-temperature-recorded-earth-antarctica-guinness-book

Still, governments will fund studies that say governments need more taxpayer money to prevent the Earth from catching fire.

Frozen

The story opens with a band of men cutting ice from a frozen river. Among these men are young Kristoff and his pet reindeer, Sven. He is learning the trade and as they leave with a sleigh filled with ice, he follows close behind in his tiny sleigh with a single block of ice.

Meanwhile at the Arendale Castle, Princess Elsa and Princess Anna sneak off in the night to play in the ballroom. Elsa can conjure ice and snow, which delights her younger sister. At one point, Anna jumps from a snow mound as Elsa creates a taller one to catch her. However, Anna is jumping faster than Elsa can conjure. Elsa accidentally hits Anna in the head, causing a lock of her dark hair to become blonde. The King and Queen arrive and, finding Anna unresponsive, ride into the night for help. They stop in a circle of stones which soon animate to become rather friendly and harmless-looking trolls. They cure Princess Anna but also remove her memories of Elsa’s power. The trolls warn Elsa against revealing her power lest it get out of control.

Years go by and the formerly inseparable sisters hardly speak. Worse, the King and Queen die at sea. More years pass and Elsa is now of an age to become Queen. Anna can hardly wait. She has been cloistered in the castle for most of her life and is eager for the grand ball. Elsa is terrified that she will be unable to control her powers. The ball proves entertaining as Anna fall for the handsome Prince Hans within minutes of meeting him and asks her sister for a blessing to marry him. Elsa refuses, ends the party, and calls for the castle gates to be closed again. And then things go south with the newly crowned queen fleeing into the wilderness and bringing winter upon the lands.

Arendale is thrown into chaos. Anna sets out alone to bring back her sister and leaves her fiancé, Prince Hans, in charge. Unprepared for the cold, she stops at a lodge where she meets Kristoff and his reindeer Sven. Last we saw Kristoff, he was a young boy watching the King talk to the trolls about Anna. He agrees to guide her through the wilderness.

To my surprise, this is a musical. The songs are good and catchy. I particularly liked Queen Elsa singing in her frozen mountain keep. Great singing voice. Anna is a great heroine; she is naïve and determined, bouncy and daring. Olaf the snowman came out of the blue but proved to be great comic relief. Loved his song about how he wanted summer to come. Kristoff, who is the male lead, really pales in comparison to the sisters. He’s a good character but he mostly serves as a means to an end for Anna. However, his relationship with Sven is most entertaining, especially when he speaks for Sven and Sven thus serves as his conscience. Oh, and his upbraiding of Anna for getting engage to Prince Hans the day they met was hilarious.

It is hard to determine the time period of the movie. The clothing looks to be 19th century but there is not a gun to be found. The soldiers run around with swords and crossbows. There is really no explanation for why Elsa has her powers. The trolls are entirely too cute and adorable. They are more like gnomes and perhaps should have been cast as gnomes. I was a bit baffled by Prince Hans being put in charge. Shouldn’t there have been a regent who had been ruling since the king died? Wouldn’t it be logical for Anna to put that person in charge while she chased after her sister rather than a foreign prince you met earlier that evening?

All in all, a great movie and recommended.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Our story opens with a lengthy history of the Lonely Mountain, the rise of its power, the greed of its king, and finally its fall to Smaug the Dragon. Added to this you have the fact that the elves declined to aid the Dwarves in the fight against the mighty dragon, thus explaining Thorin Oakenshield’s animus toward elves.

With that prologue, the story picks up with Bilbo working on his memoir of his great adventure on the very day that Gandalf is expected for his birthday party (see the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring). It was fun – though unnecessary – to see Frodo (Elijah Woods) as he leaves Bag End to intercept Gandalf. More importantly, this gave an opportunity for Bilbo (Ian Holm) to provide a bridge to his younger self (Martin Freeman).

Finally, our story begins. Gandalf and the dwarves arrive at Bilbo’s home and enlist him into the cause of reclaiming the Lonely Mountain from Smaug. Bilbo refuses but then chases after them to join. The plot generally follows the book though it is massively augmented with other events in Middle Earth. This is useful in a big picture sense but detracts from the story, especially since this is supposed to be Bilbo’s memoir. Furthermore, many events are turned into huge battles. The flight from the goblin caves is turned into a running fight where all of the dwarves survive essentially unscathed. No sooner are they out of the caves than some orcs on wargs show up and the dwarves are helpless and must climb trees. Really?

The band is safely carried away from the orc threat by giant eagles and deposited on a picturesque peak where they can see the Lonely Mountain in the distance. The dwarves talk among themselves that perhaps Smaug is dead, as he hasn’t ventured out in many decades. The movie ends with the great piles of gold suddenly disturbed to reveal the head of a dragon; Smaug yet lives.

Though generally enjoyable, this isn’t The Hobbit. This is a prequel to Lord of the Rings, bringing in characters who have no business in the story and outlining events that are referenced in other works. Radagast the Brown Wizard never appears in The Hobbit but he has a sizable role here. Saruman (Christopher Lee) scolds Gandalf and Galadriel (Cate Blanchet) gives him tentative support. In the book, Gandalf often vanished from the party without much explanation but the movie version isn’t going to leave that a mystery. It is no wonder that Peter Jackson is stretching this into a three movie epic. The Hobbit was a modest book, smaller than any of the three books of Lord of the Rings and yet we are promised as much film time as the trilogy. Of course, the trilogy left out some things; that certainly won’t happen with The Hobbit.

One of the benefits of being so long is that all those dwarves get a bit of personality. Thorin was noteworthy in the book for being the dispossessed King of the Lonely Mountain and Bombur was a plump fellow who cooked but the rest were just a collection of names. Now Balin is an old veteran who is an adviser to Thorin. Dwalin is a monster fighter with a bad attitude, Bofur is an amiable dwarf and friend to Bilbo, Kili is a master archer, Ori is the youngster of the bunch, and so forth. I expect some of the ones I haven’t mentioned will get their due in the next two movies. Each dwarf is very distinctive in appearance so that it is hard to confuse them. I wonder if these personalities are taken from the writings of Tolkien or are they from the imaginings of Peter Jackson.

Despite its flaws, it is a fun movie; too much movie but still enjoyable.

The Nuclear Option

Back when the Republicans threatened the Nuclear Option of changing Senate rules so that a simple majority could confirm nominees, Senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid were all in strenuous opposition.  Of course, they were the minority then.  The nuclear option was not exercised and the filibuster remained.  Today, the filibuster has been tossed aside.  Sure, they said it only applies to judicial (except for the Supreme Court) and executive nominations but the precedent is now set.  If the majority wants to change the rules to get its way, the majority shall change the rules.  In other words, there are no rules.

The Senate is meant to put the brakes on the more volatile House.  It is supposed to preserve the rights of the minority, which is a large part of why the supermajority filibuster exists.  The Senate has made a huge leap to being just another House of Representatives.  As I've said before, we need to repeal the 17th Amendment so that Senators are chosen by the state legislatures rather than the citizens.  Then they would protect the independence of the state rather than weakening it.  However, that is a tough sell.

As for the effects, I am ambivalent.  I think a president should get the nominees of his choice in most cases, especially those that expire with his term.  Nominations that outlive his presidency (such as judges) deserve greater scrutiny.  However, since this simple majority will apply to Republican nominees in the future, it comes out even.  Likely to get more extreme nominees this way.  Democrats will rue the day when they are no longer the majority.

President Asterisk

During the Presidential election, there was a miraculous and timely burst of employment that resulted in the unemployment rate dropping below the 8% mark.  No president since FDR had been re-elected with unemployment above 8%.  Here is my blog on the subject:

http://hicsum-musings.blogspot.com/2012/10/peculiar-numbers.html

Today, I was checking the links at Instapundit (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/) and came across the following article:

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

This may explain the peculiar numbers from last year.  Combined with the IRS harassment of Tea Party groups and the stonewalling on Benghazi, and the continued assurance that Obamacare would allow voters to keep insurance plans they liked, it appears that President Obama was making a full-court press to get re-elected, even if it required some tactics that are shady at best.  Such shenanigans are why some want to mark his re-election with an asterisk.

