The Moderate Dilemma of NY-23

Some on the right will doubtless herald the news that moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava has withdrawn from the New York-23 special Congressional election next week.

Politico summarizes the basic premise behind her withdrawal as follows:

Conservatives have asserted that Scozzafava, a GOP establishment-backed state assemblywoman who supports abortion rights and gay marriage, is far too liberal for them to support and numerous prominent GOP figures have recently endorsed Hoffman.

[Link]

Of course, Scozzafava's exit makes the seat much easier for Republicans to defend - although Hoffman is running as the 'Conservative Party' candidate, and notably NOT as a Republican.

The problem, of course, is that Hoffman's successful strivings have prolonged the perception that the GOP is a political anachronism, catering only to the most conservative elements of its base.

If a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice Republican candidate cannot win a Congressional seat formerly held by a moderate Republican with roughly the same views in New York (!), then where can such a moderate Republican win?

More to the point, how does the GOP expand its appeal when the base is consistently agitating for litmus tests that by definition make the party less appealing?

Update: While yours truly was in a candy induced stupor over the weekend former House candidate Dede Scozzafava endorsed her one-time rival Democrat Bill Owens. The Hoffman campaign issued a terse statement on the endorsement that is difficult for Republicans, including this one, not to agree with.

Hoffman’s campaign offered a similarly sharp response.

“This afternoon Dede Scozzafava betrayed the GOP,” read a Hoffman press release, titled, ‘Surprise Surprise: Dede Is a Democrat.’

[Link]

As readers will doubtless recall, I've been an advocate for a big tent GOP many a time on our slice of the web. But Scozzafava's Benedict Arnold routine (this is upstate NY after all) makes her a traitor to her own cause.

One cannot champion broadening the views of the GOP one day, bow out for the sake of the party the next, and then about face once the Dems come calling. That she can switch teams so readily makes one wonder why Scozzafava claimed loyalty to the GOP in the first place.

The real tragedy for moderates is that, ultimately, her candidacy succeeded only in driving more moderates away from the party she had sought to represent in Congress. The inescapable query is that perhaps she was just in it for 'me' all along...


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Obama's Afghanistan Strategy Already Failed

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer made an interesting observation today of our President's haphazard strategy for Afghanistan.

The elephant in the room: it has already failed. Krauthammer writes:

Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own "comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an off-the-cuff decision. "My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats," the president assured us. "We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations" and "with members of Congress. "

Obama is obviously unhappy with the path he himself chose in March. Fine. He has every right -- indeed duty -- to reconsider. But what Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy.

[Link]

The point is a welcomed clarification in the debate.

Naturally, one hopes the President will choose a winning strategy going forward. But make no mistake, the current plight of our effort rests squarely on President Obama's shoulders.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The Death Panels Live

Perhaps the news is uninteresing, but I was surprised to see only scant mention on the presswires of the end of life counseling provisions in the Democrats' latest health care reform bill.

The AP summarized the death panel measures as follows:

The provision allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death.

[Link]

Of course, I find the 'death panel' critique more entertaining than substantive. Though from a partisan perspective it is eminently good fun to see Dems squirm while defending a measure that has been excoriated in such a polarizing way.

But more to the point, the provision strikes me as a glaring example of a role that government should neither have nor assume.

Fundamentally, end of life decisions belong to the families involved. Counseling on the matter should not be subsidized by a government that may actually have a cost-effectiveness incentive to encourage families to pull the plug when Grandma runs up a massive hospital bill.

Recall also the media's duplicitous outrage when Congress weighed in on the Terry Schiavo matter. The heckles of the press were raised to a fever pitch as our media watchdogs bellowed against government encroachment on family decisions. Give me liberty or give me death. Ho, ho.

Today, our media watchdogs have conspicuously become lapdogs as the silent fourth estate embraces the Democrats turn to 'counsel' our families on end of life matters.

Given the criticism of the measure, most notably by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, it is curious that House Dems would naively leave the provisons be in the final bill. The move does much to show the Democrats true hand. Democrats are clearly much less concerned with crafting a product that actually reflects the public will, than they are concerned with creating a 'reform' bill that caters to liberal pet interests.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Autumn in Tucson

The 50 degree temps mean that the Autumn season has officially arrived here in the old pueblo.

Happy Fall!

