Some have said that we are witnessing a Second American Revolution, but this misses the mark. A better word would be “reformation” because what we really want is for the federal government to be reformed to the original intent of the Constitution. The problem is all knotted in Washington DC, with the federal government. The intent of federalism is to divide power and and functions between multiple levels of government. What we have been seeing for the past hundred years has been the concentration of power in Washington DC and the gradual erosion of federalism. If we are reforming the federal government then we would necessarily mean reestablishing federalism. We need a Federalist Reformation.

What we are seeing, however, is not a Federalist Reformation. Rather, we are seeing the political landscape becoming very conductive to a Federalist Reformation. We are all against higher taxes and government intrusion. Those are very general notions and so long as those are the ideas then what we can expect to happen is very simple. A Republican revolution that sees taxes cut and assorted changes are made, but the underlying problem will not have been addressed.

Read More →

Having your family bankrupted is no joke and raising a family under constant attack isn’t cupcakes and ice-cream. Sarah may be a governor and a rising GOP star, but first and foremost she’s a parent. Taking a few years off to raise the family and letting the kids grow up somewhat normally sounds like the decision a good person makes.

I think she should have finished out her first term, lame duck or no. It does however, give Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell a time to be Governor and have a better shot at retaining the office in 2010. 

This does not mean that she’s out of politics, but I think it does mean no 2012 and no 2016 either. I wouldn’t want to have to defend her in those years if she ran for president. She’s young, only 45, if she plans at some point to run for president then she has time to finish raising her children before getting to it. There’s 2020, 2024, and 2028. Some are suggesting she’s just done with elected politics. And thats fine too. 

Regardless Sarah Palin will still be around being Sarah Palin. She’ll continue to be a leader and that’s good enough.

Given an infinite amount of time to fail all good things will come to an end. Our republic is a good thing and we are loosing it. The question naturally becomes one of “when”, not “if”, but we can reverse course and ensure that we needn’t loose our Republic just yet. We can so fortify our Republic that it can last much longer then it’s present course suggests. We can push back the gradual abandonment of those principles that guided our nation through all the slings, arrows, and obstacles we have faced these past two and a half centuries. 

Read More →

The Taliban is within 60 miles of Islamabad. A coup is becoming more and more of a possibility, but we have only bad options, as has been the case for so many years. The government in Pakistan is unreliable. We have been trying to convince Pakistan to take the Taliban seriously for the past seven years but it refuses to do so. We’ve been providing aid and support to a tune of nearly $10 billion dollars over the course of the last eight years and have nothing to show for it. We can’t push too hard on them or we may worsen the situation. The ISI is sympathetic or in league with the Taliban. And has probably compromised all efforts of the Pakistani to date and any they may do in the future. Russia and China would be all too glad for Pakistan to have a coup or civil war as that will complicate America’s efforts in Afghanistan and thus reduce America’s influence in the region. The onus is on the Pakistani Government to take the Taliban seriously and crush them, however, by the time they do it will likely be too late. 

So within the year we may see a coup. Pakistan’s nukes will be loose and the blood could very easily spill over into Afghanistan and India. There’s not much we can do to prevent it. Such a situation is much to our detriment, but there’s one factor that I haven’t heard discussed yet.  

What will India do in the event of a coup?

This is an interesting question and I wish I knew more about India and it’s internal dynamics. As concerned as we may be about loose Pakistani nukes India is undoubtedly more concerned. India’s military would be remiss if it did not have plans on the shelf for a preemptive strike on known or suspected nuclear sites, stockpiles, etc. Whether they strike first or wait and see if a nuke goes off in their county is anyone’s guess. 

But however it happens, if India winds up in a war with a Taliban controlled Pakistan there are certain priorities they should have. For peace of mind about the security of their people they would want to neutralize pakistani nuclear stockpiles and ability to replenish them. Air strikes alone may or may not achieve everything they would hope for. It would be very difficult for them, but to be absolutely certain they would need to commit ground troops. India would also want to catch as many of Pakistan’s nuclear scientists as possible because their knowledge is just as dangerous in the long run. Looking at a possible Balkanization of Pakistan it would be in India’s interests to downgrade the Pakistani military capability to the point where it would take any Pakistani government decades to build it back up again. They may also take Kashmir while they’re at it.

