The Gorsuch Vote

Very annoyed with Democrats opposing Neil Gorsuch, especially if they lead the Republicans to invoke the nuclear option:

• They'll only get a worse candidate if it were to go back to the drawing board.
• I understand they're probably appealing to their base. This is why I think independents are the way to go. Then their only base is their home area.
• Yes, what Repubs did to Garland was frustrating, but they got away with it. 
• Repub hypocrisy is equally frustrating, like the reason Reid did away with the filibuster wasn't because the Repubs obstructed everything and shut down the government. There is a chart that shows that the Repubs filibustered more than twice as much as any previous president in just Obama's first term.
• In short, it would be smart for four more Dems to vote for Gorsuch, to avoid the nuclear option.

45 Notes January 25

1. Dispute over the size of the inaug. Had about 250,000, if I remember correctly.

2. After sworn in on Jan 20, all refs to clim change disappeared from gov webs. Material on disabil also initially disappeared.

3. Dispute over whether pop vot was won because of illeg vots cast, 3 mil votes. So fiend, liar, or lunatic. Lun is someone who really thinks these things are true, who can't bring self to admit deep unpopularity. Liar is a fibber who knows better but just can't help self. Fiend is dis-informator, the Hitler scenario.

4. Protec agenc put on lockdown by Day 5. No information disseminated, collected. Keston pip reinitiated.

45 Notes January 3

These are notes on events relating to the years of the 45th presidency:

• Today we found out that the first action of the new House Republicans (over the objection of their own leadership) is to do away with the independent ethics office or at least severely limit its ability to monitor or prosecute congressmen. Can't see a positive to this. It sure seems like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
• President elect tweeted (as usual) that North Korea will not get ICBMs. My fear that we are on a countdown to war. I'm taking the alert up for war up to Defcon 3. It won't be with Russia, but North Korea, China, Iran are possibilities.

Heard Karl Rove on Fox and Friends this morning.

• Of course there is the usual rhetoric about how horrible Obamacare is. I truly hope they will come up with something that is better. However, it is very irritating to hear it represented as it is by Fox and others. To cover pre-existing conditions and make possible some of the other provisions, you just have to have people who are relatively well on the plans. Part of the reason it has not been as affordable as hoped is because many Republican states did not opt in. But I hope they can come up with something better. My fear is that they will merely come up with a "selfish" plan that gives low health care to those who have it and leaves the rest back out in the cold.
• To hear Rove talk about Democrats being obstructionist in the new Congress is a joke. Obama wasn't able to get anything done from 2010 on because of the Tea Party Republicans. He wasn't even able to appoint a Supreme Court justice these last 10 months because of the Republicans. 
• And to compare the confirmation process this time around to that of 2008 is absurd. Trump's appointments are the most controversial appointments well beyond my lifetime. He's asked for an exception to how soon a general can serve in a cabinet. He's appointed an oil giant known to be cozy with Putin as Secretary of State. He's appointed an unusual number of former generals to the cabinet. He's appointed someone to energy who has said he wants to get rid of the energy department. He's appointed to Attorney General someone with at least a suspicious past in regard to race. I don't know how far back we would have to go to find a more controversial set of cabinet picks, but it is the responsibility of the Congress to vet these thoroughly. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.
• Finally, Rove criticized the recovery after the stimulus package in 2009. As far as I can tell, this stimulus had bi-partisan support and saved America from economic catastrophe. It's been pointed out that the stimulus saved millions jobs--far more than any tariff on trade will save.

So there are my notes for today.

The End of Romney

Romney's comments at a private fundraiser could be the nail in the coffin for his candidacy: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/controversial-private-fund-raiser-video-shows-candid-romney/?hpt=hp_t1

I can't see him surviving him.  To parrot his words, a high percentage of the American population will vote for him no matter what he says.  But these words capture his position so well that it's hard to believe they won't backfire with whatever few open-minded individuals there might be still in the middle.

Thoughts on Romney

This statement by President Obama today is exactly what I have been thinking on my own: "I can't speak to Governor Romney's motivations. What I can say is that he has signed up for positions, extreme positions, that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken. And whether he actually believes in those or not, I have no doubt that he would carry forward some of the things that he's talked about."