Procrastination & Blogging

The combination above, naturally, does not go well together.  Unfortunately, this fine autumn evening finds me whiling away the hours catching up on the reading that I did not do earlier in the week (reading that I invariably did not do because I waited far too long on a project that I had had pending for some time). 

 

Procrastination, indeed. 

 

Anyway, please accept the cartoon below as an apology for my lapse in blogging the past couple of days.  My schedule should return to normal soon.  Hopefully, a productive weekend looms.

Sen. John McCain on Jay Leno’s Ten at Ten

The video is going on two weeks old, but it’s funny nonetheless.  For those living under a rock, the Ten at Ten segment is a new riff on the Jay Leno show.

Enjoy!

 

Independents Dump Democrats

Who didn't see this coming?

RCP is reporting the latest Gallup Poll numbers. Seems independent voters are mad as hell at the Democrats in Congress, and at President Obama.

The title of the story?

Irate and Independent

[Link]

I could have told RCP the same thing without the need to spend money on expensive polling.

Who wouldn't be upset with the Democrats' socialist domestic policy, weak foreign policy, and plans for higher taxes?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Sam Bradford's Sooner Career Is Over

Sports Illustrated reports that Sooner quarterback Sam Bradford will undergo surgery on his throwing shoulder, ending his season with the Sooners.

SI also reports Sam Bradford's intention to enter next Spring's NFL draft, ending his career with the Sooners.

[Link]

Given the adversity Bradford faced this season, I'm sure I will be in the minority of sports pundits who question the decision. Nevertheless, the move strikes me as another unfortunate example of athletes forgoing their college obligations in hopes of a quick buck in the NFL.

For Bradford, the move is especially dubious given his anemic performance at OU this season. Even before the injury, Bradford had been less than crisp. Just ask Florida and BYU. But more to the point, if Bradford gets injured by hits from college-level athletes, how long can he possibly last in the pros without the additional development of his game?

Bradford, we hardly knew ye...


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Abortion in Oklahoma

The AP had an interesting story this morning on potential litigation regarding two Oklahoma abortion laws. According to the report, recent laws passed by the legislature would give my home state some of the strictest abortion laws in the land.

Two new laws being challenged in the Oklahoma courts would...[force] women to answer questions about race and their relationships, and to listen to a doctor talk them through an ultrasound.

[Link]

My gut reaction is that if the law is aimed at providing women with more information in the process, then that ultimately does little in restricting her right to choose and serves a compelling state interest. One can also argue that the state has has an interest in harnessing the information from the surveys, if only to target those populations plagued by high numbers of abortion for non-abortion, family-planning services.

Given the demographics of my home state I am not surprised by the measures. But even as a strongly pro-life individual the laws strike me as a bit invasive. From the outset, I assume that the laws would be reviewed under a strict scrutiny standard of review once the case reaches the appellate courts.

Under this standard, the laws are deemed presumptively unconstitutional. In turn, the state must prove that the laws serve a compelling state interest, and that they are narrowly tailored to achieve this end. Here is where the laws run into trouble.

Even if providing a woman with an abundance of information regarding her abortion choice, and marshaling the abortion survey data are both compelling state interests as I have concluded above, the government will still be hard pressed to demonstrate that the laws are narrowly tailored to achieve these ends.

For starters, I suspect that opponents of the law will key in on the power dynamic between physicians and women seeking an abortion. The argument would be that ultrasound walk throughs are too intimidating to achieve the purpose of providing women with information to make an informed decision. Simply, there are less restrictive ways to accomplish the same result.

Opponents could also argue that there are less restrictive methods for gathering state abortion data than making invasive surveys a part of the abortion procedure.

Were challenges levied against either procedure along these lines, I am not convinced the state could overcome the burden of presumptive unconstitutionality.

Of course, if the state did manage somehow to overcome such a burden, it would represent a tremendous win for the pro-life cause. I'm just not sure this is the case for picking up such a crucial win.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Jobs v. the Environment

The question is often asked why jobs must be pitted against the environment within the context of the climate change debate. The answer is complex but its simple form lies rooted in the natural self-interest of the developing world.

Today’s remarks on the matter by India’s Prime Minister underscore the dilemma quite well:

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Thursday that the world's poor nations will not sacrifice their development in negotiations for a new climate change deal.