What should the United State’s position be in such a scenario?

It is current US policy to maintain the peace between India and Pakistan, but if the Taliban effect a coup then what interest do we really have in continuing to maintain a strained neutrality between them? What reason, also, would the US have to prevent a natural ally from attending to legitimate security concerns? What reason would we have to prevent them from settling the Kashmir question on their terms? In acting on their own security interests they would also be acting in our security interests. Simply put, we do not have the manpower necessary to do what would need to be done in Pakistan. India does. If India were to take all of Kashmir then we would have an allied nation bordering Afghanistan who could thereby give our military undisputed air and land access to the country. 

If all that were to occur then our interests and influence in region outside of Pakistan would potentially not be much changed. Also, the reason our armed forces have not been more forceful in cross border operations is because of the fear of destabilizing the existing Pakistani government. A Taliban coup would eliminate this concern.

I don’t like the idea of Indian military action in Pakistan. As much as it might work out well, it might also work out badly. It depends on who gets to the nukes first. Otherwise India should prevail given it’s 12 million strong army compared to Pakistan’s 4 million, but you never know. If only the Pakistani government had dealt with the Taliban years ago this wouldn’t be an issue. But they didn’t and now we are faced with the reality that Pakistan could destabilize, nukes would be loose, our sphere of influence in the region would be diminished, and all our efforts in Afghanistan would be jeopardized. 

If a coup were to occur we should let India know that we’ll not tie their hands and that we would support any action they feel is necessary for their own security with regards to Pakistan. It would be really messy, but I think that would be the best of all bad options in the event of a Taliban coup.

[edited first paragraph: $10 billion spent over the past eight years, not the last year.]

A natural ecosystem is wonderfully robust and can weather all sorts of natural disasters, even a lot of man-made pollution. What it has difficulty dealing with is with chemical dumps and the like. Living things cannot think about how they grow or what antibodies they produce or how they will try to repair themselves. They just do. So even then the ecosystem continues to limp along and deal with the sludge as best it can. Our economy is quite similar. It is a robust system of many millions of interactions. If a business fails then new ones take it’s place. The economy does not reward the sick and dying companies. They are sick and dying. A forest has no use for a dead tree except as fertilizer for new ones. When a dead tree falls in the rain forest there is opportunity for numerous other trees to rapidly fill the void. These trees then provide homes for birds, insects, and assorted other life that live in and around trees. They do this much better then dead trees or dying companies.

There is this tendency to view the economy as a machine and this is a mistake. A machine might have a bad engine. We can replace the engine with a new one and the machine is as good as new. But we cannot put the economy up on blocks and change out parts while it’s at a stand still. Further, we can’t start it up again as good as new. The economy was never ‘new’. Our economy began as seedlings hundreds of years ago. As our nation has grown so too has our economy grown and today it is a vibrant forest. We cannot “regulate” a forest, nor can we “fix” it. We can tend and nurture it.

If there is a dry spell the answer is not to take water from the trees, but that is precisely what the progressive solution calls for. Businesses natural tendency, like trees, is to grow, but if they cannot afford to grow they won’t. Just as is impossible for a tree to grow if you restrict it’s water supply, it is impossible to tax businesses into creating more jobs. Even the communists understand that.

I was busy with Thanksgiving plans for about five days and was surprised to see that so much reasonable conversation had happened in the meantime on my previous two posts. There are definitely areas of agreement. I would like to thank those who suggested that I take a closer look at medical information on the subject of fetal viability and public opinion of the second trimester. I confess that I had an incorrect impression of where public opinion lies on the second trimester, and thought I was in the minority there. Taking that information into account made the solution come closer to where I was hoping it would go. I’m going to try this one more time. With this information in mind, it will hopefully be a bit more clear.