As for the claim that we are not better off economically than we were four years ago, that is quantifiably false.  When Obama took office we were in a negative economic slide of proportions the US had not seen since the Great Depression.  You can speculate whether his actions brought us out as quickly as we could have, although even here you have to reckon with a Republican controlled House that pretty much kept him from doing anything he wanted after Ted Kennedy died.

What you cannot do is say that we are worse than we were four years ago.  Four years ago we were going in a negative direction.  Right now we are going in a positive direction. The debt in itself is not the gauge but the trajectory.

Obamacare constitutional

I thought this cartoon was funny but a little too political for my primary blog:

I stole it from James McGrath.  I am not expert enough to know the full ramifications of Obamacare, a term I don't use pejoratively.  But in general I believe it is good philosophy, as well as good Christianity, for there to be a health care network that is national in scope.

I consider it at least more than a 50% possibility that my father would still be alive if we lived in England, Canada, or Germany.  My father had a serious episode three weeks before his death that in those countries would almost certainly have resulted in a trip to the hospital.  The costs were almost certainly a factor in nothing being done.  Similarly, on the day of his death I believe the 9-1-1 call might have come earlier if the cost of an ambulance and a hospital were not in the equation.

Obama's Risky but Necessary Move

I think we all understand Obama's circumstances. He has to come out on the gay marriage issue, especially after Biden's comments earlier in the week. Most people think this has always been his position, just one he couldn't publicly espouse politically.

But what will be the consequences? Will African-Americans and Latinos still vote for him?  I think in the end they will, not least because he is coming off as reluctantly coming forward.  He's not coming across as a militant on the issue.

The bigger question is his evangelical support.  There are a number of evangelicals who have been able to reconcile his support of abortion with their vote. But will they be able to reconcile his position on gay marriage?  That is a good question.

I suspect in the end that they will because most people have already made up their mind who they are going to vote for in November.

Defeat of Lugar

I don't think anyone actually reads this blog, but I wanted to marvel at the difference in perspective right now on working across the aisles.  Murdock won over Lugar in Indiana with the argument that Lugar worked too much with the other side of the aisle. Basically, he is arguing for polarization in Washington.

He is not presenting it that way, of course.  The hope of the Tea Party is that their ideology will sweep Washington so that they can institute their vision for America.  But if this does not happen, then the end result is polarization and stalemate.

I hope that the Democratic candidate genuinely takes a middle of the road line. I don't think most Americans want the extremes on either side. They want people in Washington who can work together and represent all America. I still believe that this is the majority, but we'll see.

bughan hangug chimlyag

uisim-ui yeojiga bughan-ui choegeun gong-gyeog-ui uimi mogsum jasin-ui ma-eumsog-e geugeos-i sesang-eseo daleun salam-eul-wihan daleul su issseubnida. uliga geudeul-ui haengdong-eun gigoehago issseubnida. geudeul-i yeonjuhaneun seutolido maeu daleun siggudeul-eun daleul su uisimhaeyahabnida. geudeul-eun him-eul boyeojuneun saeng-gaghabnida. geudeul-eun myeong-yeleul bojon saeng-gaghabnida. ulineun geudeul jasin-i amu iyueobs-i seoggi sidaelo dasi nallyeo eod-eul daehae saeng-gaghabnida.

hanpyeon, hangug-ui bughan salamdeul-i gulm-eo. ulineun segyeui nameojineun salamdeul-ege jegonghagi wihae gikkeoijaneun hangug bughan salamdeul-ege boyeojugo jeongug eumsig-eul nohgi wihae jusahaeya jejeongsin-i bughan jeong-gwon-eun hangug-eo suneun eobsjiman.

modeun galdeung ibeon-en daleuge jonglyodoebnida. namhan-eun beon-yeong-eul gajyeowassda seong-gongjeog-in jabonjuui siseutem-i eobs-eoss-eoyo. bughan-eun gyeongje siseutem-eulo gongsanjuuiui silpaeui myeoch gaji nam-aissneun yeje jung hanaibnida. geudeul-eun geudeul jasin-ui son-e gwang-gileul dan payeolga gyesogdoemyeon bughan-ui eotteohan chimlyag-iiss-eul geos-ibnida.