[Link]

The remarks underscore the point that developed nations are no longer in a position to exert paternalism over the developing world. In fact, developing nations are poised to become some of the most productive economies, and some of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world.

Reducing the emissions of the developing world will invariably require reducing their productive capacity and hence their development potential as well.

Perversely, it is just this developmental capacity that makes India and China threats to the world’s economic mainstays. Without China and India on board with a climate change protocol, any agreement would have the harmful effect of forcing the developed world to compete with CO2 emissions constraints against an unconstrained India and China. The problem of course is that the developed world barely competes with Chinese exports as it is. The matter would be exacerbated were developed nations to be hampered by emissions constraints when the developing nations are not.

And so the cycle continues…

Obama’s Unfortunate Response to Cheney

Former Vice President Cheney’s remarks yesterday evening regarding the Obama Administration’s inability to chart a course for Afghanistan, will doubtless be the subject of much debate in the coming days.  But what was even more striking was CNN’s description of the Obama Administration’s reaction:

Cheney appeared most enraged with the Justice Department's announcement it is considering leveling charges against CIA officials who engaged in the "enhanced interrogation" tactics.

 

"We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security and turning the guns on our own guys," he said to the rousing crowd.

 

The White House had no immediate response to Cheney's comments.

 

[Link]

The unfortunate irony of the situation for White House is that President Obama has had a chronic inability to respond to anything regarding Afghanistan.  This only underscores the correctness of the former Vice President’s point.

The Government Can

A bit of political parody to start your Wednesday.  Enjoy!

Swine Flu and You

Have you had your Swine Flu vaccination? If not, it's probably too late anyway.

A recent study featured in the Washington Times suggests that roughly 60% of the American population will fall victim to the pandemic, though only 25% of Americans will actually fall ill as a result.

"The model predicts that there will be a significant wave in autumn, with 63% of the population being infected, and that this wave will peak so early that the planned [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] vaccination campaign will likely not have a large effect on the total number of people ultimately infected by the pandemic H1N1 influenza virus," the authors wrote in their study.

[Link]

The news is naturally a bit disturbing for those germaphobes such as yours truly. I keep a bottle of hand sanitizer in the foyer just in case a pesky pathogen makes its way across the threshold of our otherwise sterile environs. I suppose, however, if one must contract a strain of pandemic influenza, then the one with no effect on 75% of the population is the one to contract. Indeed, this influenza seems to have had more of an adverse effect on the Mexican swine industry than on the rank-in-file infirm.

Given that in all likelihood you will contract the H1N1 virus, and given the fact that you have little control over the matter (assertions to the contrary are mere insane delusions) the words of Clint Eastwood circa 1971 come to mind: 'Do you feel lucky?'


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Blogging the Bible?

My dear wife endured a trip with me this afternoon to a local Tucson store specializing in the art of Christian consumerism.  Snide asides aside, it is rather a fine shop with a large assortment of Bibles for those religiously inclined. 

The visit was really prompted by a sort of spiritual malaise I’ve experienced of late.  All points indicate that my growing apathy toward 3L has not been limited to the academic.  Accordingly, I went in search of a new Bible and a new translation that would challenge my mind, as well as my soul.  What I found, I think, soundly accomplishes both.

The translation upon which I settled is the English Standard Version’s Literary Study Bible.  The aim of the text is to present the Bible as a work of literature – though not in the liberal, universalist manner which many ascribe to notions of Bible literature.  The point is to highlight the literary themes, motifs, characters, and author intentions one can so easily overlook while staidly reading a passage of scripture. 

In other words, the goal is to provide context through footnote that is so often lacking from a cursory reading of the text.  The actual, printed text of the Bible is in a single-column format (already making it eminently more readable), with one-inch margins for note taking.  It is nigh perfect for a recovering law student such as myself.

As with most things new, I have been tempted to start taking notes on the text as I go through it, publishing them in a different venue as I go along.  The inspiration comes from David Plotz’s work Good Book – a decidedly secular piece in which Plotz writes down his hilarious and irreverent reactions to the Bible as he reads the Hebrew books from cover to cover.

The problem, of course, is that as a believer I would hardly approach the text with an unbiased mind.  Plotz describes himself as an agnostic at best, and writes dispassionately from the beginning.  My journey of faith is one that has had its moments of strength and skepticism, but on the balance as one relates to the essentials of faith, I have never strayed too far from the orthodoxy of my youth.