Read More →

This is a response to many of the comments that I have received to my Pro-Rights post.

It’s been interesting being treated as if I was a Pro-Choice happy baby killer, but in reality, I am not. I want to see a more rightward solution to the abortion issue.

Do you care more about the argument or the goals? Most of the people who have commented on my entry have issues with it because it’s not a Pro-Life argument and ignore the fact that it would actually advance Pro-Life goals. I assumed that the Pro-Life advocates were interested in achieving the goal of pushing back abortion however they can. If, however, it turns out that the Pro-Life advocates are happier to argue your argument – rather than actually achieving goals – then I am spinning my wheels here. But if you are actually interested in achieving the goals you argue for so passionately then consider the state of the abortion debate.

Read More →

Edited to add: I’ve recieved many responses to this post, most of which are variations upon a single theme. Rather then try to address each comment individually I’m responding to those here.

Abortion has weighed on this country for 35 years, not only because it is a very emotional issue, but also because abortion touches on so many other issues as well. It is not just about Female Reproductive Rights, the Rights of the Unborn, the Right to Privacy, etc. It is also about Male Reproductive Rights, Parental Rights, Rule of Law, and Personal Responsibility. I do not believe there is a solution that could possibly please all the people all of the time, but I do believe there is an abortion position that does the least amount of violence to all of these rights and principles. Here I present a grand unifying theory on the power of abortion, reproductive rights, and parental rights that does just that. I call it the Pro-Rights abortion position.

Read More →

I came across this webpage that collects electoral information on every presidential election in our nation’s history on one page. Complete with maps. That’s pretty handy for comparing information. Here’s some quick back of the envelope observations:

Read More →

Quick thought.

A variation on the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Once there was a boy who ran for office. At the first breath of criticism the boy cried “Racism!” against his neighbor and all the villagers stoned the offender. The next day another neighbor criticized the boy and the boy again cried “Racism!” and again the villagers stoned the offender. Soon the boy cried “Racism!” as matter of habit at anything that looked at him funny. And pretty soon half the villagers, a quarter of their cattle, two-thirds of their goats, three houses, two trees, and an a pond had all been stoned to death. The remaining villagers had worn out their arms throwing stones at the offenders when the boy cried “Racism!” yet again. This time the offender was a thrown stone the boy had stubbed his foot on. The villagers looked very wearily at the boy. Most of them had forgotten what the word ‘racism’ meant anymore. Mostly they were all tired of always having to throw stones at the behest of the boy. The villagers then stoned the Boy Who Cried Racism and got on with their lives.

What do you think? Do we have a new fable?

Before the debate I was wondering, “Will McCain Fight?” and lo and behold he did. But while I was glad to finally see McCain knock Obama around like a red-headed stepchild, McCain could have made each attack more devastating. This is the difference of between a respectable 7 or 8 and a full 10.

Read More →

One of the points the McCain Campaign has is that McCain is the only guy on the ticket who has ever actually fought for us. That’s nice, but what we really need is for him to fight now. This 3rd presidential debate is perhaps his last chance to change this election.

Here’s what I think McCain needs to do to really fight for us in this last presidential debate:

Read More →

There is anger in this country about the rising tide of Socialism. This anger exists for no slight or whimsical reason. Socialism by any other name will still destroy a country and oppress it’s people.

America was complacent in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union, but it was never enough just to defeat Communism. That is just one bird. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Progressivism: these are all birds of a feather. They all flow from the same totalitarian impulse. It isn’t enough to defeat any one of them, it is necessary to defeat all of them. We should not be afraid to call them for what they are. We have a phrase coined by H.G. Wells in 1932 and unearthed by Jonah Goldberg to call the American varient of these philosophies that threatens our country today: Liberal Fascism.

If we wish to keep our Republic then we should use it.

Read More →

It is important, in our ongoing debate about what to do about global warming, to appreciate how widespread the problem really is. There is global warming occurring on Mars, on Neptune, on Pluto, on Triton, and other as well.