The Obamacare Fix

President Obama held a press conference today in which he announced a fix for the mass cancellations of health policies in the private market.  He has announced that health insurance companies may continue to offer those policies through 2014 (it is purely coincidental that the extension will cover the next election).  If the president only extends it through 2014, won't we find ourselves in this same situation a year hence?  Isn't he just kicking the can down the road?

The plan has a problem.  There is this law called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was passed by Congress and signed by the President.  This law does not allow for the substandard policies that President Obama would like to extend through next year.  If insurance companies do offer these policies, they will be in violation of the law.  It is the law of the land, I've heard Harry Reid assert on multiple occasions.  The only way the president's fix can be instituted is through new legislation.  Of course, that didn't stop him when it came delaying the employer mandate, so why should that stop him now?

Let us suppose that the insurance companies do offer to restore those substandard policies, trusting that this latest executive waiver from the law will hold up in court.  Will it still be the same price?  The economics of health insurance have been altered and that must be reflected in all policies.  Sure, it might not be as expensive as the Obama-approved plan but it will still be more expensive than it was.

 

This is all political theater.  The only reason President Obama offered this 'fix' was to prevent Democrats in Congress from legislatively fixing it.  If legislation is on the table, the whole thing could unravel quickly.  Was this enough to keep the Democrats onboard with Obamacare?  Many of those up for election are nervous.

Terrorists have won?

I've read a couple of pundits announce that the terrorists have won on account of the nonsense that we now tolerate.  Who would have thought that Americans would submit to taking off shoes, belts, and even allow themselves to be frisked in order to board a plane?  Who'd have guessed we'd be so indifferent to massive data collection by the government?  It seems that the much ballyhooed right to privacy only applies to abortions but not email, phone calls, and internet searches.  The massive inconvenience of the modern security state only promises to get worse.  But are we safer?  Is it worth it?

I was listening to EconTalk not too long ago and the guest argued that all the expense was not justified, that we'd be better off just absorbing the occasional terrorist attack than creating Homeland Security and spending billions of dollars.  Wow, that was a heck of a thing to say.  But let's look at it in comparison to other issues.  The death toll from terrorism is miniscule when compared to heart disease, cancer, stoke, accidents, diabetes, influenza, or even suicide.  You are vastly more likely to kill yourself than die in a terrorist attack.  Can you imagine a Department of Suicide Prevention?  It would make more sense than Homeland Security based on the numbers.

Many would argue that we have stopped lots of plots thanks to the security state and that is probably why the death by terrorism numbers are so low.  I'd call that post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.  The terrorists had one really impressive attack on 9/11.  That attack cannot happen again, because passengers will never sit idly by again.  It was like the Trojan Horse; you can't pull that stunt a second time.  So, short of a nuclear bomb, mass casualties are virtually impossible.  Look at the Boston Marathon attack that killed 3.  That same day, approximately 1,600 Americans died from cancer, 350 died from strokes, and about a hundred committed suicide.  We are reacting to the threat based on fear, not rational choices.

 

I mentioned a nuclear bomb.  If Iran develops a nuke, all of a sudden the calculus changes.  A nuke could turn a city of millions into a smoking hole.  Nuclear proliferation would justify many of the expenses and inconveniences of the security state.  This scenario is becoming more likely every day as we twiddle our thumbs while Iran continues to enrich uranium.

 

I don't think the security state means the terrorist have won but it does pretty clearly indicate that they have instilled a lot of terror.  There needs to be an analysis of costs vs. benefits.  The money spent on Homeland Security, the TSA, the NSA, and so forth might save far more lives if it was spent elsewhere, preferably not by government.

How Far Government Has Fallen

Scary comparison.  From start to finish, we won the war in Europe during WWII in less time than the current government had to develop a healthcare website that doesn't work.  Check out the link:

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/11/09/the-healthcare-gov-mess-in-historical-perspective/

Ender’s Game (movie)

In a strange twist from the usual, I liked the movie better than the book. First off, the siblings’ desire to rule the Earth was dropped completely. This is Ender’s story and his elder brother’s quest for world dominance is best left out of it. Next, the adults actually interact with the students. In the book, it often seemed like the space station was peopled only with prepubescent kids who battled in zero-g and developed tactics that had never been conceived. That is retained to a large degree but adult supervision and training is evident; these kids are being given a foundation on which to build rather than left to their own devices. Where I thought the novel was ludicrous in relying on a 12 year-old to save humanity, the movie paints it in a more plausible light. The battles come across as extremely advanced video games where youths can adapt quickly rather than relying on old tactics that a veteran would have a hard time discarding. Moreover, the idea of telling them that it is merely a simulation rather than the real thing allows them to take risks that few commanders would dare.

In some ways, the movie made odd choices. The original invasion by the Formics is shown as happening in the modern day with fighter jets battling swarms of alien craft in the atmosphere whereas in the book the battle took place in space. Rackham, the hero of that battle, is shown as just a random pilot rather than a commander of a fleet. In the book, Ender defeated the enemy while in the Solar System, not traveling to the Formic colony where he finds a queen’s egg until years afterward; that would make for a long and clunky epilogue so the change is understandable.

One of the things that the movie completely overlooks is the distances. There is a reason that it has been 50 years since the war and that there is a specific deadline for the counterattack. Humanity sent fleets decades ago but, on account of distance, they aren’t arriving until now. This setup allowed for the military on earth to train commanders for the remote fleets. Also not discussed – though it did get mentioned – is the ansible. The ansible is a physics-defying communications system that allows instant communication between Earth and these distant fleets. Handy.

Asa Butterfield does a good job as Ender. He manages to be calculating and cold-blooded while still remaining a sympathetic character. Perhaps his youth provides that. It is hard to say much on the adult roles since they were almost footnotes in the book. Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) figured most prominently in opening dialogues for each chapter, commenting on how Ender was fairing. The movie provides more interaction between the two than I recall from the novel. As for Rackham (Ben Kingsley), the fact that he is still around 50 years after the battle that made him famous is never explained. In the book, he traveled around at near light speed to make him available for when the fleets would arrive. The movie supposes that he was a young pilot and is now an old veteran.

The movie does repeat some of my problems with the book. For instance, why is it that the Formics only attempt communication with Ender? There are scores of kids at Battle School and one supposes that many of them play the game that allowed Ender to communicate with the aliens. Apparently like the adults of Earth, they too knew that Ender was ‘the one’ and focused their efforts on him. Knowing that humanity is coming to wipe them out, why didn’t the Formics dispatch some ships to establish new colonies to escape extinction rather than depend upon the kindness of their exterminator? I understand the idea of culling through all of humanity for a super genius tactician but is it necessary that all his junior officers are his age? Couldn’t veterans follow orders as well, if not better, than adolescents?

Nitpicks aside, I enjoyed the film and give it a thumbs up.

Obama Lied, Health Insurance Plans Died

I've been meaning to address this for a while but there is so much to say.  I found someone who has said a good portion of it.  Here's the link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363538/obamas-massive-fraud-andrew-c-mccarthy

Government Ponzi Scheme

When I was 17 and taking a civics class in high school, my teacher - Mr. Lindfors - asked the class how many of us thought Social Security would still be solvent when we retired.  The majority didn't think so.  Imagine, 30 young and dumb teenagers in 1984 had concluded that Social Security wasn't going to be around in 2036.  And the current numbers show that to be a perfectly rational assumption.  If those teenagers from 1984 get Social Security, it will be nowhere near as generous as it has been for current and past beneficiaries.

The first person to get a Social Security check was Ida May Fuller.  Ida retired in 1940 after having paid $24.75 into her 'lockbox.'  Her first benefit check was for $22.54, more than 90% of her contributions!  Then she lived to the ripe old age of 100, collecting $22,888.92, more than 900 times the amount she had paid into the system.  This was perhaps the greatest investment in the history of investments.  I can think of nothing else that had that kind of return.  Of course, Ida was an early investor in a Ponzi scheme.  Early investors do quite well.

Prior to Social Security and even after it for at least a generation, couples had children in order to support them in their old age.  But as Social Security seeped into the collective consciousness, many figured out that the government would force other people's children to take care of them in their old age.  Oh, it isn't sold that way.  "You paid into the system and now that you're old you get to take out."  Like Ida?  No, the returns are no longer quite that impressive but with longer life expectancy, people are taking out all they paid and then some.  This is possible because of the Baby Boomers, a huge cohort from the post-war years but, as noted, fertility rates have since dropped.  No one expects their kids to take care of them anymore.