Is it possible for a believer to undertake such a project as Plotz with the same madcap abandon? I’m not convinced it is.  But if it were, the insights, humor, and frustrations would arguably make the work even easier to relate to since both reader and author might be more apt to approach the text from a similar perspective. 

If only there were more time in the day…

Why Obama Is So Disappointing

The Politco flagged an interesting report on this Administration's latest efforts to marginalize voices who disagree with its policies.

As the more astute reader will doubtless recall, just last week we followed the President's high-profile media blacklisting of Fox News. But this week team Obama's sights are set on a much more docile target, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Politico reports:

The White House and congressional Democrats are working to marginalize the Chamber of Commerce — the powerful business lobby opposed to many of President Barack Obama’s first-year priorities — by going around the group and dealing directly with the CEOs of major U.S. corporations.

[Link]

A couple of points.

The Administration's strategy is not so pernicious for its novelty as for its impact on public discourse. The Obama Administration's move to isolate voices of disagreement communicates but one message loud and clear: if your view conflicts with our political bottom-line, then we will blacklist you.

Such a policy is an odd cognitive dissonance for a candidate who swept into Washington promising to change the tone. To his credit, President Bush also came to Washington promising to change the tone, but no one took him seriously. President Obama, on the other hand, supposedly represented the hope of the American people for a new era post-partisanship. His was supposed to be a cabinet filled with a team of rivals drawn from all quarters to help this brilliant young President of ours goven. Some ten months into the experiment, we can safely declare that Emperor Obama has no clothes.

What makes the President's move so disappointing is that his tactics mark a return to the worst of American politics. Any veneer of bipartisanship that was ever there is now all but gone, relegated to the annals of history along with the phrase 'yes we can.'. For if the matter is engaging the opposition, then the Administration's mantra is clearly 'no we won't.'

The disappointment of our Nation is simply this: Rather than a team of rivals set to inform policy, we have rival teams bent on making sure that the policy of the other never sees the light of day. We have the status quo.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Obama v. Fox News Round Two

President Obama's senior political adviser David Axlerod made the Sunday talk show rounds once again justifying the Administration's increasingly unjustifiable position of isolating the Fox News channel.

"It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view.”

[Link]

It's no secret that Obama hates Fox News. Fox was, after all, the only network that provided the American people with any sort of critical journalism of him during the campaign. If only other networks had been so diligent...

Anyway, what's striking about Axelrod's remarks (other than their bushleague tenor) is their logical inconsistency. Axelrod argues in one sentence that other networks should not treat Fox News as a 'news organization'. Yet, in the very next sentence, he vows to 'participate in their discussions' and 'appear on their shows'.

So, what's the difference? Does the White House make it a policy not to appear on the other networks' shows and not to participate in their discussions? In effect, Axelrod argues that Fox should be treated differently while vowing to treat them exactly the same as any other news organization.

More to the point, when will the Obama Administration learn that it is both bad strategy and bad politics to isolate the most widely-watched network on television?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

What's Next for Afghanistan?

Some two weeks ago, we highlighted the growing feud between Gen. Stanley McChrystal and the Obama Administration over the future of America's military strategy for Afghanistan.

To date, America still lacks a coherent strategy even though recent attacks in the country have claimed three American lives in the past twenty-four hours alone.

According to Politico, the untimely delay may stem from political turmoil in the country lingering from the recent Afghan elections.

[Link]

Understood that America would rather not support a fledgling government espousing the same doctrines of hate as that of our enemies. But one would think, particularly for an Administration so talented as ours, that we could walk and chew gum at the same time.

Military plans for fighting insurgents can easily be created while the political matters resolve themselves. Our troops will not veritably attack polling booths after all, and a military strategy might even help to beef up the security situation in the event the Afghans decide on the need for a run-off (shocking how more troops tend to make an area more secure, I know).

In the mean time, America's troops await orders while our President dithers.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

OU - Texas 2009

The hoopla surrounding Oklahoma's annual match up with Texas is well underway at the time of this post. The Cotton Bowl is awash in crimson and cream, and Texas puke orange.

Yours truly will be watching the game from here out, but some keys of the game for Oklahoma include harnessing TX QB Colt McCoy, and being consistent in the red zone.