It would be marvelous to discover out that we are causing those planets to heat up as well. It would mean that we have the means with which to transport large amounts of our pollution to all these bodies at the same time. Such technology would significantly enable mining and colonization efforts within our solar system. But that is not what is happening.

What is happening is the sun is heating up. Increasingly scientists are saying that solar output drives climate change. There are sunspot cycles that we have known about for quite a while now and they account for the warming our planet has undergone in the past couple of decades. We cannot do anything to counteract the behavior of the sun and it is hubris to think that man can have more affect upon the temperature of the Earth then the sun.

Keep this in mind the next time the presidential candidates say they can do something about climate change.

Pardon me if I adopt some ‘moral equivalency of war’ language here. America has been involved with the Community Reinvestment Act, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae for some decades. In 1995 we stepped up from the ‘military advisors’ stage to the ‘boots on the ground’ stage by giving the CRA teeth. Thirteen years after that America is still deeply involved and by all measures this excursion into social engineering is a quagmire. Were this an actual war we would be have been hearing every day for the past 13 years what a fool’s errand this is.

That collective adventure into social engineering has now been proven to most Americans to be terribly unwise and it would behoove us to adopt an exit strategy from the CRA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. We have a bailout that is supposed to level things out in the near future. Fine. After leveling out we should withdraw.

This is the very same argument the left has been pushing in regards to legitimate security concerns for years now. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Republicans should campaign against the CRA, against Fannie Mae, and against Freddie Mac. The public will likely never be more convinced that these are failed institutions then they are right now. This sentiment is shared on both sides of the political spectrum. Even as there is the taint of the bailout surrounding everyone who voted for the bailout, Republicans could get ahead of it by campaigning against these institutions. There is opportunity to rally the base, appeal to independents and Reagan democrats, and otherwise out flank the democrats on the financial crisis in this way.

The US government should not be involved in the housing industry. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t understand there to be any constitutional justification for these institutions. This is the way for conservatives to turn lemons into lemonade.

After all, how could the democrats argue that this crisis is not a quagmire? How could they argue against an exit strategy from said engagement? Oh I know they would, but I have the distinct feeling that those arguments would ring hollow in the ears of most Americans.

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden offered a much better debate then what we got between McCain and Obama. Both of them were much more articulate then the top of their tickets. Both of them had less meandering answers. Both of them were respectful to each other. The moderator seemed more like to call Palin on being over time. That was irritating. Biden was able to get in the last word too many times.

This is the first time I’d seen Biden talk at length. I am impressed with how he continued bounce back. When he was lying, and even when Sarah had just called him on something, Biden back came back sounding confident. The man has presence. I wouldn’t be nearly as afraid of this election if he were at the top of his ticket. Still nothing to be desired, but a Biden presidency is more palatable then an Obama presidency.

Sarah has two faces: the hockey mom face where she’s smiling and the serious face. I don’t mind a bit of the hockey mom, but it’s the serious face that establishes credibility. I fear she used too much hockey mom. On the one hand it makes her more relatable, and on the other hand she risks not coming off as serious.

Palin really nailed Biden more then a few times. Zingers abounded. I cheered every time she threw his contradictions with Obama back at him. And, like McCain, she got the only laugh of the night. She was rougher on foreign policy, but she did well considering how short of a time she’s had to bone up. Thankfully she brought up the fact that Obama has voted with his party 96% of the time. I think the actual figure is 98%, but it a figure that’s higher then the 90% the Obama campaign has been playing.

After Biden described something as a “Bridge to Nowhere” Palin should have said something to the effect of: “It’s interesting that you deride something as a Bridge to Nowhere. You have a record of voting for Bridges to Nowhere. I had to kill a Bridge to Nowhere that both you and Obama voted for…twice.” He went to her territory and she should have taken advantage of the opportunity to creamed him on it.

Palin did make a great sound bite about how the government needs to learn to do without. Solid gold.

There were a number of answers that she could have done better on. She should have brought up the sun as affecting our planets temperature. She should have come out against the bad government regulation – the bad social engineering that got us to this crisis.

