SC Rep. Nikki Haley On Transparency, Spending

Prior to today, I'd heard good things about SC State Representative Nikki Haley, but haven't really had a chance to hear her talk or learn anything about her first-hand; having now done that, I must say, I'm deeply impressed.

Unlike seemingly the vast majority of "Republicans" in the SC State House, Rep. Haley isn't part of the Good ol' Boy network, nor is she the average Democrat turned RINO, willing to spend my great State into financial catastrophe. In fact, she's probably the greatest advocate that true fiscal conservatives have right now in all of Columbia. She's also just managed to piss off the establishment and score a huge victory for voters with her recent, and ongoing, crusade for much-needed transparency in our State Government.

Anyways, I've posted a video below of her talking about some of the issues (as well as some fundamental conservative principles) at a sort of 'Meet your State Rep' event she recently did. It's kind of long, but if you want to understand some of the fundamental problems with South Carolina State government, and how to start fixing them, or if you just want to listen to a damn good speech about why transparency, real spending restraint, and public interest/participation are important when it comes to government, take the time to listen.



Well said, ma'am - and keep fighting for South Carolina voters, even those of us who aren't in your district!

Done In By Google Earth?

I don't smoke, and I'm not totally sold on the need to end the War on Drugs, but this, nonetheless, kindda scares me.

Don't get me wrong, Google Earth is awesome (as well as addictive and time consuming); but the idea of law enforcement being able to use it to search people's private property seems, to me, at least, a really....bad precedent. I mean, theoretically, if the police want to come search my house, they need a warrant, and to get a warrant they need probable cause - meaning, of course, that, in order to search my property the old-fashioned way, the police would have to follow a certain procedure that still gives me, as a citizen, some degree of Rights protection.

However, to use Google Earth you just need internet access and basic computer skills - not a warrant. Consequently, the police could, theoretically, search my property without obtaining any kind of probable cause first. Of course, if they tried to use that evidence in court, they might find themselves in violation of the 4th Amendment. (Although they'd probably need a pretty decent lawyer to make such a case.)

In any case, the whole concept is way too Big Brother-ish for me.

I know Google has had some issues with Privacy Law in the past, and I realize that this happened in Switzerland and not the United States; but still, I tend to think that this kind of police work should be illegal. Afterall, telling the Judge "We saw it on Google Earth" really doesn't sound like a probable cause that respects people's Rights.

The Party Of 'No'

Newsflash: Republicans on Capitol Hill may have finally rediscovered their balls and brains.

Maybe.

After spending the last week talking about how they need to come together and vote for this $825 billion stimulus package, if only for the sake of being bipartisan and showing support for our new Jesus President, the House GOP leadership may have begun to realize that, even if the Lord Messiah himself commands votes of 'yea,' a shitload of pork and other politically motivated spending projects won't actually rescue the U.S economy from recession. Moreover, they seem to have realized that, in addition to being a massive pile of crap, the bill can, in fact, be opposed in the form of a 'nay' vote.

And it's about freakin' time too, huh? The National Debt is over $10 Trillion, the largest programs in the Federal government (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) are in the process of going broke, the federal budget hasn't been balanced in years, and finally the House Republicans seem to have figured out that we can't continue to spend money like teenage girls in a shopping mall because - surprise - we don't have any. President Obama can't deficit spend his way into economic stability any more than President Bush could; and if he wants to pilot the ship towards the abyss the Republicans should at least have sense enough to jump overboard before it gets there.

Oddly enough, the Democrats are trying to warn Republicans away from voting 'nay' because then they will risk becoming "the Party of 'No,'" over the next few years. Of course, in making this threat, the Democrats seem to have forgotten that the Republicans' biggest problem over the last few years, one which the Dems themselves have criticized us for, was, essentially, becoming the Party of 'yes.' For years, Republicans in Congress became a rubber-stamp for any spending bill that President Bush sent their way, on everything from No Child Left Behind to the prescription drug bill. Furthermore, in doing so, Congressional Republicans lost sight of what brought them to power in the 80's and 90's in the first place: fiscal responsibility.

Moreover, being staunch supporters of fiscal responsibility in conjunction with the tax cuts Republicans so love, directly translates into the need to also be the Party of Small Government. For better or worse (I think for better), being the Party of small government - which is what the Republicans are supposed to be - means saying 'no' and saying it often. It means believing in things like balanced budgets, accountability, and responsible, restrained government spending; all of which even the most powerful SONAR couldn't locate in this craptastic "stimulus" bill. That's why Republicans need to take a principled stand and vote against it.

