Maggie's Farm

President Obama is trying to, once again, stir up resentment of “big business.” Obama does not mention that “big unions” and other Democrat-loving lobbies are larger spenders in political campaigns, largely unfettered now while corporations are under McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions.  Obama is trying to politick his way out of his many political defeats, protect his liberal base, and is doing so by pursuing his consistent opposition to free speech.  His transparency is evident, and boomeranging.

In the 2008 campaign, as Michael Barone wrote, “attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals.”  President Obama is consistent in continuing this shameful pursuit.

Once elected, President Obama issued an order barring officials from talking with lobbyists about the spending of “stimulus” funds.  The ACLU was critical:

The rule is intended to prevent stimulus funds from being “distributed on the basis of factors other than the merits of proposed projects or in response to improper influence or pressure,” according to the memo.

While applauding that goal, Michael Macleod-Ball, chief legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and himself a lobbyist, questioned the means, saying, “The question is whether this restriction, as it’s drafted, is the best way to achieve that end with the narrowest amount of limitation on an individual’s rights possible. “From our perspective, the pretty clear answer is ‘no, it’s not.’”

The “megascandal”  is not widely reported, however, that “stimulus” funds have been steered to Democrat congressional districts, and on no other basis such as socio-economic need.

President Obama appointed Cass Sunstein to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, with influence thoughout the Executive branch and regulatory agencies.  Sunstein favors “using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings,” to stifle criticisms of politicians.

The return of David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, to the Obama White House is telling of President Obama’s choice to pursue deceitful politicking instead of support free speech.

Not a new economic team. Not a new chief of staff. Not even a new national security staff to replace the gang that dropped the ball on the Christmas Day bomber. No, with the Obami, it is never about substance or getting the policy right. It’s not about governance. It is about the perpetual campaign. So the campaign manager gets the emergency call.

Plouffe is coupled with "campaign law expert and partisan warrior” Bob Bauer, who worked for Plouffe in the 2008 election, appointed in November as White House Legal Counsel.

Bauer is a supporter of campaign finance laws. He argued against the Citizens United challenge to them before the US Supreme Court.

The government contends the current campaign finance rules are constitutional. The Democratic National Committee is backing the government's position. In a brief co-filed by attorney Bob Bauer, who was later named White House counsel, the DNC argued that if the court swept away corporate spending restrictions, for-profit companies could overwhelm the power of individual small-dollar donors.

It also would leave political parties, which can't raise unlimited sums, at a disadvantage in responding to a barrage of corporate political ads attacking their candidates or supporting their opponents, and there "would be a heightened risk of corruption," the Democrats argue.

Plouffe is an architect of Obama’s misleading campaign verbiage.  Together, they are behind President Obama’s denunciation of last week’s US Supreme Court decision to overturn some of the excess restrictions on political spending in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign law and following Federal Election Commission regulations and rulings.

President Obama pronouncement:

"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest," Obama said. "The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of the elections."

The Associated Press reported, “Yet the president is among those who see it as blowing open the doors to big-business influence over democracy. He predicted that anyone who runs for election and tries to take on powerful special interests will now be more likely to be "under assault come election time."

President Obama’s rhetoric ignores that currently his allies, like unions, are both favored by McCain-Feingold and the largest contributors to campaigns. Open Secrets lists the organizations that are Major Donors between 1989-2010.  Of the top 100, far more lean Democrat, including 8 of the top 10.  So far, in the 2010 election cycle, 60% of Political Action Committee contributions are to Democrats. In addition, Independent Expenditures between 1989-2010 on political campaigns by organizations, ostensibly uncoordinated with a political party, lists by far the largest coming from unions.

The sheer audacity of liberal groups is evident at the ACLU, which argued in support of the case brought in Citizens United but is now considering reversing itself. “ ‘The worst thing you could do – the absolutely worst thing you could do – is transform a civil liberties organization into a liberal political organization,’ Mr. Abrams, one of the most famous First Amendment lawyers in the country, told the board.” That hasn’t stopped the ACLU before.

The Supreme Court decision will not unleash major corporation contributions to political campaigns.  Most are pressed during the current economy.  Most want to avoid contentious public issues, so as not to harm their “brand.”  Most important, most large ones contribute to Democrats and Republicans, shifting their weight with which is in power.  Most, especially the large ones, are most interested in feeding at the public trough than in being partisan.  Unions, however, find their bread buttered only with Democrats.

Another missed outcome of the Supreme Court decision is that tax-favored Non-Profit corporations, most heavily Democrat and liberal, are enthusiastic at being able to spend on political campaigns. “The ruling could make it easier for advocacy groups to speak out, says Abby Levine, deputy director of advocacy programs at Alliance for Justice, an association of environmental, civil rights, mental health, and other advocacy groups.”

Critics of McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on free speech, however, weighed in with more reasoned Constitutional sense.  For example:

If you look at it from the overall view of the role of the First Amendment, this is a decision that gets back to basics and back to first principles.  The first principle of the First Amendment that nearly everyone agrees on is that its purpose is to protect political speech and enhance democracy, because the more speech you have, the better democracy you have.

It's a great decision to strike down a system of prior restraints.  The Court said that the combination of these incredibly complex rules and regulations about when you can speak about politics and when you can't and who can speak about politics and who can't, combined with the Federal Election Commission-a government agency that basically has to approve your political speech-together that operates as a de fact system of prior restraint. As we know, a system of prior restrains is the reason the Framers wrote the First Amendment.

I previously wrote about The McCain-Feingold Ghoul.

Even today's New York Times' analysis recognizes: "Legal scholars and social scientists say the evidence is meager, at best, that the post-Watergate campaign finance system has accomplished the broad goals its supporters asserted."  Now that it's proven by experience, that only leaves partisan BS for Obama et. al.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is more attuned to popular political winds than President Obama, and her speaking out on Internet freedom is welcome across the political spectrum. Nonetheless, there are other forces at play. Her motives aren’t pure, not startling in a politician, but bear examination.

Her recent speech favoring Internet freedom, in the wake of Google’s resistance to Chinese Internet repression and hacking, is in stark contrast to the Obama administration’s ignoring human rights to now, including in Iran where internal regime change possibly offers a best hope for averting catastrophe. Her speech is hoped to really signal a turn.

Importantly, Sec. Clinton made it clear that the Obama Administration is ready to commit significant resources to this effort. She said that, over the next year, the State Department plans to work with others to establish a standing effort to promote technology and will invite technologists to help advance the cause through a new “innovation competition” that will promote circumvention technologies and other technologies of freedom. Sec. Clinton also challenged private companies to stand up to censorship globally and challenge foreign governments when they demand controls on the free flow of information or digital technology.

We haven’t heard any support yet directly from President Obama.  In light of her diminished bulb within his administration, is Hillary trying to brighten it and to position herself for his possible 2012 implosion?

Other forces at play include riding the positive publicity that Google received for its resistance to Chinese muzzling of the Internet, that seems more aimed at helping Google to compete elsewhere, and hacking into Western companies’ software codes, which threatens their future profits. (See my previous post.)

Another factor at play is that the Obama administration is more protectionist than prior administrations, a sop to his labor union backers. Protectionism is a recurring populist theme. But, Obama is still teetering as US multinational companies,  who have also contributed heavily to gain entre to his chambers, favor continuing free trade policies.  Still, for example in Vietnam, where Western investment is critical to regime stability, "investors have largely avoided [it] over the past year as reform momentum stalls." The Wall Street Journal notes the wider arena: “It's been said that Vietnam aims to copy China's economic development model. Trying to frighten foreign investors into line, a la Beijing and Rio Tinto [Brazil], isn't a lesson worth copying, especially for a poor country trying to join the league of middle-income nations.” Using “human rights” leverage to increase US multinationals’ access to less fettered investing may be more a pressure tactic to open markets than to open minds.  The Obama administration gains support from the unions and big business by now highlighting Internet freedom concerns.