From a lowly OU fan in the desert, Boomer Sooner!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

GOP Change We Can Believe In?

In surprising news, according to the latest Rasmussen poll, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee leads the GOP field for 2012. The rough voter breakdown follows:

Huckabee - 29%

Romney - 24%

Palin - 18%

Gingrich - 14%

Pawlenty - 4%

Someone Else - 6%

Undecided - 7%

[Link]

The poll, naturally, is way too early to make much hay of. But what may be surprising at this point is that only 7% of Republicans are undecided.  Another interesting observation is Gov. Pawlenty's paltry showing despite having made markedly public overtures angling for the nomination.

Time will tell.  But if Huck is up for another run, the early results look pretty good.

The Unions' War on Education

NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof had a surprisingly even-handed piece in today's paper talking about the role of unions in obstructing education reform.

The crux of Mr. Kristof's column argues that inept teachers are too difficult (viz., expensive) to fire.

It’s difficult to improve failing schools when you can’t create alternatives such as charter schools and can’t remove inept or abusive teachers. In New York City, for example, unions ordinarily prevent teachers from being dismissed for incompetence — so the schools must pay failed teachers their full salaries to sit year after year doing nothing in centers called “rubber rooms.”

[Link]

The matter is a true disgrace to America's education system and her students. Inept teaching, sadly, is almost the rule rather than the exception. Most students remember an outstanding teacher because of the contrast they present to the lackluster ones.

Suffice it to say, if President Obama ever gets serious about taking on the teachers' unions, I suspect he will have plenty of allies on the right.

Yet, it is just this sort of bipartisan reform that the President seems least interested in pursuing.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Party of the Rich

The news will doubtless be a bit distasteful for some on the left, but turns out the Democrats are the true party of the wealthy.

According to recent census data:

Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. In 2005, Republicans represented 55% of those affluent households.

[Link]

Wealthy people tend to be campaign donors. So, exactly whose interests are the Dems representing in the health care debate?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Snowe Flurries

After yesterday's vote in the Senate Finance Committee I thought it wise to wait a bit before adding any thoughts on the matter. Nary a day later, I have a couple of reactions to the news.

First, although the press hailed Sen. Snowe's defection as a win for the President, I can't see where the news is anything but a mixed bag for both sides. Second, the final form of the health care reform bill will provide the true political poker.

Consider the article below from Politico.

[Link]

In brief, Sen. Snowe's vote did precious little to stir moderate Democrats from their rather comfortable perch on the fence.

Why should it? What has governed the debate from the beginning is the political fallout in center-right states and districts. There is no surer way to lose a bunch of moderate, Democrat Senators than for them to embrace the committee's travesty of a bill.

Moderate Dems have no reason to come around simply because a liberal Republican from Maine - holding a safe Senate seat- defects from her party. Put differently, Sen. Snowe's vote doesn't matter to Mary Landrieu and Blance Lincoln in the South because their constituents will be much less forgiving than Snowe's constituents who all but expect such shenanigans.

All of which hints at the second point above. The real political theater will occur when the final bill comes before the full Senate. Will it have a divisive public option? Will it have some watered down public insurance trigger - one might call this the public option-lite? And, ultimately, will such a bill with either option pass the Senate? These outcomes are far from certain.

Just for fun, my prediction is that a bill with a public option will not pass, though some sort of mandatory insurance purchasing requirement probably will.

I also suspect that some expansion of Medicare and Medicaid will probably pass as well - much to the detriment of cash-strapped states who will assume the unfunded mandate. This part of the debate has been fairly quiet on the news wires, but do not be surprised if it rears its head in the coming days.

As with most things in Washington, more fireworks to come.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Why Is Obama Afraid of Fox News

I get that President Obama would rather avoid voices critical to his policies. Avoiding the opposition makes for good politics and good damage control.

But if the President believes his view is truly the superior position, then going after a news organization (and the largest, most popular news organization at that) unnecessarily limits the scope of his message. Such a move is actually adverse to his ultimate aim of bringing over more people to his perspective.

So, why is Obama afraid of Fox News?

Smart Health Care Reform

Given the brouhaha surrounding our health care debate, it is easy to wonder where we lost track of good old common sense in the discussion.