Finally, over the next four years, if Republicans want to effectively oppose President Obama's liberal agenda, they really do need to become the 'Party of No.' They need to oppose his policies - not the man, the way Democrats did with George W. Bush - and articulately explain to the American people why, from a principled perspective, they simply are not down with atrocious bills like this stimulus. And who knows, by saying 'no' to most of the big government projects and a New Deal-like spending agenda, they just might rediscover what it means to be the Party of Ronald Reagan.

Dubya, Still My President

With my post-election politics fatigue finally having worn off, and with the period of exams, holidays and back-to-school craziness finally over, it's back to blogging about politics just in time to say goodbye, here in its final 12 hours, to the 8-year presidency of George W. Bush. It hasn't always been the smoothest of rides these past 8 years, and it remains to be seen what history's final judgment on them will be, but, it seems appropriate to at least reflect on what an old-school conservative's view on them might be.

There certainly have been some serious counts on which I have disagreed with this President. Immigration jumps immediately to mind. The Prescription Drug Bill (the largest spending bill in Federal history) and his lack of fiscal discipline also do.

Moreover, he has recently been, unfairly, blamed for the recent economic collapse, which has its roots in a housing crisis that has been building, quite literally, since the Carter Administration; and while he has certainly played some part in it, I believe that where history will truly haunt him is on his response to it. His absurd belief that he could "save" the free market by betraying his free market principles has made the economic policy of his last 6 months virtually indistinguishable from that of the liberal President-elect, and has done absolutely nothing to help end the economic downfall. Big government doesn't solve problems, it only perpetuates them, and I think that President Bush's all-to-frequent forgetting of this fact has done more damage to his Presidency than anything else.

On the more positive front, one would be hard pressed to find a President, including the Old Gipper himself, who was a greater friend, both in word and in deed, to the pro-life movement than the 43rd. His outstanding judicial appointees have certainly played a large role in securing that legacy, but, from a conservative point of view, this is certainly an issue for which he, personally, deserves a good deal of praise. Furthermore, as Israeli President Shimon Peres himself hinted at in a farewell phone call with Bush earlier today, there has probably never been an American President who has been a greater friend of Israel than George W. Bush - and in my book, that scores high marks.

There are other issues, of course, which I could hash out in trying to evaluate the 8 years of President George W. Bush; but continued discussion of such points will, ultimately, be of little relevance to his final legacy. This is because the final verdict issued by history on the success or failure of the 43 President of the United States will be intricately linked to the wars he started in Afghanistan and Iraq - although I suppose that, in his heart, that is exactly the way he would want it to be.

President Bush's beliefs on the power of Democracy and Freedom to improve peoples' lives and bring peace have made him, perhaps, the most openly idealistic President since Woodrow Wilson - far to much so for my tastes on many an occasion - but these beliefs have led him to begin the arduous process of creating stable democratic governments in two countries whose relative political histories are the antithesis of such ideals. It certainly remains to be seen whether these experiments - for that is what they are - will work in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I suppose even I, myself, am only cautiously optimistic about their potential success; but if 20 or so years from now Iraq and Afghanistan are stable, relatively democratic countries, history will be kinder to G.W. Bush than his recent approval ratings have been. On the other hand, if Iraq falls back into chaos (or if Afghanistan remains there), then history's ultimate verdict will most certainly be failure.

I have a firm belief that it is inappropriate to judge the worth or value of a war before it is over, so I will put this aspect of Bush's legacy to rest by simply noting that, while I, personally, agreed with the decisions to begin both wars, the jury is most definitely still out on both counts.

One part of the Bush Presidency that, on a somewhat personal level, I will always value was his re-election campaign. That's because, during those long months on the campaign trail, Dubya, while a very imperfect practitioner of them, stood up for me and my values. When there was talk of things like 'culture wars' and 'fly over country,' W stood up and said that, while many in the media might have sneered at them, those conservative values and ideals were his values and ideals, and that they were worth fighting for. He has never been, as I just mentioned, anywhere near a perfect practitioner of these values, but he wasn't ashamed of them (as John McCain sometimes seemed to be), and in fighting for them he fought for me - and I will always appreciate that.