More attention to Internet freedom, also, serves to ameliorate scathing criticism from such needed major media players as the Washington Post, which editorialized on December 31, 2009 about increased repression in China and Vietnam:

Some Vietnam analysts believe the government's crackdown is intended to set the stage for a ruling party congress scheduled for 2011. Yet surely Vietnam, like China, has taken note of the Obama administration's relaxed attitude toward supporting dissidents and its public proclamations that human rights issues must be balanced against other interests. While the U.S. Embassy in Vietnam has criticized the crackdown, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said nothing in public about the arrests when she met Vietnam's foreign minister in October. Instead she focused attention on the "tenfold" increase in bilateral trade she said had taken place since 2001.

That trade boom makes Vietnam sensitive to Western criticism of its human rights record. So the staging of trials of pro-democracy activists during the holiday season is almost certainly not a coincidence. The tactic just might be working: A State Department spokesman said Wednesday that no public statement had been made about Mr. Kim's case, because "no one asked." He then e-mailed us a statement saying "the United States is disappointed in the results of the trial" and noting that Mr. Kim's case was among those raised during a U.S.-Vietnam dialogue on human rights in November. No doubt Hanoi regards such talk as perfunctory; certainly, the Obama administration has done nothing that would suggest otherwise.

The Obama administration has demonstrated that foreign policy is secondary to its radical domestic priorities, and thus is more flexible in tamping down concerns about its fundamental fecklessness in facing up to threats abroad. Hillary Clinton’s speech is therefore an easy sop.

OK, all said aside, if the Obama administration actually follows through with more than words, energetically, that is very welcome despite ulterior motivations.  As Human Rights Watch just reported, "Rights-respecting governments should speak up to protect peaceful activists and rights defenders in Vietnam and insist that the government abide by its international commitments," Adams [Asia director] said. "Donors have been far too quiet about rights in recent years, but Vietnamese activists say that they will never succeed without consistent support from influential governments."  The same goes for elsewhere among despotic regimes.

China has rejected Hillary’s appeal to more openness, calling it “information imperialism.”  Russia, Vietnam, Iran, Arab states, Venezuela, Bolivia express similar scorn.

Will the Obama administration actually show real spine on Internet freedom, or continue on its path of hollow words.  Despots are betting on the latter.

Outdoor Life magazine, “The source for hunting and fishing adventure”, brings us celebrities who enjoy these sports.  Here’s some of my favorites. Comments are excerpted from the magazine.

“Palin can make moose chili for us anytime.”

Lorrie Morgan: “legendary country crooner cutie…[has] ‘always been good with a gun,’ she says.”  [Let’s have a shoot-out.]

Jewel: “blond, beautiful, and a talented singer and performer [roped] her husband and former rodeo cowboy Ty Murray.” [Well tie me up!]

Miranda Lambert  says “I’ve got some trophy mounts.” [I’ve got the horns!] 

Natalie Gulbis “lamented catching nothing. We bet she won’t have a problem finding a better fishing guide.” [My rod is ready.]

 Check the link above for others, men. And this link.

Avril Lavigne: “"My brother used to be like, 'You're a girl. You can't go hunting or fishing. I'd be like, 'You're stupid.' And we'd get into a huge fight." Alrighty then!” [Love to wrassle!]

Eva Longoria: “"I can skin a deer and a pig and a snake- and rabbits." If there is a more perfect woman, someone please tell us- like, now!”

OK guys, get hunting and angling if you want to be skinned.

Tiger Woods “makes frequent angling trips.”  

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says that “"every state is now in play” in November, even heavily liberal California, as the upset in bluest Massachusetts demonstrates. I think able politician  Boxer doth protest too much and is actually trying to get California Democrats revved up early, which Coakley failed to do in Massachusetts.

Boxer’s seat is, actually, safer than the “Ted Kennedy” seat proved to be.  The percentage of Independent registrations is much lower than in Massachusetts, and the percent of Democrat registrations much higher -- 44% Dem, 31% Rep, 20% Indep vs about 50% registered  Independent in Mass.

The percentage of safe Democrat voters among Hispanics is higher in California than Mass.,32% versus 6.8%.  Although Israel was not a prominent issue in the Massachusetts election, it may be in California due to the presently leading Rep primary contender, Tom Campbell, having an unfriendly attitude toward Israel, which will sway pro-Israel moderates away from him.

Boxer has already amassed a much bigger warchest than the Republican contenders, and the one Republican – Carly Fiorina -- whose personal wealth may offset that is currently less favored among Reps in early polls. Boxer now has $7-million and Fiorina has only $2.5 million mostly “loaned” from herself.  In 2004, Boxer raised about $20 million, her well thought of Rep opponent about $6 million.  Her re-election victory margin, 20%, was double Kerry’s in California. 2010 will be a much more expensive election race.

Lastly, the national media and wireservices, which are given prominence in even the more moderate San Diego and Sacramento newspapers, and certain featuring in the liberal L.A. and San Francisco newspapers which have much larger populations, will be highlighting every sign of economic rebound in 2010 and downplaying Obama national security blunders, compared to downplaying economic portents and pounding the successful Bush measures on national security when Republican incumbents seek re-election.

None of this is to say that Boxer can’t be beat.  But, it is very premature and overly optimistic to bet on it. The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial this morning paints a positive calculation.  It’ll take much more than that, tremendous focus with a terrific candidate backed by big money, none of which seems in prospect, for California next November to turn out the Senate’s most liberal and obnoxious member from California.

Some good news: Today's US Supreme Court decision striking down some limitations in campaign finance laws are predicted to help corporations to contribute more; unions already are pretty maxed out.  But, corporations are not as partisan as unions, and more leery in making contributions due to fears of being attacked in the press and by unions.

Going in to the 2010 November elections, should Congressional Republicans just be saying no to Democrats’ ObamaCare or offer their own program? 

Reluctantly, as there are some constructive remedies in the Republican approaches, no is the correct answer.  President Obama and Congressional Democrats in recklessly swinging their 2008 majority stick have blithely poked the hornets nest and are being chased by a popular uprising saying “no to Washington.”  There’s no reason to help Obama or Democrats or to damage Republican prospects.

Hard-core proponents of ObamaCare say they’re already damaged politically, and would lose more liberal support if delaying, so they might as well charge ahead, and even unilaterally ram it through. As ABC reports, however, the public has spoken, “no.”

Congressional Democrats still have a large majority and will not accept a Republican program unless large elements of the Democrats’ is included.  That would still move us down the road toward government control of individual choices, toward larger deficits and higher taxes. Most hard-core left Democrats have not and will not give up on getting their way.

Congressional Democrats and the liberal media would use a Republican alternative as an opportunity to shred Republicans as uncaring or not doing enough to meet their visions, and delusions, that there is a magic bullet that solves all real and purported problems.

Washington is still Washington, regardless of party, and lobbies would again kick into high gear to tilt to their own narrow advantage Republican proposals.  Enough Republicans, like Democrat politicians, would be swayed, and Republicans as a whole would be tarred and Republicans’ most energetic base be turned off by smarmy politics as usual in Washington.

Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Tricare, civil service employees and other government health spending already have constituencies of almost half the population.  They will fight against almost any changes, especially benefit reductions or higher out-of-pocket costs or taxes, and many Republican leaners among them would turn away from Republicans.