Mondo Secondo Premio - Italia

Aggiudicazione del secondo mondo di oggi va al primo ministro italiano Silvio Berlusconi, che dimostra che l'Italia non è attualmente in grado di essere parte del mondo moderno. Giù il cappello per Berlusconi leader tribali, la cui difesa della prostituzione a partiti di governo è che è meglio che essere gay. Tanto di cappello a voi. L'Italia è squalificata da una voce nel futuro del mondo fino a nuovo avviso.

Health Care is not deserved, a right, or an entitlement

I am very sympathetic with the desire of Democrats to bring health care to everyone. It seems to me there are enough smart people around that these things could be figured out without destroying the fundamental soundness of capitalism.

But...

That's not what inspired me to post something. It is the language I'm hearing by people like Jesse Jackson Jr. and Howard Dean of everyone deserving health care or everyone being entitled to health care. Wrong. America is a social contract. Even if Jefferson used language of inalienable rights, he didn't mean anything like this. And it simply isn't true. America will be a better place for everyone if we can work these sorts of things out. But health care is not a right. It's a great privilege.

We have a contract to live together freely as long as we all follow some basic rules. We don't steal each other's stuff. We don't hurt each other. We pay taxes so that we can pay police to keep the peace and so that the government can provide some basic services.

The idea is that everyone is free to thrive. It is in everyone's best interest that mechanisms be put in place to help those who get down on their luck as well as to set rules to protect us from our own stupidity. It does no one any good to let those in a cycle of poverty and despair languish. It is a smart system that helps these sorts back on track to being self-sufficient. That diminishes crime and ultimately benefits everyone.

But we are only "entitled" to what we have agreed as part of the contract, and then conditionally on keeping our end of the deal. "He who does not work, shall not eat" is the default. We might very well make it part of our contract to say that if you are incapacitated, society will help. After all, wouldn't we want help too if we came down on our luck?

But the goal is to get back on track. It's not a free lunch--that's not the contract. People should have to do something to get welfare. I appreciate Obama's pragmatism. But I don't appreciate the extreme elements of the Democratic party who are why I am still registered as a Republican.

Osama who?

I guess bin Laden issued a statement about Obama going to Saudia Arabia today. Certainly the usual rabble rousers of the Republican party--the ones that make me thing about becoming an Independent--are on their hobby horses again.

Sometimes I picture myself at a press conference answering questions, like, "President Schenck, how would you respond to Osama's depiction of your Middle East trip as an attempt to spread hate?"

My response: "Osama who? This is a guy who lives in a cave half the time and every once and a while manages to scribble a note and get it out to the public. Yes, it was a failure of the previous administration to bring him to justice. But really, this is pretty much one guy who got lucky a couple times. One of those times was catastrophic, to be sure, but I give no credit of brilliance or significance to the man who planned it. He got lucky.

"There are some fundamental misunderstandings that were a part of the previous administration's response to this little man. First, they responded to a spider when he is a starfish. With a spider, you hit it on the head and it's dead. You can take the battle to the spider. But with some starfish, almost every part will regrown into a complete starfish again, even if you cut off every arm.

"Terrorism is not a spider. You can't really take the battle to terrorism, because it's potentially everywhere. The previous administration either misunderstood this fact or it saw 9-11 as an opportunity to pursue a secondary agenda in Iraq. If the latter was the case, we can at least admire it for its cunning, for a broader plan that had good intentions but that at least so far has failed to yield the intended results. If the previous was the case, then the pursuit of Saddam Hussein was about as misguided as the French investors who tried to figure out who the president of the internet was before they would invest--and of course with a cost of thousands of American lives and ten thousand Iraqi lives.

"In the process, bin Laden was empowered far beyond the power he had previously. He went from someone on the edges of Islam, despised by those in power in the Muslim world to someone with real symbolic power. Our war in Iraq took someone on the run from his own people, who was denounced by almost every Muslim nation after 9-11, to someone who inspired forces in these nations that those in power now had to deal with on a grander scale. A more conservative regime managed to get elected in Iran, largely because of the American invasion of Iraq.