Social Security is currently paying out more than it collects.  This means that rather than being a pool of money that Congress can spend (while slipping an IOU in a cabinet), it is now required to allocate current revenues to pay liabilities.  It will get worse as more Baby Boomers retire.  The same thing has happened in Europe.  They stopped having children and the governments responded by allowing more immigration (sound familiar) to make up the coming shortfall.  And it is still going to pot.

I freely admit that I was pretty dumb as a teenager but somehow on this issue, my classmates and I were wiser than we had any right to be.  In fact, we weren't any wiser, we were just honest.  The coming collapse of Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and all the other unfunded entitlements is the most predictable crisis in American history.  If government had to follow the same rules they impose on business, all of the listed programs would be subject to criminal prosecution.

Obama Success

Yes, Obama has had a success and I had thought it was a massive blunder at the time.  I vented my irritation at the President in a blog post.  However, events have come to pass that show great promise at lower cost.  No, not Obamacare but space exploration.

When NASA's Constellation Project was slashed so the president could expand the food stamp program and his doomed Stimulus, I was aghast.  The US had space superiority and now we were hitching rides on Russian Soyuz capsules.  The US space program looked to be a casualty of Obama's spending priorities.  As it happens, the private space companies are making leaps and bounds.  SpaceX is the standout with its Falcon rocket and Dragon space capsule; SpaceX is running resupply missions to the International Space Station (ISS) and will soon be able to shuttle astronauts for a fraction of the price of the space shuttles.  Orbital Science Corporation (OSC) is a big player in satellites but is aiming to also resupply the ISS with its Cygnus spacecraft.

What is truly funny about this is it fits what I have long said about most issues: get the government out and the prices will drop and more will get accomplished.  How did I end up on the wrong side of this argument?  Mostly, it is because space is still a government domain.  Even all this private activity is funded through government contracts.  Getting into space and bringing back something of value is still a ways off.  This is why space tourism is likely to be the first moneymaker for private companies (e.g. Virgin Galactic).  Eventually, we'll see mining operations on the moon and then elsewhere but that is still beyond the market.  But not for long.

The Mars One project has a hundred thousand volunteers to migrate to the red planet in 2023.  It would be a one way trip and yet there are plenty of applicants.  Even the founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk, plans to die on Mars.

Here is the interesting point: Obama's success is a case where he defunded a government agency and let the private market take over.  This is precisely the opposite of what he has done with health care, the car companies, banks, mortgages, student loans, etc.  While all of these are seeing rising costs, NASA is seeing a drop in the price of resupply missions.  Perhaps the president could learn from this.

All Roads will be Toll Roads

Thanks to improved gas mileage on modern vehicles and a steady increase in hybrid and electric vehicles, the gas tax just isn't what it used to be.  Therefore, government now wants to tax based on the odometer rather than the gas tank.  Well, it is government; they'll probably tax both.  The plan is to install a GPS in cars and then send out the bill based on how many miles the car went during the billing period.  Every road instantly becomes a toll road, even dirt roads.

Interestingly, I am sympathetic to the idea, especially if it was actually used to maintain the roads (unlikely).  It charges based on use, which is exactly how it should be done.  More miles equal more use and thus a higher tax.  I like toll roads, especially if they are privately owned.  Private owners have a vested interest in making your time on the road pleasant.  You are unlikely to take the toll road again if it is full of potholes.  On the other hand, government would far prefer to spend that money buying voters; not a lot of people vote based on the state of government-maintained infrastructure.  Also, with the GPS, there would be constant information on road usage so the money could be funneled to high use roads.  In fact, it would be possible to have the tax allocated to specific stretches of road; it is always best to limit politicians' discretion in the spending of tax dollars.

Of course, there are drawbacks.  If you want less of something, tax it.  By taxing miles driven, people will drive fewer miles.  Would a truck pay more than a Smart car?  It would be logical to charge based on the weight of the vehicle, thus taxing motorcycles less than SUVs.  If it didn't differentiate on weight, the return of the gas guzzler would follow.  If the gas tax was repealed (unlikely), the price of gas would drop overnight by 40 cents a gallon (varies by state but that's an average).  The tax also provides a nice lever to prod the people toward mass transit.  The higher the tax goes, the more likely people are to take the bus or hop on a subway.

I do not like the idea of a GPS in the car that the state monitors.  We have far too much government monitoring as it is.  Better to have the odometer read during yearly inspections and a tax be assessed based on that.  The tax could be part of the car registration cost:

"Mr. Smith, you drove 20,000 miles over the past year.  Your tax is $300."

Oh, did I mention that Oregon - the start up for this new tax - is charging 1.5 cents a mile?  That is the starting point.  When the income tax was introduced, the top rate was 7% but look at it now.  I foresee a higher tax and calls for bullet trains, a beloved government mass transit boondoggle... er... project.  If gas taxes were actually spent on roads and bridges, we wouldn't have a problem but, as I mentioned, potholes rarely appear in political ads.  Better to take that money and spend it on a new school or a convention center with a politician's name on it; that will attract some votes.  The same will be true for this new tax.

Shutdown Failure

As predicted, the Republicans folded, the media place ALL the blame on them, and they got nothing to show for the effort.  Failure.  It is odd that the Republicans repeatedly offered to open the government throughout the shutdown but the Senate and the President continually said "No."  One of the Republican offers was to give the President everything he wanted though it required that all members of Congress and their staffs must be on Obamacare like everyone else.  Harry Reid squashed that and the media didn't hammer him for it.  I wonder how that would have played had it been a Republican Senate that refused to reopen the government in order to protect such perks.  Think the press would have shrugged and continued to blame the other party?  I suspect not.

Some say this hasn't been a complete loss.  The shutdown shined a light on government and the citizenry has the lowest opinion of it since records have been kept.  Also, the Republicans have successfully placed themselves firmly in opposition to Obamacare, a program that is off to a rocky start to say the least.

Sleepy Hollow

I watched the first two episodes of this new Fox series the other night and have to say I am unimpressed.  The basic plot is that Ichabod Crane beheads a Hessian soldier during the Revolutionary War but dies in the process.  He comes back to life in modern day thanks to some witchcraft.  Ichabod joins forces with Abbie Mills, a police officer - a black woman in trousers! - to fight against the forces of evil.

In the pilot, the Hessian - now a headless horseman - is back and searching for his head.  The best part about the episode was that Clancy Brown gets beheaded.  Clancy Brown played the Kurgan in The Highlander, a movie about immortals who can only die when their head is chopped off.  Good casting there.  The rest is hard to swallow.  Ichabod explains that he was General Washington's specialist in fighting witchcraft and demons, which is why he had been dispatched against the Hessian.  Abbie is won over far too easily (massively imperiling her career with little basis), Ichabod accepts his resurrection much too quickly, and the police bring him in as a consultant far too readily.

In the second episode, the forces of evil seek to resurrect a powerful witch who was burned during the Revolutionary War.  The big problem here is that witches weren't burned in America, they were hanged.  And the last batch of witches hanged was at Salem in 1692, not 1780.  Such historical illiteracy always grates on me.  Furthermore, Ichabod knows of the underground tunnels that run beneath Sleepy Hollow and he discovers a stash of black powder still there.  Seriously?  Not only that, it proves to still be highly explosive after two centuries in a damp underground tunnel.  Sigh.  Another goofy thing is that Ichabod is still wearing his 1780s clothes in the second episode.  Couldn't get something modern?

On the positive, I did like how he tossed aside his pistol after firing once.  "It has more than one shot?"  Awesome.  His exchange with Officer Mills about how he had always favored abolition was quite amusing.  Better yet was when he complained about his incarceration and gave an impassioned statement about his rights.  But the best was his shock that breakfast should cost nearly $5 and 40 cents was tax.  That is nearly 10% and we went to war with England because it was 2%.  Yes!  There is some accurate history!

At one point, our heroes learn of a prophecy that says two witnesses will spend seven years together in an effort to stave off the four horsemen of the Apocalypse; targeting a 7 year run for the series?  Overly optimistic.