If Republicans do get or get near a Congressional majority in November, there will be a better chance for enacting some strictly limited improvements. But, they must be highly focused and uniformly supported, without any addition of Democrat statism.  Rather than being put forth as going for too much and all-or-nothing like the Democrats have theirs, the Republican proposals should be presented as reasonable incrementals that improve without financial excesses or intrusion into personal lives.  That doesn’t mean that improvements will be minor but, rather, reasonable, respectful of individual needs, and limit government interference in free choices.

Here’s what would work, cumulatively helping the poor, the middle-class, and the more affluent, enlarging care for all without taking away deserved care.

1. Allow individual tax-deductions for premiums. Individuals who don’t get that deduction currently would be encouraged to obtain health insurance.  The poorer would be no worse or better off.  The middle-class uninsured would be on equal terms to those receiving employer-paid benefits.

2.  Broaden IRS Section 125 to allow individuals to use pre-tax income for health care  expenses.  Eliminate the current “use-it-or-lose-it” provision so such savings can accumulate toward catastrophic needs, Part D Medicare Rx “donut-hole” expenses, professional long-term care for loss of two or more of the currently defined “activities of daily living”, or other IRS Section 213 (the Section that lists allowed professional medical treatments) retirement medical care. Section 213 would be broadened to include Over-The-Counter medications, if prescribed by a doctor or dentist.  Again, the middle-class would be benefitted who aren’t employed and provided Section 125 plans or employed and not offered employer Section 125 plans.  Current health savings accounts, HRA’s and HAS’s, would remain the same, and be immediately vested if funded.

3. Retain Medicare Advantage programs, which have higher benefits and lower co-pays  than straight Medicare, and are more widely used by the poorer, but limit those higher benefits and lower co-pays to medical, dental and vision care, dental care not currently provided.  This would allow some reduction in government subsidies.  Other ancillary non-core benefits would be eliminated, so broader need core benefits would be provided.  Medicare Advantage plans use networks with negotiated rates and some gatekeeper-usage controls, which reduces their costs and, as presently, would have to compete with each other.

4. Require full portability of individual medical insurance to other carriers at the same or lower actuarial level of benefits, reducing loss of coverage when moving to another area and increasing competitive measuring across carriers that reduces confusion.  Rather than guarantee issue incenting individuals to wait until after they’re sick or injured, driving up the premiums of the more responsible, individuals would have more incentive to at least lock-in more affordable and more catastrophic benefits.

5. Allow insurers to offer their plans nationally, to increase choices of benefit levels.  Of course, premiums in each area would reflect local costs.  This would, also, increase measurement and knowledge of local variations in costs on an apples-to-apples basis, and competitive pressures reduce higher outliers.

6. Allow all immigrants, whether legal or illegal, to enroll in private or government health plans but require full payment of full-cost premiums.  This would reduce their uninsurance among the more more responsible and those able to afford premiums.  Legal immigrants would be required to provide proof of insurance, whether private or governmental, and could not be naturalized to citizenship unless providing proof of “credible” medical insurance (“credible” as per the current HIPAA law) from the date of entry to the US.

7. Provide means-testing (includes income and all financial assets up to, say, medical expenses of 10% of their combined total) of uninsured citizens and legal immigrants who obtain professional health or dental care, possibly professional long-term care (as discussed above) in order to apply for government assistance. The government assistance would be for the cost in excess of that 10% per year that is above the same rates as the provider’s highest rates negotiated with a private insurer + 20%. Currently, “list” prices charged those uninsured may be 30-100% higher than negotiated with insurers.  This would protect the poor while incenting obtaining coverage, at least cheaper catastrophic coverage.  Those qualified uninsured would be required to enroll in the appropriate government program.

8. Require tort medical cases to be heard by specialized courts, to reduce the sway of emotions in outsize judgments.  Tort attorneys would receive fees up to 30% of pre-negotiated settlements, but 25% of trial judgments, encouraging more reasonable and less legally costly results for those who deserve recompence.

9. State Medicaid or SCHIP programs offering benefits above the federal level of benefits or enrollee income would be ineligible for any federal subsidies. Higher “welfare” states would not be able to pass their largesse on to taxpayers elsewhere, and would have to justify them to their own voters.

10. Private or government retiree health programs would be required to become fully actuarially funded within 5-years, or face loss of tax-reduction in the case of private plans or be required to reduce of benefits in the case of government plans.  This would include previously negotiated union plans.

The Democrats’ vision of the “perfect” is the enemy of the “good.”  There is little public support for the Democrats’ overexpansive, excess cost, intrusion into our very lives.  There is widespread support for the above reasonable improvements.

...you still have Barney "Porky Talky" Frank, John "How to marry rich" Kerry, and the rest of the Democrat pirates of the Potomac.

For some of the key reactions, see the running commentary at Real Clear Politics.  My personal favorite: Coakley's primary opponent, upon losing to her, told the House Democrat's Caucus, "You're screwed."  Second place: Brown carried Teddy Kennedy's home district, Hyannis.

Watch this CNN video:

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2010/01/18/dnt.cohen.haiti.patients.dying.cnn.html

...Or anyone else. Compare and contrast:

INTERNATIONAL AID TO HAITI: ARABS OPT OUT

This CBS / Associated Press report lists countries providing aid to Haiti in the wake of that country’s devastating earthquake. Conspicuous by its absence is the entire Muslim world, including the extremely rich oil producing nations.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/14/world/main6097735.shtml

However, Arab countries do not discriminate against non-Muslim countries. Their help was missing after the earthquakes in Turkey and Iran and during war and famine in Muslim Africa too.

ISRAEL’S DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE

Because of Israel’s long history of enduring bomb and missile attacks the Israeli army (the IDF) is one of the most experienced in the world in treating mass-injuries and using specially trained sniffer dogs to locate wounded persons in the rubble.

The IDF was one of the first on the scene in Haiti last week (sending considerably more troops and doctors than, for example, Britain and France did). Hundreds, if not thousands of Haitians have already been treated (and many life-saving surgeries performed) in the IDF Medical and Rescue Field Hospital, set up in a large tent on a soccer field in Port-Au-Prince. In addition, Israeli forces have located and rescued survivors trapped in ruined buildings, including many who were injured during the collapse of the UN headquarters.

A government fee is imposed on those who directly benefit from the government service, such as a fishing fee to support restocking, a fee for using a toll-road, or an extra fire insurance fee to support the local fire-fighting service in higher-risk areas near forests.  A government tax is imposed on everyone, or most, though the government service does not directly benefit the taxpayer.

Eminently sensible Robert Samuelson opines that President Obama’s tax on the financial industry benefits all taxpayers, who have had thrust on them the costs of bailing out excess risk-takers who themselves benefit in higher pay for taking higher risks.  However, Samuelson misses the fact that the tax would land on the well-run firms, acting to reduce their “reward” for acting responsibly.

More sensible, and targeted, would be a high, even confiscatory fee imposed on those in specific firms receiving a taxpayer-bailout who in the current or previous year received salary and bonuses above, say, $1 million.  That would make them think twice about reckless gambling and insufficient due diligence.  It may not raise enough to offset billions of taxpayer funds spent to stabilize markets, but it won’t stifle markets or penalize the responsible firms, and will encourage more responsibility by targeting rather than blunderbussing.

While the rest of the country has been freezing, it has been near 70F and sunny in San Diego.  But, all good things must end: it’s supposed to pour this week, possibly the most in several decades, our Chargers’ winning streak just came to an end and the NY Jets will proceed to the final four playoff for the SuperBowl slot, and worst of all my mother-in-law arrives tomorrow for 3 weeks. 

I’d burn her broom but then she couldn’t leave. Started me thinking of Ernie Doe’s 1961 hit “Mother-in-Law.”