However, more than anything, these last few years, George W. Bush has kept me safe, and for that I thank him. I know that, in the past, I have spared no opportunity to make fun of things like airport security; but the fact remains that since September 11, 2001 there have been no Islamic terror attacks on American soil. There's been a good deal of luck involved in that, as I suppose there always is, but a good deal of skill too, thanks in no small part to the tireless efforts of the good folks who work at places like the CIA and the FBI. But if, as me and many others have stated in the past, the blame for the mistakes of the past 8 years is to be laid at the feet of Dubya, then some of the credit for the successes also lies with him - afterall, he was "The Decider."

With the politics now out of the way, I'll conclude this little retrospective by noting, perhaps to my own personal surprise, that while I haven't always agreed with him on politics, I have come out of these last 8 years with an immense respect for George W. Bush as a man and as a leader. Does this mean I think he'll go down as a great President? No. But the Reagans and Churchills of this world come around all to infrequently, so I can hardly fault him for that.

And so, adieu, Mr. President - and enjoy Texas.

Learning To Multitask

So, with the election now some two weeks in the rear-view mirror, we've all had time to listen to the various pundits, politicians, and activists running around on TV screaming about the coming era of doom for the GOP. Apparently, the apocalypse has already happened - only it came in the form of a political party losing an election, and there was no mark of the beast. Indeed, if you've gotten so tired of hearing, 'The sky is falling! The sky is falling!' that you momentarily thought that you were either experiencing Deja Vu or a glitch in the Matrix and being flashed back a few years to when Al Gore first came out with An Inconvenient Truth, well, you can be forgiven.

Yes, we lost the election - badly.

No, it's not the end of the world as we know it (cue R.E.M...)

Strangely, some people on the right have been so badly shaken by a mere five point swing in the electorate that they have gone so far as to wonder whether the United States is even a centre-right country anymore! Don't worry, it is. But even if it wasn't, that wouldn't be the end of times; afterall, the GOP is the Party of free markets, so if the market for political ideology has changed, the GOP will adapt to meet the demand. Markets always have a funny way of working things like that out.

And the electoral crisis was not as bad as some people seem to think it was. The youth vote was not any higher than it has historically been (it only flipped Indiana and North Carolina for Obama), and even its complete absence would not have affected the ultimate outcome of the election. The turnout was not any higher than it was in 2004, when the GOP was the big winner; and the margin of defeat, given the political climate, was not at all as devastating as the media would have you believe.

More absurd - nay, most absurd - is this idea that the GOP lost the election because it has become something along the lines of 'too Christian;' with the suggestion being that the GOP needs to get rid of its Evangelical, social conservatives before it can move on to bigger and better things. Well, pardon me, but this sounds like a suggestion that we're supposed to extend our life span by cutting off our own head. The only reason the GOP had any semblance of power to lose in this election in the first place is because of the Evangelical movement. It's no coincidence, folks, that both Reagan and the Evangelical movement rose to prominence in the 1980s - the two were intimately connected. Social conservatives make up the most reliable, and possibly largest, voting block the GOP has, and putting them out to pasture would be nothing more than a sure-fire route to an even smaller minority.

Nevertheless, the GOP's problems can be traced, in some ways, to the Evangelical movement - although not necessarily through any fault of theirs. You see, for the last several years, in part thanks to President Bush - although I think he's become more a scapegoat than anything else - the GOP has become maniacally single-minded. Either we were talking about and fighting for the War in Iraq, and only Iraq, or we were talking about gay marriage and only gay marriage. In other words, the GOP has spent recent years focusing mainly on a few issues, at the great expense of others.

Thanks to President Bush's self-designation as a 'compassionate' conservative, the primary focus of the last 8 years has been social issues, and the results have been superb. Two excellent Judges, the partial-birth abortion ban, as well as several other, smaller steps towards the overturn of Roe v. Wade. And ditto on gay marriage; heck, even in this election, a gay marriage ban passed in California. The GOP has devoted great efforts to these issues and, largely, won the battles. This fact is particularly true for Iraq as, thanks to Republicans in the Senate and the President, the retreat was never sounded with the result being an emerging victory.

There is no great shame, as some in the GOP seem to think, in having succeeded, ironically enough, to the very point that those issues became irrelevant to voters in the '08 elections.

Of course, in working so hard on these issues, the GOP managed to neglect, uh, well, most everything else; particularly fiscal conservatism. And while I'm on the subject, let me echo the sentiments of P.J O'Rourke in advising the collective Party that fiscal responsibility is not just cutting taxes - any old fool can do that. It's a combination of cutting taxes, reducing spending, eliminating waste, decreasing corruption and balancing budgets.

And on those counts, just 1/5 ain't o.k.

The same could be said of healthcare, Social security, and a whole host of other issues which the Republican Party has basically forgotten about in recent years.