Debt Crisis Yawner

Again with the default talk and the manufactured panic, all to convince the American people to further rob their grandkids to pay for current services.  As I noted in a previous post, a default is when you fail to pay the interest on your debts, not when you stop paying for current services.  The government can layoff several departments worth of employees and that isn't default; that's economizing.  As George Will noted, "Default is a choice."  The government need merely service the debt in order to maintain the full faith and credit of the US.  That is about 10% of the budget...  er... continuing resolution (we don't do budgets anymore despite US law that requires them).  If the debt ceiling is not raised, that puts the ball in Obama's court to pick and choose how the incoming revenues are disbursed.  He would have to CHOOSE to default.  Sadly, I wouldn't put it past him.  He has actually spent shutdown budget repeatedly blocking off National Mall.

The Republicans might be on to something with the shutdown and the debt crisis.  They have long claimed to be the party of small government (disingenuously) and this gives them the opportunity to achieve that.  Failing to raise the debt ceiling will force government to spend within its means and the shutdown can be made permanent.  Heck, the government is still 83% open, hardly a shutdown.

Of note, neither party wants to diminish the power of the Federal Government.  A sizable minority of Republicans - the Tea Party Caucus - have the party over a barrel.  Boehner cannot pass anything without their approval unless he does so with Democratic votes.  Such a move breaks the Republican caucus in half and ends his speakership.  Much as the rest of the Republicans hate that, they understand that to ostracize the Tea Partiers is to cripple their majority.

Back to the Debt Limit, imagine what the last 5 years growth would have been like had it not been raised.  Six trillion dollars of borrowed money would not have inflated the growth numbers.  Consider that gross domestic product (GDP) is defined as follows:

C + I + G + (X - M)

That is, Consumption + Investment + Government + (eXports - iMports).  Note that government spending is reckoned in the figures.  Thus, by borrowing all that money, the government goosed the numbers.  Consider if I took out a $100,000 loan this year and counted that as income.  Wow, this would be a really great year.  That is what the government does every year.  And even so, our growth has been pathetic, hovering at 2%.  Cutoff the borrowing and the truth will out.  Almost everyone in Washington is afraid of the truth.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me for five years, I'm an Obama voter."

The quote is from Charlie Martin.  Here's a link to the article:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/10/14/i-told-you-so-obamacare-edition/

Bias

The federal government has been in partial shutdown since Oct. 1 after the Republican-controlled House refused to pass legislation to fund government services unless the president's health care law is delayed or defunded. Obama has refused to negotiate over his signature domestic legislation, otherwise known as Obamacare.

I read the above passage on Yahoo News.  How else might it have said the same thing?  Let's try a bit of a rewrite:

The federal government has been in partial shutdown since Oct. 1 after the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to pass legislation to fund government services unless the president's health care law was left unaltered.

The first lays blame for the shutdown on the Republicans and the second on the Democrats.  Both of these statements are true.  In which case, it is hard to lay blame on only one party.  The fact that it is laid on one demonstrates a bias of Yahoo News.

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-de-fuhrer-barton-obama-134942788.html

Who Saw This Coming?

I follow Instapundit (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/) and came across this today.  The Obamacare rhetoric has finally met the Obamacare reality and some eyes have been opened.

 

Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.

 

"I was laughing at Boehner -- until the mail came today," Washura said.  "I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy."

 

"Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally."

 

The entire article is available here:

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area

 

Here we have a teachable moment.  As Ms. Vinson said, she wanted everyone to have health care but she assumed someone else would pay for it.  Yes, the Obama voter is always generous with someone else’s money.  I have tried for years – with disappointing results – to impart this lesson.  Government does everything less efficiently and more expensively than the private sector.  I also like how Mr. Washura ‘laughed’ at the Speaker of the House until he discovered that Boehner was trying to keep that ten grand in Mr. Washura’s pocket.  Hey, maybe Boehner has a point.

 

Of course, I don’t take these two to be evidence of massive failure.  Anecdotes can tell whatever story you want them to tell.  However, while selling Obamacare to the nation, Obama quite clearly stated that if you liked your current plan, you could keep it.  I suspect that these two are not the only ones who didn’t get to keep their current – and much less expensive – plans.  If only someone had warned that this would happen.  Oh, wait, I did.

 

Obsession

Majority Leader Harry Reid accused the Republicans of being 'obsessed' by Obamacare and couldn't figure out why.  Let's have a look at the history of big and controversial legislation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - now widely credited solely to the Democratic Party - was passed with 199 Democratic votes (65% of the Democrats) and 166 Republicans (80%).  Not so controversial when you look at the votes but viewed so today.  Anyway, very bipartisan.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was even more lopsided with 400 votes in favor vs. only 104 opposed, getting the majority of each party.

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (part of LBJ's War on Poverty) passed with 32 Republican votes and 254 Democrat votes.  Clearly not a favorite of Republicans but still able to coax about a sixth of them to vote in favor.

No Child Left Behind (2001) passed with huge bipartisan support, 473 to 53.

Medicare Part D (2003) passed by a very narrow margin, but enjoyed bipartisan support.

The Authorization for Military Force in Afghanistan (2001) - which has become extremely controversial since it was approved - had almost unanimous support, passing 98 - 0 in the Senate and with only 1 vote in opposition (Barbara Lee of CA) in the House.

The Authorization for the Iraq War (2003) got 263 Republican votes and 103 Democrat votes in favor.  Of course, not long after this, most of the Democrats denounced their votes with claims of being 'lied to' by the administration.  Nonetheless, this now hugely controversial vote enjoyed considerable bipartisan support.

The Affordable Care Act (2010) got 279 Democrat votes and 0 Republican votes.  Also, not to be overlooked, it had 34 Democrats voting against it.  The opposition to the bill was bipartisan but not the support.  Here is the most consequential legislation in decades and yet it was passed on an entirely partisan vote.  Why is anyone surprised that the party that voted 100% in opposition would be so determined to undermine it?

The President and the Democrats continually say that the Supreme Court upheld the law.  Yes, but the President has dramatically altered what the Supreme Court approved.  He has delayed the Employer Mandate (without benefit of Congressional Legislation), the cap on benefits, subsidy based on income, and about half the deadlines.  The President has offered more than 2000 waivers from the law.  He has provided for the Congress to get health care subsidies not available to the common folk, effectively exempting them from the law.  The law did not provide for the Federal Government to setup Exchanges but they've done it anyway because half the states declined to do so!  This is not the law the Congress passed or the Supreme Court found Constitutional.  Presidents do not get to rewrite laws to their liking.  Considering this, why is anyone surprised that some are adamantly opposed?  This is not the rule of law.

Great Line

On Special Report tonight, Jonah Goldberg noted that 7 security personnel were dispatched to the World War II Memorial to protect it from World War II veterans, which turns out to be two more security personnel than were posted in Benghazi.  Ouch!

All or Nothing

Not surprisingly, there is heat on the Republicans for the government shutdown.  So, per my suggestion, the Republicans have sent over some piecemeal bills to fund this or that part of the government.  The Senate (run by Democrats) has refused to vote on them.  Thus, even though the Democrats could ameliorate the pain of the shutdown by simply passing the continuing resolutions for those functions of government that both parties agree upon, they have opted not to do so.  Why?  The reason is clear: a piecemeal approach will allow the Republicans to take the pressure off.  After all, how many Americans are going to complain if the shutdown is reduced to only the Obamacare Exchanges?  The Democrats need AS MUCH of the government shutdown as possible so that they can pressure the Republicans through the media and public opinion.  With each part of the government that is reopened, the pressure diminishes.  In short, it benefits the Democrats to have the shutdown be as onerous as possible.  Who shut down the government again?

As for Obamacare, it is too soon to tell but there are certainly signs of failure.  President Obama compared the glitches in Obamacare to those of IOS7 for Apple.  Apple had some glitches and fixed them.  No one suggested that Apple stop selling iPhones and iPads because it didn't work perfectly.  That strikes me as a weak comparison.  The government is not REQUIRING people to buy Apple products but it is requiring Obamacare on pain of IRS fines... er... taxes (thank you, Chief Justice John Roberts).  Even Obama cheerleaders at MSNBC and CNN have been unable to purchase insurance through the exchanges.  Yes, this will improve.  However, if three years of preparations have resulted in this kind of rollout, the final product will probably make the DMV look efficient.