She should have brought states and courts into the gay marriage question. “The only states where gay marriage is legal they had to used activist judges to do so. If some states of the union wish to have gay marriages amended to their constitutions then that is their prerogative, but every state that has brought amendment to the table has voted otherwise. Whenever the people have voted in a state they have voted against and I’m with the majority of Americans on this issue.” Something like that would have fielded better.

There was the question about how a McCain/Palin administration would change policies in light of the financial crisis. She could have made the point that they are already for lower taxes, less spending, less government, and that all the crisis does is make all of those moire urgent.

Mccain/Palin need to make the point that their healthcare plan would decouple Healthcare from jobs. That’s a point that needs pounding. A lot of people are afraid of switching jobs because they would loose their healthcare benefits. She did get in the point of allowing competition between states on insurance. It’s a common sense market approach that everybody can see the virtue of.

A lot of people are going to say their candidate won. I’m not sure. I think they tied on substance and Biden beat her out a little on presence. Not that she a slouch, just that he debates for fun. My girlfriend is less forgiving and says where Biden was 100%, Palin was 80%. She also noted that Palin needed to stop saying ‘maverick’. I think she has a point. More generally, I think that after a point every time she starts talking about John McCain it begins to sound like she’s returning to a safe harbor. She doesn’t stay there, after a regrouping for a few sentences she’s back out there, but still it can seem that way if she returns too it too often.

It is more historic for Palin to be the VP then for Obama to be President and after these two debates it’s become clear to me why. She is competent, whereas he is where he is because of the soft bigotry of low expectations. She’s a step forward and he’s a step backward because she did it on her own and he reaffirms a negative. There was an interesting moment in the debate where Biden is describing how he’d fit into an Obama presidency and he basically said that he’d hold Obama’s hand. Obama sounds very much like a young punk out of his depth, and the evidence and his own VP nominee carries that notion.

I have a fair amount of criticism for Palin, but I think she did real good. She’s no light weight. She certainly did what she needed to do. She was knowledgable, likable, presidential. She’s a smart cookie.

I would have loved to have seen a Palin/Obama debate. She did very well in this debate, and if she performed against Obama like she did against Biden then she’d have seen his feather and raised him a ton of bricks. Won’t happen, but I can dream.

And I would love for a second VP debate. This was far more watchable then the presidential debate.

McCain could be pounding home that Obama is farther to the left then the socialist in the Senate. He could be pounding about energy, energy, energy, and more energy. He could be pounding Obama and Biden for voting for the Bridge to Nowhere…twice! He could be pounding home that government regulation brought us to this point. He could be pounding about the legislation he introduced to rein in Fanny and Freddie, but was killed in committee. He could be pounding home his healthcare tax break which would help serve to decouple healthcare from the jobs that provide it. He could be pounding about all the radical leftist associations and mentorships that Obama has had. He could be pounding about the relationship between Obama and Fanny and Freddie.

But he’s not doing any of this, and it shows. The McCain campaign has somehow managed to squander the Palin wave, sinking in the polls to where he was before he announced Palin as his runningmate.

He needs to pound home that Obama is a out of touch liberal elitist. He needs to pound home that Obama has a No Energy policy and contrast that with an All Energy policy. He needs to couple that he was right that Fannie and Freddie needed reform with his foresight that Iraq needed the Surge. He needs to pound home that he would decouple healthcare from jobs with his healthcare tax break. Not all of these issues are important to everyone, but used in conjunction with one another they will appeal to most everyone.

He needs to play to win. He needs to use every weapon at his disposal. And I don’t think he is.

Three things John McCain should have said in the presidential debate:

1: “You keep talking about the past 8 years, but you’re not running against Bush, you’re running against me**.”

2: “What do you think “without preconditions” means?”

3: “You talk about meeting with the leaders of rogue countries without preconditions, but you said you’d talk to me any time, any where. I said fine, let’s do ten town hall meetings and then you hedged. How do you expect to talk to the leaders of rogue countries when you’re afraid to talk to me?”

Read More →