So what's it all mean? Well, the Republican Party has a multitasking problem. That's right, for all our supposed business acumen, we Republicans seem to have forgotten how to do something as basic as managing all the items on our own daily planners. You can't govern on just one or two important issues; indeed, single-issue parties have a history of becoming, well, history. Consequently, this is what Republicans must change between now and November 2010 (to say nothing of November 2012). They must learn to deal with all of the issues that voters are concerned about. And yes, you annoying-ass, beltway-bred, cocktail Republicans that includes continuing to stand up for socially conservative values on behalf of us crazy-ass-backwards Southerners (who, by the way, excluding the apostates in North Carolina and Virginia, are the only people you can really count on right now...).

So there you have it, my quick GOP-recovery plan. It doesn't involve performing CPR, or some kind of Buddhist retreat, just a little bit of common sense. Learn to multitask, and show the American people that you can simultaneously govern like adults and care about all of their various issues.

And one last thing - stop blaming Sarah Palin. She was the best damn thing that happened to this ticket. How some of these idiots keep going around talking about how the GOP has to totally change its image while simultaneously cursing our use of a female, from Alaska (who actually balanced her budget...), with a track record of battling corruption and getting things done as the VP candidate is beyond me. I mean, seriously, do these people not realize what the exact problems with the GOP, that they're complaining about, are? All of the things that we need changed in Washington are the exact things she's managed to do as Governor in Alaska. Open your eyes people!

Hell, come to think of it, maybe, before trying to bring back the Grand Old Party, we ought to boot out the idiots first.

Whose Money Is It?

The money phrase from the Congressman is right up front:



Hear that? It's not your money - its Congress'. And they're going to do what they damn well please with it.

Incidentally, the Congressman claiming that the bailout money is the copyrighted property of Congress caucuses with the, ahem, Republican Party.

And these people wonder why they keep getting smashed in elections....

Post-Mortem

Well, let's be honest, we all kind of knew that this could turn out to be a really....bad day - and so it has. First off, congrats Barack, you won and have now probably inspired a whole new generation of African-Americans (among others) to actually give a damn about politics and their country. That's no small feat.

Second off, the good news (what little of it there is): Namely, that Democratic gains in both the House and the Senate were not as severe as forecasted. The minimum number of House seats the GOP was supposed to lose was 24; at this point it looks like we'll lose either 19 or 20. Not good, for sure, but not catastrophic either.

In the Senate, the Democrats are going to fail to get their 60 seat supermajority. We already have 40 seats, with four results still pending. In Georgia, assuming he stays above 50% when the last 1% of precincts report in, Saxby Chambliss will retain his seat. Norm Coleman has already eked out a narrow victory in Minnesota, but law requires it go to a recount before being made official due to the razor-thin margin. In Oregon, Gordon Smith, surprisingly, has a chance to hold onto his seat, for (as I write this) 76% of the vote is in and he is virtually tied with his Democratic opponent at 47%. And finally, in what has to be the most interesting result of the evening, it appears GOP Senator Ted Stevens, he of the 7 felony convictions, will win his re-election bid. In all likelihood the Senate will kick him out when it reconvenes, and then Gov. Palin will pick a replacement to serve for 2 months until a special election is held. With the right pick (Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell!!), this seat should stay in the GOP column.

Nevertheless folks, start battening down the hatches - for the countdown to Jimmy Carter Deux is on!

On a more personal note, let me now thank Senator McCain and Governor Palin for their campaign; as it was an honor and a pleasure to volunteer on their behalf, even if it was, ultimately, a losing effort. Theirs was probably the most uphill campaign any Presidential candidate has ever had to run - and that includes when Gerald Ford ran with Nixon's resignation hanging around his neck. As I said back before the South Carolina GOP primary, there was no Republican candidate who could have done better, win or lose, in this election than John McCain. If McCain couldn't win this election, no Republican could have. The fact that he ever even had a chance is a testament to the man and his determination. It hasn't always been the best-run or most effective of campaigns; but, in my mind, it will forever be associated with the masterstroke of Sarah Palin.

Don't forget her, folks. As Ahnuld would say, she'll be back; and I really believe that she will one day be my President. And Governor, whenever you do decide to run again, you've got my (S.C Primary) vote - and, rest assured, I'll be ready and willing to work my ass off for you.