Negotiating

The House of Representatives crafted a continuing resolution (CR) that would keep all the government running - even at its deficit-spending levels - but included the defunding of Obamacare.  The Senate thought it was almost perfect, except for that last bit.  They stripped that out and sent it back.  Moderating its demands, the House included a one year delay of the individual mandate (it's only fair since the employer mandate has been delayed for a year) and a requirement that the Congress not get 'special' treatment with regards to health insurance subsidies.  The Senate stripped out the add-ons and sent it back, giving not an inch.  It is Harry Reid's way or shutdown!  See, negotiating.  Harry is counting on the media to blame the Republicans no matter how recalcitrant he proves to be in this back and forth; they will.

President Obama took to the airwaves to blast the Republicans' efforts, saying that the people didn't repeal the law when they had the chance back in November (i.e. by electing Mitt Romney).  I did not realize that the election was a referendum on Obamacare (I believe the Obamacare referendum was the 2010 "shellacking" election).  Nor, I suspect, did the voters.  After all, they did vote for all these pesky Republicans who - presumably - are representing their constituents.  Right?

To my astonishment, the Republicans haven't cracked yet.  Barring some last minute deal, it looks like the government will shutdown in about an hour.  How long will that last?  Once it does, the Republicans are in dangerous waters.  To fold after the shutdown, they MUST get something or the whole exercise will be a PR nightmare.  At least the timing is much better than the last one which happened during Christmas and New Year in 1995/6 and led to the Gingrich Who Stole Christmas.  Once shutdown, the Republicans can send piecemeal CRs to bring everything back.  Suddenly, the refusal of a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President to accept money to reopen the government will look bad.  They will have to say "Give us everything we want or we won't accept anything."  This might work out better than I'd have expected.

But, more likely, the Republicans will cave and get nothing.  Why?  Because, as I pointed out in a previous blog, they are spineless.

Shutdown-phobia

Back in 1995, the Republican Congress had a disagreement with the Democratic President on spending.  This resulted in a shutdown of the government which - according to legend - was disastrous to the Republican Party.  Much bad press was heaped upon the recalcitrant GOP.  Not surprisingly, the Republicans are not eager to go through that again.  And that is the problem.

If you announce to your opponent that you will bend to his will rather than shutdown the government, you will be amazed how often the government finds itself at threat of shutting down.  It's like knowing that Superman's weakness is Kryptonite.  What fool isn't going to try to have Kryptonite on hand for every encounter?  If I could get the other party to acquiesce to my goals by letting us come to the brink, I'm going to keep doing that as long as it works.

If the government shuts down, it is a given that the media will report that it is the Republicans fault.  It is funny that when there was a government shutdown during the first Bush administration, it was the Republican President's fault.  But a few years later, when it shut down under the Clinton administration, it was the Republican Congress's fault.  Let's see, we currently have a Democrat as president, a Democratic Senate, and a Republican House... that means it is the Republican House's fault if there is a shutdown.  Isn't it peculiar how the Republicans are always to blame?

Arguably, a shutdown may not be a good strategic move at this moment.  The Debt Ceiling presents better 'marketing' for the Republicans than a shutdown.  But that doesn't change the point that if you always cave when a shutdown is threatened, you have announced a weakness that will be repeatedly used against you.  The Republicans have to get over 1995 and be willing to make the argument that the Democrats are just as responsible for a shutdown.

The Book of Mormon

The makers of South Park are famous (infamous?) for their willingness to poke fun at absolutely anything and everything. Hailing from Colorado, it is hardly any surprise that their gaze should settle upon the Mormon faith. In musical format, they poke fun at Mormonism but likewise show Mormons to be good and decent people.

The story opens with a musical number where young men in white shirts with black slacks and ties practice going door to door and telling about “a book that will change your life.” Elder Price and Elder Cunningham, two 19 year-olds, are paired and sent to Uganda. Kevin Price is very ambitious and was the top student in the class. He had hoped to be sent to Orlando, Florida, and certainly didn’t expect to be matched with the worst student, Arnold Cunningham. Arnold is a habitual liar – but in a good-natured sort of way – and generally an outcast; he had prayed to be partnered with Elder Price.

The pair arrives in a Ugandan village where they are immediately robbed of their luggage. They meet the villagers who have no hope and a very negative view of God. Ugandans lead a difficult life and they don’t see how a book is going to help. One of the best lines occurred here when the chief tells Elder Price that missionaries come regularly and achieve nothing. Price replies that it didn’t work because those were Christian missionaries.

Among the villagers is Nabulungi, the chief’s daughter, who shows some interest in what Elder Price has to say. However, by the time she convinces the village to listen to what he has to say, he has fled the scene in hopes of getting a transfer to Orlando and it is up to Arnold Cunningham to explain Mormonism; he has not read the Book of Mormon.

There are spots in the play where the foundation of Mormonism is explained, giving a brief outline of the religion. Two tribes had found their way to North America and prospered for many centuries though they fought one and other. Jesus had come to preach to them. Their civilization collapsed in the 5th Century though Mormon – a prophet of the Nephites – had recorded their history on golden plates that he entrusted to his son, Moroni, who buried them. Joseph Smith was told by Moroni (now an angel) to dig up the gold plates which were “conveniently” buried in his backyard. Joseph Smith translated the plates and thus Mormonism was born. Joseph Smith led his followers to the west, establishing colonies in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. However, many proved hostile to Mormons and Joseph Smith was shot to death, passing leadership to Brigham Young. Young led the Mormons to Utah, where they have flourished.

Though he hasn’t read the book, Arnold knows the basic outline. And yet, in order to spice it up and retain his audience, he changes some of the events and adds characters. Yes, somehow Darth Vader, Yoda, and hobbits are incorporated into the Mormon theology. All of his stories are customized to the specific problems of the Ugandans, such as AIDS, famine, female circumcision, and warlords. It proves popular and he converts the village to his brand of Mormonism. Church leaders, impressed by such success, come to discover how he did it.

 

The songs are generally very good. Elder Price’s had a great one where he declares that he and Arnold would achieve great things but it was going to be “Mostly Me.” Arnold had a song when he baptizes Nabulungi which had strong sexual connotations that made it funny on account of its awkwardness/inappropriateness. Nabulungi sang of her desire to go to the distant paradise of “Salt Lake City.” There is even a Hakuna Matata clone titled Hasa Diga Eebowai, though it doesn’t mean “no worries for the rest of your life.”

Another funny running gag was Arnold’s inability to remember Nabulungi’s name. He never uses the same wrong name twice; I particularly liked Neosporin, Neutrogena, and Nala (that is Simba’s girlfriend in The Lion King).

The biggest drawback of the show is the profanity and some of the puerile humor (Stone and Parker just can’t resist a poop joke). However, it is entertaining to see the shock value that has on the Mormon characters and thus provides a stark contrast between Mormon and non-Mormon. Unlike in some of their other work, the profanity actually has a useful purpose here.

Of particular interest, there was an ad in the Playbill from the Mormon Church that stated “The Book is always better.” That is awesome. It speaks volumes and further reflects well on Mormons. I look forward to a similar ad in the musical version of “The Koran.”

Defunding Obamacare

I am mystified by all this talk of 'Defunding Obamacare' in the forthcoming continuing resolution (CR) that will keep the government operating after September 30th.  How does that work?  Do they allocate funding in one paragraph and then rescind it in the next?  Shouldn't the budget be more along the lines of not allocating any money?  The Congress determines how much money goes where; just put $0 for Obamacare.  Simple, no?  Back in the mid-70s, the Democrats zeroed out the budget to support the South Vietnamese.  Bingo, South Vietnam fell.  They didn't pass a law repealing our agreement to fund South Vietnam which President Ford could veto.  The House should pass a budget that funds everything except Obamacare.  Heck, do it piecemeal.  Here's a CR to fund the military, here's one to fund Social Security. and here's one to fund Medicare, and so forth.  That should be easy as pie.  Moreover, this is a continuing resolution, not a budget.  The whole point of a CR is to continue current funding.  Why the heck are you adding a new budget item in a CR?  Government budgeting is arcane for a reason: to keep the voters in the dark as much as possible.  If the Senate refuses to pass anything that doesn't fund Obamacare, who would be shutting down the government?  The Democratic Senate.  Don't give the President something to veto.  If the President gets a bill that funds everything except Obamacare and he vetoes it, who is shutting down the government?