"Another mistake of the previous administration is that, realizing how much trouble the legs of the starfish caused (themselves still thinking of it as spider legs that would stop if they could just bop its head), they tried to burn the whole starfish. This was practically the approach of the Israelis in Lebanon a couple summers ago. At some point, however, the loss to innocent life is so overwhelming that the only ethical--and reasonably strategic thing to do is to live with disappointment.

The ancient Syrians did this with the Maccabees. They finally realized that it was stupid to keep fighting and losing so many just so that the Jews would "modernize" and stop strange customs like circumcision and not eating pork. The Russians did this in Afghanistan in the 80s. We did it in Vietnam. The Spanish did it with the Apache. You don't try to defeat a starfish. You isolate and insulate its parts. You make sure it isn't where you are or want to be.

"So let's dismiss this Osama person. He's a has been. That part of the starfish is locked up in a box."

I don't know if Obama's mission to the Middle East will accomplish anything. But it's a lot smarter than what the last guy did. It can't hurt.

Rush Limbaugh in Wall Street Journal

Here is Limbaugh on a tirade against the Fairness Act. Obama came out saying he did not favor the fairness act.

Of course after the attempt of the previous regime to suppress "anti-American" thought, it's not a little hypocritical to say such things now. I agree with Limbaugh's position, however. And he seemed a little more restrained than usual.

I should expect to hear an increasing number of conspiracy theories about what the Obama administration is doing beneath the surface. To some extent, "to the victor belong the spoils," as it certainly was for the Bush administration. So far, Obama seems to have resisted the temptation to let the liberals in his party exert the kind of revenge they did under Clinton and that Bush's people did.

But of course we'll see what happens in time.

P.S. No comment on the stimulus package. I simply don't know enough to have an opinion.

Warren and others

I don't really know most of the people Obama has appointed, but I am pretty pleased. More than anything, I'm pleased with his attitude. All the extremes are angry, which tells me he's doing the right thing. Bush said he was a uniter, but his administration turned out to be full of extremists.

Obama appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, reaching out to her constituencies. He has Rick Warren praying at inauguration, which has many liberals up in arms but shows a willingness to reach out to evangelicals (and it will be interesting if he makes some key decisions on stem cell research and stuff the same day! Smart move if so.)

I don't know what the Chicago education guy will be like, but I'm excited at the prospect of someone in office who recognizes that character is a much bigger problem in American schools than reading and writing. My impression is that Christian schools in America largely teach memorization, not the higher level Bloom's skills like analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Phonics to me is the poster child for what I believe to be the often inferior education of most Christian schools in America, when the behavior element is taken out of the equation. With the behavior element brought in, of course, many Christian schools become infinitely preferable and I have seriously considered them for my children as a result.

My hunch is, however, that Bush has had Christian school type philosophers running regular schools--the worst of both worlds, inability or myopia to deal with behavior issues, and an 1800's educational philosophy. I could easily be wrong. That's just how it's felt.

Finally, Obama has appointed real scientists rather than some of the quack people who have seemed to hold sway in Bush's regime. How refreshing to think that the scientific element in government might actually flow from people who use research as the basis for their advice rather than preconceived ideology. I'm sure there were some genuine scientists in the Bush administration. I just don't think they had any power or influence.

Perhaps these appointees will turn out to be duds. But so far they seem on trajectory to what Obama promised.

Obama picks Shinseki for Veteran's Affairs

Obama announced that he would be appointing retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki as Secretary of the Office of Veteran's Affairs. The following lines from the article on msnbc.com stood out to me.

"Shinseki’s tenure as Army chief of staff from 1999 to 2003 was marked by constant tensions with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which boiled over in 2003 when Shinseki testified to Congress that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion.

"Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, belittled the estimate as “wildly off the mark,” and the army general was forced out within months. But Shinseki’s words proved prophetic after President George W. Bush in early 2007 announced a “surge” of additional troops to Iraq after miscalculating the numbers needed to stem sectarian violence."

:-)

Saturday Night Live strikes again...

Obviously anyone with a brain will not let either of these clips affect the way they vote... but they sure are funny:



Here's one of the McCain/Obama debate. It's obviously lopsided against McCain:

First Presidential Debate

Watched the majority of the debate. It's hard for me to be objective but I'll try.