But now let's get back to good ol' Johnny Mac. As you may know, I haven't always agreed with the man, on both style and substance, but I have come to respect him immensely over the last few months. As I watched him giving his concession speech last night, and listened to him talk for one last time about his country, I realized something; and that's simply that they just don't make many Men like that anymore - and it's a damn shame.

His has been a life of hard knocks, one of ups and downs, and yet one with the kind of rugged character that we have come to expect from those in his generation. Above all, however, his has been a life about self-sacrifice for greater and more important causes.

Country First. I hope one day I understand that as well as he does.

His Name Is Ahhnuld....

...and he is here to pump you up:



If you want any more reason to shut off the TV and ignore the media, read this post by a former Hillary (now, McCain) supporter on how the Obama campaign is able to use the media to its advantage. Bottom line, go out and vote.

P.S. Just across the wires (as they say), the daily Zogby Poll: McCain 48 - Obama 47

On Healthcare in '08

So far in this election, John McCain has not been particularly good at deflecting the Obama campaign's attacks and, in some cases, outright lies about his proposed policies, to the detriment of McCain's campaign. Perhaps the single best example of this phenomenon is the issue of healthcare; on which Obama, who has what amounts to Socialized Medicine as his plan, has somehow managed to gain the upper ground. So, in the interest of clearing the air, lets take a new look at these 2 Candidates Healthcare proposals.

First up is Senator McCain, whose healthcare plan, despite what Senator Obama may say, is actually an excellent plan that will help to reduce the cost of healthcare both to you and the government that your tax dollars finance. However, given that I am somewhat lazy, and also rather busy these days, I will, in the interest of time, direct you to an excellent article which effectively analyzes McCain's plan: here's the link. Also, if you want to do some more reading, you should certainly check out the McCain/Palin (emphasis on the Palin) website, where they dig in and disprove all of the various smears that the Obama camp has directed towards their plan (link here).

However, lazy and time-pressed though I may be, I do want to go through a few crucial aspects of the Obama healthcare plan myself; if only because, for some strange reason, I sadly neglected to mock the Obamarama plan for healthcare catastrophe during the Democratic primaries, paying attention only to the Hillary and Edwards versions. So let's get to it.

In the very first bullet point of his helathcare plan (straight from the campagin website), Obama states his intention to mandate that insurance companies give "all Americans, regardless of their health status or history [] comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums." Lovely. Who doesn't want to help out sick people, right? Unfortunately, what this idea reveals is that, apparently, Obama does't understand what, exactly, health insurance, well, is.

Allow me to explain: Health Insurance consists of an insurance company, essentially, making a bet with you that you won't get sick. Thus, the more likely you are to get sick, the higher your health insurance will likely be. This is not because the insurance companies are mean, evil bastards, but rather because the likelihood of a sickly person getting sick (and thus the insurance company losing the bet and having to shell out dough for hospital bills) is fairly high. Consequently, mandating, as Obama wishes to do, that insurance companies must make what will, essentially, amount to sure-loss bets, will only drive up the cost of everyone else's health insurance, since the insurers will be looking for ways to cover the losses they are almost certain to incur on these high-risk patients.

The second scary part of the Obama healthcare plan comes from his desire to "[require] large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care." In other words, more government mandates on private companies. This time, however, he wants to force companies to offer their employees a type of benefit.

Think about that for a second; he's going to force people to give their employees benefits. Never mind that benefits are not a necessary part of any job, but rather one of many things that employers can offer, if they so choose, to entice people to work for them. In other words, as I've said time and again here, if an employee wants benefits, like healthcare, he should become employed by a company that offers them - not have the government step in an mandate such a thing. Moreover, this aspect of the Obama plan assumes that the choice of the employees themselves on the matter of their own health insurance is irrelevant. After all, what if the employee doesn't want to get his health insurance through his employer, since he or she changes jobs often, and would rather have a larger paycheck with which to purchase a private insurance policy? Or, better yet, what if an employee of one of these large companies doesn't want health insurance at all? I suppose the answer to such queries, in terms of the Obama plan, is something akin to that of the aforementioned John Edwards healthcare plan: "you don't get that choice."

In any case, the final major area of concern in the health care plan of our Lord, The Messiah, Barack Obama the Holy One, is the area where his roots and true colors as a believer in socialized medicine shine through. It is the creation of what he dubs "a National Health Insurance Exchange." In this proposal, after making all the appropriate political nods to private insurance, the Obama plan includes the creation of "a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage." In other words, while he's driving up the cost of private insurance and employment-based coverage with all these government mandates, he's going to be offering you a really, really cheap program that the government will pay for.