Below the fold is another Ernie Doe fav “Here Come The Girls”.  NSFW

Many conservative commentators have been applauding Google’s newfound resistance to China’s internet controls, and hoping that the Obama administration takes heed.  Although Google’s speaking out is to be welcomed, at least for again highlighting the issue, Google and its US hi-tech compatriots, like CISCO and Yahoo, have been hip-deep in furthering domestic repression in despotic countries across the globe, including China.

In this case, the Obama administration actually has cause to blame Bush.  I wrote many columns in 2005-6 about this freedom repression complicity by US hi-tech leaders (see below the fold, at Read More, for a link list I just compiled for another researcher) with the looking-away by the Bush administration which was more interested in foreign trade than foreign freedoms.

But, there’s still more to the story.  China’s house internet provider, Baidu, has eaten Google’s lunch in China and is expanding globally.  Baidu’s stock has widely outperformed Google’s.  Google’s new verbal resistance is more a competitive move to highlight to other governments Baidu’s role in repressing free searches on its search engine, and to increase Google’s prospects in China by getting permission from China to offer more freedom of searches than Baidu.  There may be some loosening, but that skeptically remains to be seen, as China has more than one way to skin Internet freedom and will.

Google and other US companies are duplicitous in their dealings with despotic regimes, hiding their furtherance of repression behind free trade and freedom rhetoric that is hollow.

Updates: The Wall Street Journal has a useful overview of Google in China.  Congressman Chris Smith, a liberal Republican from New Jersey, has long led the fight for human rights and internet freedom, including his Global Online Freedom Act. As reported in the links below, Google like other US hi-tech companies opposed it.  Now, Google is in favor. Also, see China's cyberspace policy. 

I haven’t been enthusiastic about prior conservative free-market approaches as a solution to healthcare spending's pressure on the economy or individuals. Conservative proposals are, rather, a mitigator of overuse leading to overspending.  Through “more skin in the game,” conservative proposals cause users to think twice about how much is really necessary.

The liberal approaches, by contrast, after the application of their best minds, are now proven to go in the opposite direction from cost reduction or improved healthcare.  They lead to higher costs and just benefit a fraction of the uninsured, while vastly increasing the power of the government to impose its rationing generalizations upon individual needs – which vary --  while further insulating users from sensible involvement.

With HT to Instapundit, “The High Cost of No Price”  from the American Enterprise Institute.

Economists have shown that if a good’s price is zero or decreasing, then the demand for this good will likely increase. In 2008, consumers were only directly responsible for 11.9 percent of total national healthcare expenditures, down from 43 percent in 1965, according to new data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This means that someone other than consumers pays roughly 88 percent of all healthcare costs, giving consumers little incentive to mind costs and much incentive to over-consume.

          

Identify the perpetrators of atrocities upon children as sociopaths or whatever (see Dr. Joy Bliss' post below), and the words don't come near the horrors they commit, which are monstrous, whether during the Holocaust or today in many countries.

Here's a photo from a group of 41 children, ages 3-13, plus ten adult staff the Nazis tore from their refuge near Lyon, France on April 6, 1944. The children were sent to Auschwitz and murdered, as were the staff.

Up to 1.5-million children were murdered in the death camps, about 1.2-million of them Jews, the others Roma or handicapped.

Here's a photo of a few of the very few children who survived to liberation.

We see similar photos today of children elsewhere in the world who suffer. Remember and do more than repeat the mantra "Never Again."

More info about the once happy children in the first photo at this site.

HT: My good friend "Charlite", a righteous Gentile.

If you’ve never had freedom taken from you, it’s easier to take it for granted.  If you have, freedom becomes more precious and vital to survival and advancement. This is of much more than a matter of personal freedoms within Unfree countries.  The despots ruling them also pose major threats to other countries.

For the 4th year in a row, according to Freedom House’s invaluable annual analyses since 1972, freedom has declined in the world.  One can only hope that the Obamites are paying attention, as there is more evidence of they not giving much of a damn.

In 2009, declines for freedom were registered in 40 countries, representing 20 percent of the world’s polities…. The year also featured a drop in the number of electoral democracies from 119 to 116, the lowest figure since 1995.

Still:

By absolute historical standards, the overall state of freedom in the world has improved over the last two decades. Many more countries were in the Free category and were designated as electoral democracies in 2009 than in 1989, and the majority of countries that made major progress 20 years ago have retained those improvements….

But over the last four years, the dominant pattern has been one of growing restrictions on the fundamental freedoms of expression and association in authoritarian settings, and a failure to continue democratic progress in previously improving countries due to unchecked corruption and weaknesses in the rule of law.

Freedom House doesn’t measure promises or commentators’ perceived portents.  Freedom House sticks to what actually exists. For example, 88% of the people in the MidEast and North Africa region were in Unfree countries.  Check out this map: http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Map_MENA.pdf Note the only speck of freedom is in tiny Israel.  Wonder why the rulers of Islamic countries and their Unfree allies concentrate on eliminating Israel’s threat, by comparison alone, to their satrapies lack of freedoms or economic advancement.

There’s much more detail in the Freedom House reports.

Most commentators bemoan the decline in readers of the dead-tree editions of major newspapers.  Most explanations center on ideological bias of the local newspaper turning off readers or the availability of news on the Internet or the cutting of size of newspaper sections.

In my case, the local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, is politically centrist most of the time, so I’m not turned off or away.  It has cut the size of its sections but mostly eliminated excess, so my time with the paper is better focused.  And, yes, the Internet offers more depth and diversity, but one does have to specially search and scan many posts and sites to get the depth, diversity or local news, if one wants it, which takes up lots of time.

The local newspaper, by contrast, handily offers the highlights of national and international news, so I’m aware of them, and if interested can then decide whether to spend more time (than the too much time I already spend) on the Internet.

Most important, I can only find extensive coverage of California or of San Diego area news in the local newspaper.

And, I can do it all in 10-minutes of scanning the print newspaper.  I’d have to spend several-fold longer clicking all the links in the U-T’s online edition and another several-fold longer scanning numerous websites.

Here’s an example of how it works, to quickly connect the dots via the print edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune:

- Page 4 of today’s newspaper has an AP report of a 6.5 earthquake offshore of Eureka, in northernmost California, that onshore broke some windows.  The report is not online, because the U-T is economizing by not paying the wire services extra to put their pieces online at the newspaper’s web site. That saves funds that can be spent on enlarging local reporting.

- Page 1 headlines “Questionable firms getting stimulus cash” in San Diego (written for the newspaper by an independent investigative news service) with this telling quote:

To government watchdogs, such contracts raise concerns about the way the $787 billion stimulus program is being administered.

“It is very upsetting that the government doesn’t do more due diligence before it hands money out,” said Laura N. Chick, California’s inspector general for stimulus funds. “We’ve gotten very used to handing out taxpayer dollars and not so good at overseeing to whom are we giving them and how they are being spent.”

- Page 1 of the Regional section has a regular columnist’s headline, “Tsunami spending? Wave your money bye.”

Imperial Beach spent $47,000 in grant money. San Diego County, $30,000. San Diego City has received $1,500 and may seek another $150,000 to protect us from a terrible tsunami….

The federal government has been pushing tsunami awareness since 1995, when it formed the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, out of concern one could hit along the coasts of Oregon, Washington and Northern California because of seismic activity nearby…. [Note: not the San Diego area; nor did a severe offshore earthquake near northernmost California's Eureka cause a tsunami.]

But what are the odds? The National Safety Council puts the odds of dying in an earthquake in your lifetime at one in 153,597.Dying from a lightning strike is one in 81,701. Bee stings? That’s a mere one in 62,950.