I think that both the base of the Republican and the base of the Democratic party will be happy with their candidate's performance. The most rabid Republicans and Democrats will think that their man absolutely trounced the other. McCain supporters will see him "giving Obama a lesson in foreign policy (as Guliani's spin was--interestingly Palin declined appearing next to Biden :-) . Obama supporters will see him as hitting the nail on the head issue after issue.

So what will the swing voters think, people like me who hate the party system and the way it pushes candidates to play to their base rather than say what they really think?

First, my hunch is that most younger voters will not react favorable to McCain's snide and condescending remarks and name calling. On several occasions Obama complimented McCain. By contrast, McCain generally responded with dismissive or denigrating responses. I heard Guliani's summary and it's hard for me to see most middle ground people under 40 seeing it as anything other than the despicable spin they have grown to detest and associate with people like Karl Rove. Guliani infuriated me--McCain and Obama did not.

It's really hard for me to imagine how a "Reagan democrat" would respond. I'm not sure. They might like what I perceived to be McCain's "trust me I have experience and he doesn't" approach. On the other hand, Obama's responses sounded intelligent. He didn't come off as inexperienced, even when McCain responded with, "Son, put your pacifier back in because I've actually been to South Ocetia."

Again, it's hard for me to see myself, but I thought McCain repeated himself and often just gave lines that could just as well have been memorized. I thought Obama came off more composed and, in general, more presidential. It will be interesting to see which one America thought won the debate.

Rick Warren hosts Obama, McCain

I caught most of the interviews last night between Rick Warren of Saddleback and Obama and McCain. I think how you respond to the debate depends a lot on your age and, obviously, your political positions.

But let me suggest broadly how people would respond based on their age, trying to remove the political positions part from the equation. In this case, I think how you respond breaks around 40-45 years old.

Those older than 40-45, like Pat Buchanan afterwards, see McCain as a hands down winner. (Of course Buchanan has become a spin meister too.) McCain had clear cut answers, which this crowd sees as leadership. He decisively jumped in even before Warren could get the questions out. He was confident, unlike Obama, who hemmed and hawed and, in Buchanan's mind, surprisingly didn't seem to know Theology 101.

Those younger than 40 might see it differently. McCain wouldn't have even needed to show up because his answers were so scripted to the party line, especially the sterotyped evangelical party line, that anyone could have given them for him. He had the answers memorized like an old time school boy who can hardly wait to get the question right. Oo, oo, can I tell you the right answer to that question too, now, or do I have to wait.

Obama, on the other hand, gave his real answers in the face of a hostile audience. He tried to find common ground with an opposing position. He was authentic, not canned. He gave realistic answers rather than the kinds of dreamy idealistic ones that got us into the Iraq War (you defeat evil--yeah, that's worked for us, hasn't it).

No Surprises, More Bush Administration...

Yawn, ho hum. No surprise that Bush justice department people illegally stacked the deck with lesser qualified Republican automatons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25348796/

We've also heard that Bush administration people did this with science reports too.

Yeah America, the only nation where the smart kids in high school are somehow made out to be inferior and where we have a culture that makes fun of experts on any subject.

We are truly the smartest nation in the world.

For Keith--the Hullaballoo over Obama and Campaign Finance

This one is for Keith.

I caught the beginning of Meet the Press this morning before church. Moment of silence for Tim Russert. Shocking that he's gone. He was the classic nerd--man did he like politics. He was constantly giddy like a school boy, just a little too excited about his white board. But I really did think he was one of the most neutral people around. He loved the game for the game, regardless of who the players were. To this day I don't know what his personal positions were.

So Meet the Press was debating Obama's decision to opt out of the government campaign money. McCain's camp is all up in arms about him flip flopping.

GOOD GRIEF! How many times has McCain changed his positions this election!!!! The most recent I know of was his reversal on off shore drilling. I'm not sure what I think about this, but good grief McCain has changed positions from 2000 so many times he's the last person who has room to talk.

Of course Obama shouldn't try to pretend he's not taking money because the system is broke. Come on, the grass roots people like him, there's no shame in that. On the other hand, he is quite right to point out that doing this is not going back on his claim about special interest groups. The common person has been his money bag... and the common person will elect him.

I'm not saying what kind of president he will be, except that he'll be different.