Perhaps, you see where this is going, huh?

Basically, since the government can keep its health insurance prices artificially low (thanks to the Treasury backing they will receive), people are going to naturally drift towards the government-run healthcare since it's going to be the cheapest option around. It is, admittedly, a rather well-laid trap; but still, it is one which ultimately will lead to more and more people relying on the government dole for their health insurance - but hey, no worries, Obama's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts and refuse to cut any of your other taxes, so there should hopefully be enough money for it, right? So hey, when Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security all go broke, at least you'll still have your French-style healthcare around!

What it all adds up to is this: the Obama healthcare plan is nothing more than a massive government interference in the private market, and one which will cost our flat-out-broke government to incur large and increasing additional costs every year. Furthermore, it is also one which will hand the government an increasing degree of control over your healthcare.

I know Obama is too slick to ever use the term himself, but that sounds an awful lot like Socialized Medicine to me.

Of course, on the other hand, you have John McCain's healthcare plan; which will place an emphasis on giving you, as an individual (independent, even, of your employer), a greater degree of choice, not cost the government increasingly large sums of money, and potentially help to reduce the long-term costs of both Medicare and Medicaid. The choice shouldn't be that hard.

So vote for 'Medical Capitalism.' Vote McCain/Palin.

Vote For Your Self-Esteem

Recently, I was talking with a friend of mine about the Presidential race, among other political topics; and during this conversation I finally realized what the true essence of the Barack Obama Presidential campaign is, and why it's so inherently offensive to me. In the past, both on this site and off, I have relished the all-too-frequent opportunity to chastise America's Airport Security policies post-9/11. After terrorists took advantage of our airports and airlines to successfully execute the worst terrorist attack in American History, our response was to make people feel safer without making them, in any real way, actually safer. Instead of doing security checks into people with suspect backgrounds or questionable behaviors, we take away your toothpaste and make sure the name on your ID (which surely couldn't be faked....) matches the one on your ticket. In other words, if ever a moron tries to execute a terror attack on the United States of America - we will catch his dumbass!!

But I digress.

Besides, as noted above, I'm not here to bitch about how, as a general rule, over 60% of the test runs conducted by the FBI manage to successfully smuggle various illegal items past the TSA; no, I want to talk about the great Lord Messiah Obamarama. You see, I realized that I so viscerally dislike his campaign because it is, essentially, operating along the exact same lines as all of those faux security measures we enacted after 9/11. In other words, the great godsend of Hope n' Change is, like its airport security counterpart, designed, not with an eye towards common sense or logical policy, but with the acknowledged goal of making you feel better about yourself (and, in the case of Obama, politics). The analogy further holds when we consider that, in both cases, the long-term effects are most definitely bad for your country.

I mean, just look at his major campaign slogans; 'Hope' and 'Change'. Both of them promote the idea that Obama is a good candidate primarily because his Presidency will, well, make you happier and more proud of yourself. Basically, he wants you to vote for him because it will improve your self-esteem.

Awesome. That means that, with a President Barack Obama, we're going to get the chance to take the biggest educational problem of the last thirty years, the emphasis on children's self-esteem over their actual academic progress, and see if it can fail catastrophically as a governing strategy too!

Damn. I'm just.... so. frickin. excited.

Alas, folks, that's exactly what the Obama campaign has become to people across this country, a means of emotional expression that they have never quite had before. It's a campaign where the young and idealistic can encounter someone as naive and idealistic about the real world as their own sheltered selves. It's where the ageing hippies of the 60s can finally see a candidate who seems to believe that peace, love, and a few trips on LSD can change the world for the better. It's where....well, you get the idea

This is not to say that Obama doesn't have policy proposals; its just that, unfortunately, such things take a distant backseat to the emotional crap we mentioned above when it comes to the Obama campaign. Indeed, if you need more proof, just ask an Obama supporter why you should vote for him; you'll probably get an answer along the lines of how Obama is going to usher in a new era of 'Post-racial' politics, or 'Post-partisanship,' or 'a renewed faith in ourselves,' or, above all, a 'New Era of Politics.'

Now, even if we are to put aside for a moment the fact that there is nothing at all in Obama's record that would indicate to us that he is capable of such things, and assume that all of these things should be the ultimate goal of the next President of the United States; one is compelled to point out that, while sounding nice, such things are nearly impossible to translate into genuine strategies of governance - which is what Obama would have to do should he, in fact, become President.

But hey, who am I kidding? All of those things sound good, right? And I'll bet they make you feel good too, huh?