A tsunami? It’s so rare, you can’t even put odds on it.

But we won’t need to worry. Once the feds pony up more of our money, we’ll all be TsunamiReady™.

In less than 10-minutes to scan the entire, shrunken, print edition I have an investigative report with a  top insider’s indictment of wasteful and reckless stimulus spending and two additional specific related examples of how.

Try being aware of that connect the dots online.

In addition, my 9-year old son eagerly reads each morning’s sports section, taking it along to school to discuss with his classmates during lunch.  The print edition helps to create a young person interested in knowing more than from the 5-minutes of TV sports news, and being aware of a wider range of sports topics.  Those habits will carry over into a later interest in the news.

Almost four decades after being released in March 1973 from 5-years of captivity by the North Vietnamese, Lewis Meyer was finally honored yesterday with two Purple Hearts and the Prisoner of War medal.

I’ve been honored to become friends with several former Vietnam POWs, whose modesty, humility, resilience, and continuing contributions to the US defense and to human rights is an inspiration. A local to where I live, Lewis Meyer’s story is another inspiration.  It is also another reminder of why it is so important to preserve the honor of medals earned against their devaluation by phonies. (See my post about the Defense Department and Congresswoman Susan Davis’ resistance to compiling a comprehensive list to help enforce the Stolen Valor law.)

Lewis Meyer, captured during the Tet ’68 attacks, was a POW held at the Rockpile near Hanoi, separate from most of the other American POWs in Vietnam.  Our POWs in Vietnam are themselves vigilant against phonies.  Their POWNetwork website lists a brief bio of Lewis Meyer.

But, it has taken until yesterday for Meyer to be given his deserved medals.

Photo by K.C. Alfred - Union-Tribune. Meyer wearing his dress firefighters uniform, thanking the 150 people who attended his medal ceremony.

The San Diego Union-Tribune ran the story on its front page this morning.  An Army Korea War veteran, Meyer then served in the federal fire service at military installations in the US.  In early 1968, he was sent to the Danang area as Assistant Fire Chief for I Corps to help train aircrash-suppression crews.  Several weeks later, while in the Hue area, he was captured after 3 days of fighting.  He and two other POWs escaped from the Rockpile but were recaptured several days later.  During his captivity, Meyer was tortured dozens of times.

The news article says he returned to the US “different, scarred and edgy,” and was eventually divorced. “One of his supervisors [in 1973] put in paperwork for the medals later that year, Meyer said. It got lost, bounced from the Army to the Navy and then into a who-knows-where limbo”

For ongoing adjustment issues, about four years ago, Meyer sought counseling from the Department of Veterans Affairs.  A friend since junior high school, retired Air Force colonel Dean Erwine, compiled witness lists and statements, wrote letters and made phone calls to get Meyer the medals he deserved.  “We hit a bureaucratic cement wall…First they told us he needed to be attached to a particular military unit to get the medals.  Then they said he wasn’t eligible because he was a civilian.”

Meyer’s supporters then got help from Vietnam veteran, now retired Congressman Duncan Hunter, then chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and longtime leader of support efforts for Vietnam POWs Ross Perot.  The bureaucratic barriers dropped.

The news article ends on this note:

“This is a great moment of closure to see him finally rewarded for his heroism,” said Jeff Meyer, his youngest son, who was 12 when his dad was captured. “I always knew he was a hero. Now everybody knows.”

After he received the medals, Meyer told the crowd, “I’m speechless.” But he wasn’t. He talked about how honored he felt. He talked about supporting the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And he talked about opening old wounds, and how he was OK with that — at last.

“I finally came out of my cell,” Meyer said. “I’m home.”

A widely accepted truism in marketing is that sex sells.  A recent academic study of movies finds that sex doesn’t sell.  The study’s co-author found those attached to the truism resistant to the facts:

"When I presented these results at European Science Days this summer, I was struck by how hard it is to overcome preconceptions about the box-office consequences of highly graphic sexual content," says co-author Dean Keith Simonton of the University of California, Davis. "But not all truisms are true."

It wasn’t until I noticed a small squib in this morning’s newspaper that I was aware of the research report, which CNN reported about December 29^th.  (I wasn’t distracted by watching porn or looking at the lovelies occasionally appearing here at Maggie’s Farm.  Actually, I’ve been enjoying the unfolding of my Optimist’s Prediction For 2010, as the portents darken for liberal-left activism and brighten for center-right activism.)

According to the study of  914 films released between 2001-2005, the largest sample yet studied, CNN leads with: “A recent study concluded that nudity and explicit sex scenes don’t translate to success for major motion pictures,” at US or international box offices or at the Academy Awards. A researcher at the Culture and Media Institute finds similar results for 2009:

This research also holds true for the 10 highest grossing movies of 2009. None contained graphic sex scenes and only one, "The Hangover," a raunchy comedy about a bachelor party in Vegas, featured a lot of sexual content. Others on the list, such as "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" "Star Trek" and "Avatar" contained mild sexual content while the rest contained little or no sexual content.

CNN quotes an author of the study:

"Sex did not sell, whether in the domestic or international box office, and even after controlling for MPAA rating," said Simonton, who is a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis. “In other words, even among R movies, less graphic sex is better."

What did sell? “The top-grossing films in the study included movies like "Shrek 2;" "Spider-Man;" "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" and "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," all of which contained mostly minor to mild sex and/or nudity.”

What about horny young men?

Tom Jacobs, staff writer for the research-driven consumer magazine Miller-McCune, wrote about the study and said there has long been the belief that the many young males who make up movie audiences are enthralled by female nudity.

"These researchers really put that belief to the test and crunched the numbers," Jacobs said. "What I took from the study is that a hint of sex is perhaps more enticing than out-and-out nudity."

That isn’t a surprise to those of us who love the great movies from the 1930’s to the 1950’s, where romance flourished, scenes faded away after the kiss, and viewers projected their own emotions and desires on to the screen, rather than today having to sit through another repetitive graphic humping on the screen.

At Maggie’s Farm, a few of us contributors enjoy occasionally posting a salacious photo, but the success of Maggie’s Farm is mostly owed to its cultural observations and photos.  Our chief Bird Dog keeps that at the forefront of focus.

Let’s take an informal poll: readers please comment on our blog’s mix.

Almost everyone agrees that 2009 is ending on a troubled or fearsome note.  That leaves little space for my tendency toward optimism. Yet I still remain optimistic.

Why?  I believe that the activism of free individuals, alone and in concert, is an increasing force in the US and elsewhere in the world.  This activism is near the tipping point of capability to overturn the heretofore entrenched oligarchies of the self-serving. In 2010, this revolt of the masses will begin toppling power structures that restrict instead of serving to enlarge opportunities.

Although some shifts may be radical, it won’t be a revolt led by radicals nor will radicals take over in its wake.  The revolt toward individual freedoms will be by the majorities of common-sense pragmatists, empowered by modern means to communicate and organize despite statist efforts to stifle these abilities.  Extremists and false populists will be more quickly exposed and rejected.

Whatever their political label, the entrenched oligarchies throughout the world are as one in their primacy upon feathering and protecting their own nests.  In most countries their selfish actions are recognized as already or becoming over-reaching, with reckless abandon endangering existing or nascent basic freedoms and economic security.  Rapidly expanding numbers of citizens are moving to activism, in the voting booths and the streets, as excuses, rationalizations, and lies are less and less tolerated.

Realities are unavoidable. Those on the left admit that their year of “hope” has instead been politically hackneyed, essentially hollow, and played out. Those on the right tend to get mired in the undeniable fears that across the board the acts of those in control of Washington have set us up for disasters, from economy-stifling taxes and spending to restricted and intrusive health care to weakened national security to fickled alliances.  Those less overtly partisan struggle to even find a middle-ground between troubled and afraid.