 

Now obviously, the press will blame the Republicans no matter who is actually at fault.  You see, if the Republicans don't follow Obama's priorities, they are responsible.  No negotiating, no give and take, no compromise.  If the Republicans had a spine, that wouldn't matter.  Obamacare is less popular now than when it passed and only an eighth of Americans think it will benefit them.  This is a winning issue if only the Republicans could stand firm.  That is one admirable thing about Democrats; they are steadfast in holding their ground.  It is how Obamacare passed in the first place.

In the end, I expect the Republicans to fold, as usual.  They will fund it and declare that they will tackle it again if they win the Senate in 2014 or some such.  Maybe repeal if a Republican president is elected in 2016.  Same old story.  I've seen how that story ends each time.

Interglacial Period

The current glacial age (i.e. ice age) began 2.6 million years ago when the Earth wobbled in its orbit around the sun.  Since then, the Earth has undergone glacial periods - where the ice expands from the poles - and interglacial periods - when the ice retreats back to the poles.  The current interglacial period began approximately 12 thousand years ago.  However, during that glacial period, sufficient water had been turned to ice so that the sea levels were 350 feet lower than today.  This meant that the English Channel was dry and crossable.  Siberia and Alaska were connected and allowed for cross-migration between North America and Asia.  The camel evolved in North America but migrated to Asia, where it still exists.  It died out here though its cousins - llamas and alpacas - still flourish in South America.  Of course, humans made their way to North America as well.  But the ice melted and the sea levels rose drastically.  What caused all that warming?  Not fossil fuels.

During the glacial periods, the ice has extended over much of Europe, the whole of Canada, all the Great Lakes and into the Midwest.  When there are no longer ice sheets covering the poles and Greenland, it will signal the end of the current ice age.  With that in mind, I came across the following:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gained-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-last-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/

Record ice growth of 19,000 Manhattan islands.  That's a lot of ice.  Hardly what you would expect during global warming.  The Earth has experience dramatic warming during the past 12,000 years, most of it long before mankind burned any fossil fuels.  Moreover, the Earth has been much warmer than it is today.  When dinosaurs roamed, the tropics extended as far north as North Dakota.  Looking at the geological record, the Earth is far more likely to go into another glacial period than to experience endless heat waves.  There is a reason that Al Gore talks of Climate Crisis rather than Global Warming now.

Irreconcilable Differences

I'm going to let the president speak for himself.  Here is a quote from today:

"First of all, I didn't set a red line.  The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."

Barack Obama, September 4, 2013

He didn't draw that red line.  Somebody else made that happen.  :)  Let's check the transcript from last year:

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

Barack Obama, August 20, 2012

Interesting.  No mention of the world painting that redline.  He said it changed "my calculus." not humanity's calculus.  Sounds like he did draw that line and he is trying to dodge the blame.  This is doubtless why he has gone to Congress for approval.  Regardless of how Congress votes, he wins.  If they vote no, he can blame them for America's failure to punish Assad.  If they vote yes, Congress will share the blame for the almost inevitable disaster that follows.

On a related topic, it is a fact that Saddam Hussein gassed tens of thousands of his own people and yet Barack Obama declared Iraq to be the wrong war.  He hammered Bush for that war and played up his anti-war rhetoric throughout the 2008 campaign.  Why was it wrong to attack Saddam but right to attack Bashar?  Comparing apples to apples, Saddam was vastly worse than Bashar.  Would Senator Obama vote in favor of President Obama's warmongering?

 

Not to be cynical, but this Syrian mess comes at an ideal time for the president.  Who's talking about Obamacare right now?  Remember that IRS scandal?  How about the NSA spying scandal?  Benghazi?  Talk of a war has magically brushed aside all those pesky "phony" scandals.

Syria: To Bomb or not to Bomb

Thus far, the congressional hearings indicate that the plan is to bomb just enough to punish Assad for using weapons but not enough to make him lose the civil war.  Why is that?  Well, we don't really want Al-Qaeda - which is allied with the rebels - to win.  But on the other hand, the President has been declaring for over two years that Assad must go.  So which is it?  Sad to say but Assad is probably the better option.  Do we want elements of Al-Qaeda to acquire chemical weapons in the aftermath of Assad's fall?  Secretary of State Kerry suggested that we might put boots on the ground to secure such stockpiles; I would agree that is in the national interest if Assad falls but I don't think most Americans are too keen on another Mideast adventure.

Setting aside the idea of seizing chemical weapons, what exactly is the US national interest here?  Assad allegedly gassed a thousand or so people and that must not go unpunished.  So, it was okay for him to machinegun and bomb the other 99 thousand?  We care about how they were killed, not that they were killed.

The only reason that we are going to intervene (I think Obama will probably get approval from Congress) is to make good on Obama's foot-in-mouth redline lest America lose prestige overseas.  Did the murder of our ambassador have no impact on our prestige?  What of abandoning Poland and the Czech Republic in the face of Russian complaints about missile defense?  Edward Snowden revelations?  No, none of that is hurting us overseas.  Weren't we supposed to have Smart Diplomacy now?

Rand Paul pointed out that there could be serious repercussions to an attack on Syria.  Syria has already promised to attack Israel in the event of US attacks.  Iran, which is already heavily supporting Syria, might be drawn in.  Russia has warships in port on the Syrian coast and is backing Assad.  Given Obama's track record in the Middle East (siding with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, assassination of Libyan ambassador, abandoning Iraq, hopeless policy against pre-nuclear Iran, poor relations with Israel, etc.), I think it would be wisest to keep out.  Really, do we think he'll finally have a success in a no-win situation?

 

Now let's visit the fringe: Yossef Bodansky (http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542) says that Assad is being 'framed' for the chemical attack.  In the days before the attack, the rebels had a huge influx of weapons for an upcoming campaign in the wake of America bombing of Assad.  How did they know a chemical attack was coming?  I am reminded of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor.  The Maine was sunk by an explosion while the US and Spain were having very tense relations over the Cubans.  Spain was blamed for the sinking though some suggested that it might have been Cuban rebels seeking to pull the US into what became the Spanish-American War (1898).  Bodansky also suggests that US intelligence had foreknowledge of the attack.  Hmm.

 

Like Jimmy Carter, Obama seems to have it out for dictators even though the alternative is worse.  Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran and that has not gone well for us or the people of Iran.  Obama dumped Mubarak in Egypt and that isn't going too well either.  Is Assad next on the hit list?  Yes, this is crazy talk (I hope) but may be worth consideration a year hence.

I Have a Dream: 50 Years Later

50 years ago today, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke during the March on Washington.  He delivered his immortal 'I Have a Dream' speech, in which he hoped that his children would live in a country where they were judged by their character, not skin pigmentation.  It seems to me that his dream has not come to pass.  Certainly, the Jim Crow laws are gone and blacks have risen to great heights, including the presidency.  However, we can also see with such instances as Trayvon Martin that no one was concerned with Trayvon's character, only his skin color.

Is it not peculiar that neither Clarence Thomas (the only black justice on the Supreme Court) nor Tim Scott (the only black Senator) were invited to speak?  Reverend Al Sharpton got an invite.  Ben Jealous of the NAACP got an invite.  Black Republicans need not apply.  At least that is a judgment on character rather than skin color.  It seems that everyone has forgotten that a greater percentage of the Republicans in Congress voted for both the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) than did Democrats.  Jim Crow and Segregation were Democrat policies.  Bull Connor was a Democrat.  It was a Democratic governor (Orval Faubus) who sought to prevent a Republican President (Dwight Eisenhower) from integrating an Arkansas school.  And yet, somehow today there is this inexplicable belief that all of that was Republican.  How did that happen?