Gingrich Compares Media To Pravda

Newt goes Hydrogen-Bomb level nuclear on the News Media:



That, folks, is about 500 layers of pure awesomeness (Pravda!!!) - not to mention honesty. Indeed, aside from FOX News, every single one of the major media outlets and newspapers has been so blatantly biased towards Senator Obama that it goes beyond simple dishonesty and shame. As Newt points out, these people want Obama to win so badly that they are willing to go to any length to try and make that happen.

To quote Mark Twain:

"Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your honor. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse."

Vote McCain/Palin.

The Wonderful World of Barack Obama Supporters

You may or may not care for Howard Stern, but this is just brilliant - and sad, I suppose.

And no worries, there's (surprisingly) no vulgarity:



Ain't Identity Politics grand!

What's really sad is that they didn't ask these idiots about some complex aspect of Barack Obama's healthcare or tax plan; they asked them about something as f-ing obvious as his running mate or his support for the Iraq War. Say what you will about redneck bible-thumpers, but at least they're able to recognize whether their candidate is pro-life or pro-choice...

On Socialized Medicine

***The following is an article I wrote for a publication here at school. I thought I'd put it up here too, particularly since it deals with one of this blog's favorite topics. However, be forewarned, I ripped off a few lines from myself, so you might recognize one or two of the sentences.***

One of the most important, consistently discussed issues in American election-year politics over the past several years would, in my view, have to be that of Health Care. Furthermore, insofar as this particular issue is concerned, an increasing number of Americans seem to favor the introduction of some kind of “Universal Health Care” program. However, in my estimation, such a program is nothing more than a thinly-veiled offering of socialized medicine, and thus, like its counterparts in Europe, Canada and other ‘western’ nations, an inherently bad idea. Certainly supporters of “Universal Healthcare” want to differentiate their programs from socialized medicine – for they remember the catastrophic downfall of Hillary Care’s 1990’s inauguration – but let’s be honest, any system which requires hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and contains mandates for either employers, insurance companies, hospitals, Doctors, or regular folks is a socialized system. As, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one organization in the country which can grant such sums of money, without so much as a thought, and easily gain the compliance of the various actors mentioned in “universal healthcare” proposals.

No bonus points if you guess what it is.

Yet, putting the labeling deception of its proponents aside for a second, let’s turn to something that even the supporters of universal healthcare admit: these plans will cost money. No one is entirely sure where all of the money will come from, but they just assume it will be found. Never mind the fact that even the current government-run, but much less inclusive, Medicare and Medicaid programs are over budget and running out of funding. Never mind the fact that raising taxes on the rich or eliminating Earmarks would account for only a small increase in revenue; or that the government is already running a multi-trillion dollar deficit – we’ll figure it out.

However, as we sit on the eve of a massive $700 Billion bailout, we have to be, if we want to be sensible and realistic about our generation’s financial future, looking for ways to significantly decrease the amount of money that our government spends. Saying we can add this or that expenditure and still make things work out is about as reasonable as Napoleon’s decision to invade Russia. Nevertheless, as problematic as the financial burdens of this system may be, they are, in my view, the least worrisome of the three major issues that a socialized medical system brings to the table.

One of the major faults of a socialized medical system was perhaps best illustrated by Rudy Giuliani’s quip during the primary debates that Canadians would have nowhere to go for treatment if Americans were to socialize healthcare. While many perhaps saw this as an allusion to the waiting lines that often develop in places like Canada, it is more enlightening when thought of in terms of healthcare quality. Europeans and Canadians, despite the “free” nature of their own systems, often do come to the United States; because, simply put, the American healthcare system and its Doctors are more likely to cure them than their own socialized systems. Indeed, across the board in terms of things like cardiovascular disease and cancer, the United States healthcare system has consistently higher cure rates than its more socialized (or should I say more ‘Universal’) counterparts. And this is despite the fact that, due to skyrocketing obesity rates, Americans are, comparably, more likely to get these diseases in the first place.

In my mind, this has and always should be the goal of a healthcare system: to cure the highest possible percentage of the sick. Worrying about paying for an expensive cancer treatment certainly is a big issue, but receiving free treatment for cancer, in which the quality is so low that it won’t keep you alive, is a bigger issue. Thus, as any good capitalist will understand, they key to improving the American system will lie in our ability to reduce government interference in the Doctor-Patient interaction and to increase the competitiveness of the market. This combination will increase the quality of the services provided by Healthcare professionals and decrease the cost. Afterall, the highest quality healthcare in the world at a reasonable cost is a much more laudable goal than 100% coverage and inferior quality care.