In 2010, those who wish to lead and succeed will be innovative, constructive optimists who unite us to go beyond just complaining.  The US is still the leader of the world’s aspirations because we are more selflessly optimistic, and act that way. As we, the people, again show the way, those elsewhere in the world will be encouraged to move in a similar direction toward demanding and getting increased freedom from failed oligarchies of greed.

The coming year will not be the end of statist profiteers, but the optimistic beginning of their end, at least for this generation.

The Senate vote for cloture on the Reid-negotiated and bought version of ObamaCare will shape the coming decades’ politics as surely as the Congressional votes to virtually abandon South Vietnam shaped its’ following decades.

For the past three and a half decades, the clearest dividing line and predictor of how we and our leaders would approach issues, ranging from the social to the geopolitical, is the position – contemporaneous or in retrospect -- held about the US Congress’ votes to not meet US pledges to supply and aid South Vietnam in the face of North Vietnam’s heavily Soviet and Chinese supplied continued armed and logistical build-up and massive invasion.

In the reaction to President Nixon’s deserved fall, an overwhelmingly Democrat and anti-Vietnam war Congress was elected in 1974, determined to overturn US foreign policy. Polls were equivocal, at least providing some cover or excuse. In the wake of President Obama’s undeserved credence to govern from the center, an overwhelmingly Democrat and liberal Congress was elected in 2008, determined to instead legislate from the left and overturn US domestic policy. This time, polls are decisively opposed, but ignored, and there’s no cover or excuse.

Basically, in both cases, we went from a nation following a course – as befuddled as it may be – of determination to pursue freedoms to a nation that waffles freedoms away. Basically, our “conservative”, “liberal” and “moderate” postures toward most issues over the past decades have been in line with how we view the causes and outcomes of our Vietnam involvement. So, too, will our future divides and postures be determined by how we now or come to view the causes and outcomes of reshaping almost a fifth of the US economy and almost 100% of our personal and fiscal health.

The divides over Vietnam were partisan but, also, crossed political party lines. The results, however, increased later realignments and partisanship. The straight party-line vote in the Senate on ObamaCare is a consequence, and will lead to an even sharper divide in how the political parties are and will be viewed.

There are no Profiles In Courage to be found in the tactical refusal to propose a fleshed-out free market Republican alternative to the statist approach by the Democrats. There are no Profiles In Courage to be found in the refusal by the controlling Democrats to allow anything but capitulation or purchased whoredom from critics.

At this point, there’s been so much damage to our faith in Washington, regardless of our dispositions on health care or political affiliation, that there’s cause for all who would be honest about it – or will come to be -- to be in despair.

However, there’s real reason to not be in despair, indeed to be quite hopeful.

Whatever version of ObamaCare emerges from conference between the Senate and the House, the core deceptive tactic by the Democrats to hide true costs creates the means of their ultimate defeat. With added reflection on what the Democrats have steamrolled, and various new taxes that kick in before most of the statist “benefits”, the reaction of voters in 2010 will likely be an increased Republican membership in the Congress. At that time, Republicans in Congress will be – and should be – held fully accountable to stop ObamaCare cold in its tracks, and to really fight for free-market reforms that actually increase choice while reducing costs. If not, look for the emergence of a new political party actually representing the majority of Americans. Either way, Americans who believe in personal freedom will win.

I’ve stayed away from the subject of global warming before.  The primary reason is that I’m somewhat of an agnostic.  It is in defense of reasonable agnosticism, or the scientific method, that I finally speak.

A thinking person will see the subject as so vast and so ultimately unknowable or predictable and the costs of global warming advocates’ proposed actions so apparently unsettling – even disastrous -- to human progress as we know it (particularly in the West where technology’s benefits are manifest compared to any prior or current alternative) that a thinking person cannot blithely go forth with global warming warnings.

Yet the possible (versus what advocates say is probable) consequences of rejection are presented as so dire that I hesitate at taking a position that may doom us to climate purgatory or worse.  That’s why the scientific method, the thinking person’s agnosticism, is most needed.

A hypothesis is disproven by failure to predict, replicate, and be simpler than alternatives. The scientific bases of global warming advocates’ forecasts is now largely exposed as severely lacking in scientific rigor and reeking of manipulative deception.  Global warming advocates’ “proofs” are invented vapors.

But, this is not per se a definitive disproof of the hypothesis. It is a clarion call for any of the hypothesis’ advocates who have any integrity or deserve repute to come clean and propose new, transparent, tested and testable scientific work.  Otherwise, and until, none of their severe remedies can be tolerated.

At the same time, it is a repeat lesson in exposure of the destructive consequences of the past 100+ years of anti-modernist, anti-Western utopianism pursued by leftists who seek power over the rest of us. Their prior “gods” – socialism, communism, fascism, for example – failed in every way.  Their fears of an inability to compete, and their seeking of power and position, impels them to new utopian schemes that again reek of self-aggrandizement, now with global warming mania, regardless of the prices and burdens imposed on the masses yearning for improved living conditions and more freedoms of choice.  This, as usual, fits neatly with the self-preserving enrichment and entrenchment of faux populists in the underdeveloped countries.

We do know that reasonable emission controls on engines, smokestacks and chemical discharges are beneficial to the quality of life we require in the US.  Still, the costs, the loss of jobs and manufacturing, and the dislocations of adjustments have been tremendous.  We now know that when taken to minute-reduction excess, the benefits are outweighed by the penalties.

We, also, know that domestic substitutes for producing energy – whether wind or geothermal or shale or nuclear, along with conservation efficiencies -- are preferable to imports of oil that fund foes and deplete our wealth.

As with more honest scientists, we need more honest politicians.  They must be willing to take strong stands, lead, and persuade based on the highest empiricism – instead of sneakily impose -- in pursuit of reasonable environmental and self-sufficiency goals rather than in pursuit of personal profiteering and election contributions.  Otherwise, as with those who fail to live up to scientific standards, politicians who fail to live up to democracy’s standards should be rejected.  The established measures are clear.

Forget ideology.  Forget harsh realities.  Suspend skepticism.

For just a little while, enjoy a truly remarkable, unique, more than pleasurable musical experience.  Experience the cross-blending of superb musicians and voices from around the globe.

My family, from 4 to 62, sat transfixed before the TV one late night last week as this concert on PBS, this tale and result of ten-years’ creation, literally had us all smiling and lifting our jaws from our chests.  The story of this effort is told here.

Click on the YouTube link, for "Stand By Me," then click on some of the others, like "War/No More Trouble," "Don't Worry," "One Love."

May peace find us all, and may we find and deserve peace, brothers and sisters.

Stand By Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us-TVg40ExM 

Here's a handy clickaround: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PlayingForChange#g/u

One of my oldest and, deservedly ten times over, most respected friends, a combat veteran, a journalist, a frontline refugee aid worker, a man of the cloth, a professor, major scholar, a mentor and example to generations, wrote me this email below.  He offers insights based on real experience that is lacking in mere scribblers in media and blogs who haven't ever been on the front-lines of life, death, and hope and effort despite odds due to undefeatable faith.

My friend's email, to all of you:

From a column by David Ignatius:

"When I asked Obama if the Taliban wouldn't simply wait us out, he was dismissive: "This is an argument that I don't give a lot of credence to, because if you follow the logic of this argument, then you would never leave. Right? Essentially you'd be signing on to have Afghanistan as a protectorate of the United States indefinitely."