 

Race relations are a shambles today.  A big part of that is Barack Obama.  It is so easy for him or his allies to accuse his opponents of racism.  It isn't that Republicans oppose his policies, it is that they oppose him because he is black.  Charges of racism abound.  Chris Matthews declared that pointing out the national debt was racism, that mentioning Obama was from Chicago was racism, that talking about his frequent golf outings was racist, and so on.  Why debate opponents on the merits when you can just call them racists and thereby dismiss anything they say?  This may be an effective political move but it is disastrous for race relations and in stark contrast to what MLK said 50 years ago today.

Syria is a Lose-Lose Proposal

There are no good options with Syria.  The President foolishly painted himself into a corner with his red line talk and now his credibility is on the line.  If he attacks Syria, the US will be aiding the rebels who include large chunks of al-Qaeda-allied forces.  If he doesn't attack, US foreign policy will be hamstrung; the US will have demonstrated that it is all bark and no bite.

 

Theodore Roosevelt's most famous quote - "Speak softly and carry a big stick" - is apparently unknown by this administration.  There has been much talk - very often loud and emphatic - but no stick.  How many times has the administration demanded that Iran 'live up to its international obligations' with absolutely no effect?  There is no penalty for not living up to the obligations.  Back to TR, many accused him of being a warmonger but, oddly enough, the US didn't have any wars during his tenure.  In fact, he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his part in resolving the Russo-Japanese War of 1905.  The credible threat of force kept would-be aggressors quiescent.  There is no credible threat of force.  That isn't to say the administration is unwilling to use force (witness Libya or the surge in Afghanistan) but that it is hard to divine what might trigger that use of force.  By nature, people will probe to find out what they can get away with.  Assad is probing how serious Obama is, just as Iran has been pushing to see how he responds.  The results aren't good.  Word out of the administration is that any attacks on the Assad Regime will be punitive in nature and limited in time and scope.  Kind of like an international wrist slap.  That is unserious and it tells our opponents that we are unserious.

 

I am not in favor of a strike on Syria, any more than I was in favor of a strike on Libya.  Bad foreign policy has led us to this cul-de-sac and there is no good way out.  Keep this in mind when Hillary Clinton, who steered us down this dead end road as Secretary of State, runs for President in 2016.  Our foreign policy is a shambles and she deserves a good share of the blame.

Ender's Game (book)

Some years ago, a co-worker lent me a copy of Ender's Game.  I read it and wrote a review.  Now that the movie version is coming to a theater near you, it seems an ideal time to post that here.

Ender's Game

Andrew ‘Ender’ Wiggin is a genius, just like his older siblings, Peter and Valentine. Ender is an outcast because he is a third child, something that is generally illegal thanks to population controls. Ender lives in a future Earth where humanity is threatened by the Buggers, an alien race of insect-like creatures that might well have wiped out humanity but for Mazer Rackham. Humanity has built the fleet for a counterattack, has the weapons to fight, but lacks a battle commander to direct them against an overwhelming force. Ender will be that commander if only his training can be completed in time. His training begins when he is six and the epic battles come when he is twelve. The epilogue proceeds until he is into his twenties.

The book is quite readable and very engaging. The characters are good and easy to like. The setting is well made. I was surprised to find a book written in 1985 having such things as the internet (the Nets) and tablet computers (simply called desks). I was disappointed by the Buggers. We never actually saw a Bugger, getting only a vague description of them. The idea that a hive mind was some Earth-shaking news was dorky. If Orson Scott Card was the first to write a story with a hive mind, maybe, but the hive mind/insect alien was decades old by the time this book was written. People of the future should be less surprised by this development than a modern day fiction reader (that would be me).

Though enjoyable, the book is preposterous. Humanity is resting all its hopes on a 12 year-old boy; there is no contingency plan if this should fail. It is explained to the reader that should Ender fail, humanity will probably be wiped out (as it turns out, that was an incorrect conclusion on the part of the generally incompetent adults). As the enemy is light years away, the ships launched to attack them decades ago and only now are they arriving at the Bugger worlds. Thanks to a physics-ignoring radio (instant communication regardless of distance) those ships can receive commands from Earth in real time. So, with decades to prepare, humanity cuts it down to the wire and pins its fate on Ender and his classmates. Sounds reasonable.

Why did the fight become genocide? Sure, destroying the Bugger home world was a serious blow but if all the colony worlds had queens too, shouldn’t the Buggers still exist? Ender didn’t destroy any of those worlds so, unless the queens were on the destroyed ships (which would be stupid), those worlds should have intact populations though no fleet to protect them. When Ender arrives on one, it hasn’t been bombed – buildings still standing for human settlers. The Buggers saw the end coming and, rather than send a fleet with a queen to inhabit some new world and hide from humanity, they built a replica of Ender’s game world and left the seed of their rebirth in the hopes that their destroyer might plant it. Uh huh. Yeah, that’s how I would deal with imminent extinction.

No one understood tactics and strategy until Ender arrived at battle school. It has been 80 years since Mazer Rackham defeated the Bugger invasion fleet (therefore zero-G combat has been around at least that long) and yet Ender develops a combat style that is unprecedented and no other student is capable of emulating it so that Ender doesn’t completely destroy them in battles. Never does Ender learn something in a lecture (if there are lectures at this school) and then apply it in the ‘Game.’ No, everything is new and from the mind of Ender. Napoleon was lucky he never had to face this prodigy on the battlefields of Europe. As described, Ender probably would have wiped out Napoleon’s Grand Army while only suffering 5 casualties.

Okay, one supra ultra mega genius kid is maybe okay. However, it turns out that his brother and sister are just as smart though they were rejected the post of Savior of Humanity on account of their emotional attributes. While Ender is busy learning – no, developing how – to defeat the Buggers, his brother and sister are busy influencing world opinion through internet commentary. How did such dull-witted parents produce this trio of incomparable brilliance? There was no talk of genetic manipulation or selective breeding. No, they are just supremely smart for no apparent reason.

For 120 pages, the story is told entirely from Ender’s perspective, except for a very brief dialogue at the beginning of each chapter where the adults in charge of his training comment on his progress or difficulties. Then, quite unexpectedly, we switch to his siblings. Peter has decided he wants to rule the world and convinces Val to join him in the endeavor by writing opinions. These two are SO brilliant that they quickly rise to rock star status (and not just some random rock star, we’re talking an Elvis) as commentators and being invited to join think tanks and presidential panels. And they achieve this level of success while remaining anonymous. See, no one else thought to say these things. As a constant reader of opinion columns, I can tell you that it’s an echo chamber out there with dozens of writers saying more or less the same thing though with this twist or that nuance. The idea of someone being SO unique as to coalesce a movement through anonymous writing is beyond belief. I suspect he was modeling this on the Federalist Papers written by Publius (who was by turns Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison). However, that was in an era where the written word was the only form of news. Even today, most people get news from radio or TV.

This is a book for tweens and teens. In many ways, it felt like I was reading a Charlie Brown comic since adults are virtual non-entities. We quickly learn that Ender’s parents are dim bulbs compared to their children. At one point, Val (age 11) is telling Peter (age 13) that they were just kids and can’t change the world but Peter showed her otherwise by launching himself on the world scene to become Hegemon of Earth. The moral is that young people can make a difference, maybe save humanity, maybe rule the world.

Again, I liked the book but by the end it was just too preposterous. Card tells his tale well but it is along the lines of Flight of the Navigator, ET, Goonies, or The Last Starfighter, only more so and by a factor of 1000. This is a book that Steven Spielberg might have turned into a movie in the 1980s: Children save the day and adults are generally clueless.

We'll have to see how the movie compares.  Doubtless a review will appear here at some point.

Elysium

The movie is one long, screeching attack on America.  Max (Matt Damon) is a former car thief who is now working at a robot manufacturing center.  He manages to get a lethal dose of radiation and has only 5 days to live.  Well, he has had this life long dream of getting to Elysium (read America), an Eden-like space station where all the rich people live and greedily keep the good healthcare for themselves.  Max knows Spider, a coyote-like criminal (he smuggles non-citizens onto Elysium) who could get him there so he can be cured.  Earlier in the movie, we saw the shuttles launched from the slums of Los Angeles, one of which landed on Elysium.  Spider has a hair-brained scheme to steal billions from an industrialist, who is evil-incarnate (see, he's a capitalist and rich, so he must be really evil and bad and icky).  Protecting Elysium from illegal immigrants is Delacourt (Jodie Foster), who runs Homeland Security.  Really?  Not Elysium Security?  No, it's Homeland Security, just in case you missed the hammer blows of a political message so far.