However, leaving aside cost and quality for a moment, there is one other major, philosophical, problem with socialized medicine. Any “universal” system is also, as proponents will happily tell you, all-encompassing. It makes sure that the things you need are both done and provided for you. A fact which ultimately makes it another in a long line of ill-conceived, nanny-state programs that result in the removal a populace from its own sense of personal responsibility and the often times harsh realities of life (and its finances). When this estrangement between the individual and responsibility occurs, people no longer become accountable to the consequences of making a bad choice. Furthermore, by deferring such accountability and, indeed, personal choices to the government, you also defer an aspect of your freedom to the government. This is because the kind of freedom espoused and celebrated by our Founding Fathers becomes quaintly irrelevant if it comes without responsibility and consequences – as the concepts are inextricably linked.

This fact is why ‘Universal Healthcare,’ in addition to its terrific costs and inferior quality, is an unconscionable solution to the flaws in American Healthcare. For any system that's ‘all-encompassing’ is simultaneously all-controlling; and when crucial aspects of your life have government controls on them, you don't have near as much freedom.

Doing Stalin Proud

Well, it seems more or less official at this point, the Federal Government of the United States has decided to dip into the treasury fund your tax dollars and offer up $1 Trillion to help bail out all of these companies that have been floundering over the last few weeks. That's right, $1 Trillion - the same amount we've spent over the last 5 years fighting the War in Iraq - all in just a few weeks.

I know, not what you voted for either, huh?

Well, I was going to write a little blurb on why I don't like this massive bailout plan, but then I came across this audio of Judge Andrew Napolitano, of FOX News, ranting on this very topic. So I'll just have you listen to his rant instead - it's brilliant:



Indeed. However, before I go, let me just put in one quick word of my own. It should be noted that part of the reason all of these companies have been failing in the first place is because of the idiotic policy of what amounts to corporate welfare. In recent years, big American companies have gotten used to government bailouts - whenever they go just a little bit to far, the government is there to help them out, and make sure they don't totally collapse - what we're seeing this week is new only in the sheer scale on which it's being done. The problem is that by continually bailing out companies, big or small, the government creates a welfare net that these companies can (and have) come to rely on.

As a result, these companies have become fairly certain that, if they screw up, the government will be there to offer a helping hand. Consequently, they can continue to take bigger and bigger risks, risks that they probably wouldn't take if they had to operate entirely on their own, which result in them getting into massive financial messes like the ones taking center stage this week.

It is, if you will, Corporate America's replica of the catastrophe of the European welfare state.

Just as increasing social services to the point of absurdity (a.k.a Europe) causes one to lose a sense of responsibility about one's own life, this kind of corporate bailout program causes companies to forget what it's like to have to be responsible for one's own decisions and to have to deal with the consequences of poor ones. Bailing out people who make stupid choices, be it the crack addict on welfare or AIG, is not a solid foundation for economic prosperity; it is socialism, pure and simple.

In fact, come to think of it, AIG et. al. are a lot more like that welfare crack addict than you might think - the only difference is that AIG's drugs are legal.

McCain Gets It Right On Malpractice

I was just watching a video over on CBS's website of a townhall that McCain and Palin did yesterday, and as I was listening I began to think; "you know, if I was at one of these things, I'd love to be able to ask McCain his opinion on Medical Malpractice Reform." Well, almost as soon as the thought had passed through my head, lo and behold, a young Doc from Grand Rapids steps up and asks Senator McCain that very question.

Here's the link, the question comes almost right at 13 minutes into the clip, so feel free to skip on ahead to it.

McCain, thankfully, understands that "absolutely, absolutely, we need to have medical malpractice reform" in the United States. He also rightly noted that this malpractice reform has "got to be part of any reform of helathcare in America." Indeed, he went on to call it "one of the most compelling issues" that we face. Amen. It's so nice to finally hear a politician say that, in order to truly reform our bloated, expensive, and expanding healthcare programs, we have got to focus on preventing Trial Lawyers from suing the very Doctors which that helathcare system relies on, out of business!

With Palin on the ticket, I'm already very much 'on-board,' so to speak, but if I needed any extra assurances, this good answer should do it. Indeed, one can only imagine what the Lord Messiah Obamarama, who once worked for a big Chicago law firm, thinks of possibly limiting the amount of frivolous lawsuits his trial lawyer buddies, such as the now-disowned John Edwards, could file against one of their favorite targets.