Are Germany, Italy, South Korea, Philippines, and the horn of Africa protectorates of the United States? Maybe he thinks so. Maybe this explains his treatment of the Poles and the Czechs on missile defense.

As for never leaving: Well, we would "never leave" if (a) it is impossible to defeat the Taliban, or (b) we shouldn't even try to defeat them because we never should have been there in the first place, the Taliban will eventually be the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan, and this is just a face-saving way for us to leave.

I think Obama believes in and has opted for (b). It's David Ignatius, not Obama, who refers to the Taliban. Obama in his speech never mentioned the Taliban as the enemy we were fighting. Only Al Qaeda. In fact, he spoke of certain Taliban participating in the government. Remember a few months ago when the White House was leaking hints that we could live with the Taliban back in power? They have convinced themselves that there is a significant difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and this whole strategy is designed not to turn it around, as the surge did in Iraq, but simply to get us out and shift the blame. And if the Taliban return? Who cares? Their problem. We can live with what the Iranian government does to its people, why not the Taliban?

This is all just a distraction from health-care and cap and trade. If the Taliban do come back Kabul will be too dangerous for anyone other than Frank Rich to visit, so we won't know what's going on, and what we don't know can't bother us.

He says in the speech that we are not patrons but partners, and then he speaks of the Pakistan and Afghan governments in an utterly dismissive tone, as if he were speaking to ADHD children. The Karzai government is corrupt and inefficient? Compared to what? Najibullah or Mullah Omar, Kharzai's predecessors? Is the Afghan government more corrupt than the governments of Chicago, Boston, New Orleans, NYC, Illinois, Massachusetts, Louisiana, or the District of Columbia? Wait, I almost forgot. The last Minnesota election for US senator should be included. Is the Kharzai government less accountable than our own and it's 18 million dollar website tracking the stimulus funds?

Obama says Afghanistan is different from Vietnam because in Afghanistan we are not facing "a broad-based popular insurgency." So it was the "broad-based insurgency" that finally won in Vietnam? Why are there so many Vietnamese in this country? Why did South Vietnam become a gulag for twenty years after 1975? (I went back for the first time in 1995, and it was one of the most oppressive societies I have ever experienced.) Where did the soldiers in the South Vietnamese army come from? If North Korea were to overtake South Korea tomorrow, would it be the result of a broad-based insurgency? The entire North Vietnamese army--after we had withdrawn all support from the South--overran the country. Not the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese Army. Some South Vietnamese units fought to the last man. Some were still fighting a rear guard action in the central highlands for five years after the fall of Saigon.

However, if the Afghans, as Obama suggests, don't want a return of the Taliban, why are we about to facilitate their return? Obama's whole plan sounds like just enough to keep his generals from resigning, but not enough to defeat the Taliban. An upfront capitulation and retreat would actually be better. That would say we don't want to win but would leave open the question of whether we could have won if we wanted to. But the result we'll get will say we couldn't have won in any case, that American arms simply couldn't prevail. Notice that he said nothing about why he's sending 2 brigades less than his commander asked for. It probably polls better that way.
But Obama doesn't believe that any war can ever be legitimate. Read his speeches from Cairo, Normandy, or Berlin. He has talked about the progress of American blacks from slavery to his presidency, without ever mentioning the civil war. It just didn't happen. It was like the fall of the Berlin Wall. There was no military involved, no "cold war," people just "came together" and the wall fell.

He plans to "end" both wars--no matter the consequences--before the 2012 campaign season begins. This will aid his reelection and help him "earn" his Nobel. I'm beginning to wonder if I can in good conscience encourage a student to remain in or enter ROTC with a commander-in-chief as unprincipled and feckless as this one--and an Army chief of staff as stupid as Gen. Casey. I've always encouraged our students to at least consider military service. I never thought this would be a question for me. But it is becoming one now.

My friend is a bit discouraged tonight, to say the least.  Neither you nor I nor he need worry that he will remain that way.  His life is one of striving with all his being and integrity to overcome evil and to contribute good to the world.  He will keep on, as must we, as Obama too shall pass, and be replaced with a better.

P.S.: My friend saw this and a private email comment to him that "spirit demands fiber". He replies

Yes, of course you're right. You'll know I've despaired if I give up teaching before I have to. I was thinking today that Obama's--and Axelrod's and Emanuel's--incredible ingnorance of history show how harmful it is when colleges get rid of core requirements.

Obama graduated from Columbia and he knows absolutely nothing about US and World history. Nothing! Listening to him reminds me being in a coffee shop in the late 60s, trying to make my move on a beautiful girl, but as the 4th international idiocies tumbled out of her mouth, the beauty slowly vanished, and chastity became easy--at least with her. Four things can kill sexual desire: hunger, exhaustion, fear, and listening to an idiot. That's why in Ranger school, all I could think of was a good meal. On a LRRP patrol in Vietnam, just getting safely back to base. In the coffee shop in Minneapolis, just getting the hell out of there. Wonder why these memories came back as I listened to Commander Zero's speech tonight?

BTW, Related:  Read this op-ed, by another friend, of course a former Marine, and much more: Counterinsurgency Incoherence

And, Related: Ralph Peters gets to the point.

Modern anti-Semitism has developed a seductive and deceptive newspeak etiquette to mask its linkages to discredited precursors and to disreputable objectives.  To penetrate the smokescreens put up by modern anti-Semitism, it is necessary to blow away the semantic clouds it hides behind.

A fair-minded person, especially if not well-informed, may get tangled up in a web of confusing definitions when trying  to identify some speech, someone or some organization as anti-Semitic.

It is easy to refer to actual Nazis, a settled matter.  However, there is a carefully sown confusion today when deliberating distinctions about hard to sift through criticisms made of Israel or of Jews in the US or elsewhere in the world.

This blurring of the lines owes itself to the detachment of most, Jew and non-Jew, from the actual scenes of anti-Semitic behaviors and from actually feeling oneself at risk.  This detachment from harsh realities is eased by the moral relativism that pervades much of Western intellectual culture, where the existence of right and wrong is increasingly a mere notion to be dismissed in almost all cases. Common-sense morality is replaced with a casualness toward insult and attack when perpetrated by some group favored due to its purported grievances.  Minor factoids are blown into generalizations, while more important information is ignored, in order to fabricate misleading and erroneous condemnations.

In effect, modern anti-Semitism is a construct built upon and a part of modern moral effeteness.  Those with ulterior ambitions exploit Westerners’ moral relativism by creating an etiquette to deceive them and shield themselves from exposure.  Perhaps most dangerously, modern anti-Semitism is a primary front and tool of today’s dedicated left, to weaken and isolate the US via Israel.

Those of firmer minds and character, although sympathetic to the left or antagonistic toward fascism, avoided or exited from the communist fronts of the 1930’s.  So should those today with actual empathy for transcendent justice be careful not to be drawn into the gingerbread house built by current enemies of the West.  It is unnecessary to allow ones ideals to be contaminated, manipulated or perverted, particularly when that serves the ends of those most dangerous to those ideals.

Here are the Rules of Etiquette for Modern Anti-Semitism:

1. Generalize: Treat Jews as a race engaged in racial behavior. Treat the behavior of all Jews as innate, common and similarly driven. The behaviors exhibited by any or attributed to any (whether the specific instance is true or not) can then be ascribed to all Jews.  It ignores that Jews come from many differing bloodstock heritages, nations and cultures, exhibiting all the variations of most others in the world (except for a few isolated small tribes in jungles). The purpose of anti-Semitic etiquette is to clothe the critic in anti-racism while, indeed, being a racist in practice or trying to hide it.