The setting, though well done, can't possibly exist.  Spider has a seemingly endless supply of shuttles that can fly into space but lives in a slum.  You know, those things can't be cheap.  He has an impressive computer array with pristine monitors in the middle of a rundown slum.  You know, that isn't cheap either.  He couldn't spend a bit on some paint, maybe some nicer furniture.  One of his lieutenants does brain surgery on Max and also goes on the mission as a gunman.  If this thug can do brain surgery, how is there such a healthcare problem?  At one point, several shuttles are headed toward Elysium, filled with illegal immigrants.  The ONLY method for stopping them is to destroy the shuttles.  Really?  It's either let them land or kill them all.  Wow, let's not make the choice too stark there.  Of course, our Homeland Security Leader blows them up and is disappointed one got through.  Evil-incarnate, don't you know.  Max gets onto the station and, thanks to the effects of his brain surgery, is able to reprogram the computer system ("What are you doing, Dave?") to view every single person on Earth as a citizen of Elysium.  Suddenly, all those robot soldiers/police that seemed nowhere to be found while Max was penetrating to the central computer system are bullying the snooty Elysium citizens and providing free healthcare to the people back on Earth.

The message that is pounded again and again is that the United States should have open borders that offer immediate citizenship and free, universal healthcare.  Oh, and capitalism is bad and mean and yucky.

Going on a tangent, Matt Damon is a resident of "Elysium" who - though crying from the rooftops that public schools are the best and should be supported with more tax dollars - is sending his kids to private school.  His actions seem to be in opposition to his words.

Is it Better to Lie or Tell the Truth?

There have been comparisons of late between Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton on account of the handling of sex scandals and the actions of their respective wives.  How is it that Bill Clinton had real affairs and is now a beloved (by Democrats) former president while Weiner swapped dirty pictures online and is provoking disgust from those same Democrats?  Weiner kept doing it after he got caught but so did Clinton.  Hillary stood by her husband - Tammy Wynette-like - and Huma has done the same for Weiner.  Why should voters who want stand-by-your-philanderer Hillary as their next presidential nominee at the same time have a problem with stand-by-your-pornographer Huma?  Isn't sex something just between the married couple?  I seem to recall it was not really lying if you lied about sex.

There are two points.  One, Bill Clinton has charisma while Weiner doesn't.  Two, Bill Clinton never admitted it while Weiner did.  This is interesting because Weiner, after repeated and ever more embarrassing denials finally told the truth.  To this day, Bill Clinton has not changed his story about not having sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.  Everyone knows it's a lie but as long as he denied the truth, partisans could defend him and claim the Republicans or Ken Star or a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy were on a witch hunt.  Once Weiner came clean, he could not be defended.

Politically, Bill Clinton did the right thing.  He lied and stonewalled until everyone got tired of the story.  It is an interesting lesson.  Lying saved Clinton while telling the truth is likely to sink Weiner.  Of course, there was photographic evidence against Weiner, so he could not realistically take Clinton's route to success.

The Political Tower of Babel

I was listening to EconTalk and the guest was Arnold Kling (PhD Economics).  Kling has recently written a book - more of a long essay since it is only 53 pages - titled The Three Languages of Politics.  He posits that Progressives/Liberals view the world as Oppressed vs. Oppressor, the Civil Rights movement being a classic example.  Conservatives see the world from a Civilization vs. Barbarism perspective, the War on Terror being a prime example.  Lastly, Libertarians look at the world based on Freedom vs. Coercion; government is coercion and should thus be used sparingly.

This three axis idea is surprisingly enlightening.  I've often found myself at odds with Conservatives on what seemed obvious questions.  I look at the Drug War as a needless exercise of government force whereas Conservatives look at drug use as a failure of civilization.  Liberals often look at the Drug War as oppressive against minorities.  What about immigration?  I am of two minds on the subject though Libertarian orthodoxy would argue against government using force to keep people within certain boundaries.  Conservatives look at uncontrolled immigration and see a forthcoming collapse of civilization - note how often tales of violent illegal immigrants are told.  Liberals see rich whites trying to keep poor people of color in squalor.  I've heard the arguments from each perspective hundreds of times and usually rejected those that didn't address Freedom vs. Coercion.

Kling proposes that one should try to argue on the axis of those you wish to convince.  Thus, if a Libertarian wants to debate a Conservative on the drug laws, he should frame his argument on the Civilization/Barbarism axis.  I can see how it would be difficult to argue that drug use is civilizing rather than a decent into barbarism.

 

Here is a link to the episode of EconTalk where Kling discusses this:

 

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/kling_on_the_th.html

 

And here is the link to Kling's book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Three-Languages-Politics-ebook/dp/B00CCGF81Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375062531&sr=8-1&keywords=kling

The Roots of English

I listen to podcasts during my commute to and from work.  Mostly I was listening to Econtalk with Russ Roberts, which I highly recommend.  However, while looking for something else to get some variety, I came across the History of English podcast.  I started listening and am truly impressed with the scope and depth of the series.  It covers the Indo-European foundations, the Latin, Greek, French, and other influences, and gives a considerable amount of history of Western Civilization.  Intermixed with all this are word derivations that baffle the mind.  For example, both the English word 'black' and the Spanish word for white ('blanca') come from the same Indo-European word.  How can a word for white in one language and black in another come from the same source?  The podcast explains it.  This is one part linguistics and one part history combined into wonderful lectures on the origins of our language.  Outstanding podcast and highly recommended.

http://www.historyofenglishpodcast.com/

Battleship

Our story opens in 2006. Astronomers have discovered a ‘Goldilocks’ planet that is not too far nor too close to its sun and thus might be inhabitable by humans. The powers that be decided to send transmissions.  Meanwhile, Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) is celebrating his 26th birthday at a bar with his older brother, who is trying to convince him to join the navy.  A girl enters the bar and Alex, who is the personification of a screw-up, decides to woo her.  Thus follows an uproariously funny quest for a chicken burrito.

The story resumes in 2012. Alex is now in the navy and dating the beautiful girl, who happens to be the admiral’s daughter. The admiral (Liam Neeson) is not fond of Alex. Amidst this soap opera, five alien ships soar toward Earth. One is destroyed when it hits a satellite on reentry but the other four arrive intact in the Pacific Ocean, just south of Hawaii. Three destroyers are sent to investigate. Of course, Alex is on one of the destroyers.

The aliens prove tentative in their actions and prove willing to not destroy a vessel that doesn’t engage them. Their weapon of choice is a large peg-like explosive that tumbles through the air and then drills into a vessel before exploding; it looks suspiciously like the pegs in the Battleship game. Also of note, radar doesn’t work so all shots against the enemy must be ‘guesses.’ This proves particularly familiar when the destroyer fires at buoy markers on a grid. Nice touch.

It soon becomes clear that the aliens are trying to secure the very system that sent the signals to the ‘goldilocks’ planet, presumably to request reinforcements. Can our heroes prevent more alien vessels from arriving?

 

There are some annoying features. For some reason, Lt. Hopper and Petty Officer Raikes (Rihanna) are assigned to every task. The two take a small boat to investigate the alien platform, later they are stalking the halls of the destroyer with M-16s in search of an intruder, and Alex examines a dead alien. Later, he is involved in moving ordinance through the ship. There are personnel for each of these jobs. Granted, the director wants his stars to get a lot of screen time and Alex and Raikes staying at their posts would seriously limit their action potential.

The aliens are pretty inscrutable. They had the firepower to blast a ship out of the water with little trouble but wouldn’t engage (mostly) until fired upon. If this is an invasion force, why not attack from orbit? It is learned that the alien communications ship was destroyed by hitting the satellite, parts of it crashing into Hong Kong. Why couldn’t these guys steer around the satellite? The movie ends with the potential for a sequel in which the alien thinking might be explained. Or maybe not.

The movie is amazingly entertaining and far exceeded my expectations. It is funny, action-packed, and engaging. It is great popcorn fun. I’m surprised it didn’t become a blockbuster.