2. Empathize: Claim universalist empathy for purported victims of Jews. Credit with credence all the claims of those deemed downtrodden (again regardless of facts).  Those deemed downtrodden are, inevitably, hostile to the West and to modernity. Others, for example, like the Montagnards or Hmong who are persecuted worse, are virtually ignored, because they are contaminated by their history of alignment with the US. Just assert, despite evidence, that one cares about all equally. The hypocrisy is ignored that similar criticisms are not levied against others’ far worse actions. The hypocrisy is evident in the feeble defense, if any, that is mounted of those suffering ethnic cleansing  by states or ideologies that are part of the alliance against the West.

3. Hyperbolize: Use rhetorical exaggerations to cloud actual meaning and facts. By repetition and osmosis, flaming misrepresentations transit into common discourse. One can, then, feel better about the rightness of claims and delegitimize the target.  Take words, like “apartheid”, “fascism”, “racism”, “atrocity”, and such, entirely out of context and reality to manufacture a new reality in the minds of the gullible or ignorant.  One needn’t even use the old libels and gross lies (e.g., “Christ-killer,” “Shylock,” “Kike,” “Devil race,” "Jews haven't been in Jerusalem for milleniums and are alien colonizers," "the Holocaust is a fiction") to accomplish the same characterizations of heartless, manipulative, invasive evils by Jews. It is too easily recognized for what it is.

4. Patriotize: Claim to have the national interests of the US at heart. Use the natural isolationism of some, or old-fashioned religious anti-Semitism of some (raised on Christ-killer theology), to cause loyal Americans, or Europeans, to ally with those on the radical fringes and left in denying aid to Israel and to undermining it.

5. Camouflage: Use some Jews to front for the anti-Semitism. Among any people, there are a few who will seek notoriety, position or payment to provide cover for others with more malignant ambitions.  The miniscule but vocal “peace” movement within Israel is largely funded from European leftists and from speaking tours and book sales among Western leftists.  The Arab financed Middle East centers in US universities provide plump stipends to those who criticize Israel.  Secular Jews who haven’t been affiliated in decades clothe their religion of extreme liberalism by trotting out their parents or grandparents’ affiliation.

6. Idolize: Treat all heads of states with respect. No matter how outrageous their statements or actions, or how hostile toward Israel their appointments to high positions, give deference to high government leaders and give credence and respectable platforms to their excuses and mendacious rationales. Their associates, who would be ordinarily be ostracized as extremists, are also given protective coloration.  Excuses usually take the approaches of “he really couldn’t mean that,” “it’s too outrageous to take seriously,” “there’s really a secret plan for nirvana hidden somewhere that no one else can find, it’s so clever,” or “…but there’s another appointee or action that somehow counterbalances or restrains the sheer nuttery or malevolence” although there’s no real evidence of that.  When such a state leader excuses himself by saying “I wasn’t listening closely although I chose his church and sat there for 20-years,” he is playing that same duplicitous card.

7.Enoble: Claim that the focus is expanding justice. The fruits of the labor, education and courage of those who accomplish are seen as proper targets for redistribution or expropriation to feed the demands of those whose own failures to advance themselves is really at fault.  Leveling in this way is presented as justice.  Rather, it is another front of anti-capitalism/anti-Western civilization, focusing on gaps in possession of life’s comforts instead of focusing on who creates them and how they earned them, or focusing on how some lack due to their own choices. It eliminates the talents that create wealth for more, and holds down those whose efforts would lift themselves.  It entrenches the despot, while suppressing popular challenges and aspirations for freedoms.

The modern anti-Semitism is as pernicious and widespread as the older varieties, the older varieties finding comfort within its fuzzier facades.  Due to its purposely confusing “newspeak” of demonization and excuses, it is even more dangerous.  It wraps up old canards in purposely cute circumlocutions, to deceive and forward its deadly goal, the death of the civilized West so that backwardness, tyranny and barbarities can continue or prevail in greater safety from exposure, comparison or challenge.

P.S.: Related, you might read "Trapped By The Axis Of Anti-Semitism: Left, Right And Islam"

Should you financially support my mother-in-law or sister-in-law, if they legally immigrated to the US? Both are of very limited financial means. Government benefits here in the US are actually better than in Germany. Is it up to you to pay to offer them a better life? My wife and I don’t have any family to share events with or nearby for our sons to share life’s love-lessons with. And, isn’t that our problem, not yours?

Under pressure of both common-sense, elevated unemployment in the US that is likely to last, and increased opposition to amnesty schemes, the Obama administration speaks a good game about improving enforcement of illegal immigration laws, and with due credit has actually taken some positive steps. But, one of its other goals is to increase what is called “family unification,” or letting in near and extended family members of those legally here and those millions to be made legal if the Obamites have their way. At the same time, laws to require those who bring them in to be responsible for supporting them are eliminated or opposed.

Today’s editorial in my local newspaper speaks of “The New Normal,” where increasing numbers of Americans are looking for jobs abroad, “[A]nd those who are willing to move to a new city – or even a new country – for their next opportunity are the ones who will be the most likely to succeed. It has always been thus. And in a global economy, this is how it will remain for many years to come. It’s the new normal. The sooner Americans accept that, the better off they’ll be.”

It’s not just increased numbers of American citizens looking for jobs abroad. Increased numbers of Indian and Chinese scientists who gained their advanced education in the US and have been major contributors to our entrepreneurial economy are, instead of staying here, returning to India and China for better opportunities. It is these and other educated immigrants who are not a drain upon the US, actually adding more than the average American. It is the uneducated and their uneconomic relatives that are the major drain upon our government budgets. Some in latter generations may rise, but in the meantime our own poorest are most harmed by their wage lowering competition, and our richest helped by their enthusiastic hard work for low wages.

A regular fairly liberal columnist in my local newspaper rightfully bemoans, "One of the sorrows of contemporary life is the broad failure to create paying jobs for preteens and teenagers. We scold children (and childish adults) for being financially illiterate, oblivious to the virtues of thrift. But what do we expect of those forced to live exclusively off the parental dole?... But the idle rate for children — 80 percent? 90 percent? — also signals a sort of cultural distress. Imagine children by the millions, holed up with video games on a sunny day. Or trooping off to soccer practice in the minivan, oblivious that the uniform costs real money. In high school, the closest many come to real labor is community service, light work for the college application. One of the most important jobs of a parent is to be a child’s employment counselor, starting with essential chores around the house. Help them find honest work that hurts so good.”

The new normal needs to be emphasis on raising our children to honor and do honest labor and jobs. Before that, our emphasis – our own new normal -- needs to be on us growing up ourselves and facing up to the impossibility of fewer taxpayers paying more to support the lazy and irresponsible. Enterprise-stifling government expansion and more meddling bureaucrats is not the answer. It’s the problem.

I always celebrate my birthday on Thanksgiving. Selfishly, at least I’m guaranteed a turkey and good bottle of Beaujolais. When fortunate, I’m able to share it with family and friends, which is the ultimate of what Thanksgiving is: time to give thanks for others sharing theirs and our ability to share our bounty in America.

Aside from the 4^th of July, there is no other holiday in America that is in every respect for all Americans. Indeed, I’ve been with recent immigrants from many countries who eagerly look forward to joining in our Thanksgiving rituals and meals, because it is for them an important rite of passage to becoming Americans and showing their feelings of gratitude for being here in our land of opportunities.

Thanksgiving, also, says much about the American character, that we early on officially enshrined a national holiday for giving thanks.

In 1789, George Washington issued the first national Thanksgiving proclamation with these words: “Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be….” (Read the whole proclamation.)

As you make your plans for Thanksgiving, this early post is to remind you of why we celebrate and dedicate ourselves, in gratitude for all we’re given, achieve, and share, thanks to G-d and each other in America.