Imagine my surprise, then, to discover that one of the best examples of smart doctoring comes to us from the State of Vermont - a state know more for its hippy communes, and Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream than for sound public policies.

The AP reported over the weekend about Vermont's Blueprint health care system for patients with chronic conditions that rewards doctors who keep their patients from getting sick:

The Blueprint allows physicians to spend more time with their patients, helps track their conditions and gives patients access to services they wouldn't otherwise have taken advantage of. It also rewards physicians for keeping patients from getting sick...The better a Blueprint provider does, the more it gets paid. The system uses statistics from the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a national nonprofit organization that measures health care performance.

[Link]

The policy is really a variation on a theme put forward by Gov. Huckabee in the 2008 campaign- that our health care policies should focus on preventing sickness rather than emphasizing treatment of illness only. Simply put, we should invest in preventative care rather than a hefty system that is ripe for abuse and rationing.

The VT model above generally falls within this framework. Doctors are not reimbursed for the costs of every 'episode' of care. Rather they are paid for the 'totality' of the care they provide. As it applies to chronic conditions, doctors are compensate for teaching individuals with a chronic illnesses how to manage their condition as opposed to paying them per service rendered.

Admittedly, the program leaves many questions unanswered. Even if Blueprint does not pay docs for every instance of service doctors provide, the costs for such services do not disappear merely because the program does not cover them. Someone will need to cover the cost. The question is whether the government, the individual, or some form of insurance should pick up the tab, and what to do about those who cannot afford to pay.

Also, a small program for patients with chronic illnesses is far afield from the comprehensive plan we need to address the millions of uninsured, and to bring down the skyrocketing costs of health care.

But to the VT plan may offer a useful 'prescription' (sorry) as the Nation weighs the costs of the Dems latest health care travesty. If we can keep reign-in some health care costs over the long-term by teaching patients how to better manage their conditions through healthier living, then why not implement such a common sense solution?

Of course, one would be wise to curtail any expectations. A common sense solution from Washington is about as likely as the Olympics coming to Chicago.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

SNL's Nobel Peace Prize Bomb

Less than a week after SNL dubbed Obama the 'Do Nothing President' one would think that his wining the Nobel Prize would be the strike of comedic gold.

Not so much.

The SNL sketch below covering the President's receipt of the award was decidedly lame from all quarters. I post the video only for nostalgic reasons in lament of what might have been...

Nobel Nonsense

When one thinks of the august Nobel Peace prize it is easy to think of such luminaries as Gen. George C. Marshall who led Europe's reconstruction after WWII, or the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. who spearheaded the American civil rights movement, or even Mother Teresa of Calcutta whose work with Indian lepers may yet make her a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

Suffice it to say, one seldom thinks of an American President some nine months old to the job, who has accomplished absolutely nothing of consequence. Yet the folks in Oslo have rewarded exactly this in naming President Obama this year's Nobel Laureate.

[Link]

Of course, the natural question that follows on the heels of the committee's decision is the query of precisely what President Obama has done to deserve such an honor. Here in America Obama has already been dismissed as a 'do nothing President'. So, what has the Nobel Committee seen in our fearless leader that most Americans seem to have missed? Or is it merely a case of Nobel lunacy? My analysis of six, major international issues is below. You decide.

• Most recently, Tibet became a blip on the President's radar. With the Dali Lama coming to town, surely, our Nobel heir apparent would champion the rights of an oppressed people against the ironic avarice of a Communist regime. Well, actually, no, the President refused to meet with the leader of Tibetan Buddhists for fear of angering their Chinese aggressors. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of human rights, and the peace process.

• Perhaps one could justify the award based on the President's efforts to bring peace to Afghanistan? Well, the war there rages on with no end in sight. What is clear is that our President has offered little in the way of strategy for bringing peace about. His present position is to neither raise troops levels and quash the terrorists, nor to withdraw troops and halt American bloodshed. Apparently, to achieve peace the best action is inaction - folks in the Congo might disagree.
  

• In Iraq, the President has committed to withdrawing American forces, but has done nothing to assure the Iraqi people that they will be safe once America has created an inevitable power vacuum. If peace prizes are now given for avoiding conflict, then maybe the title of the award should be changed to the 'Nobel Prize for Pacifists'?

• On the subject of Iran, the President has taken a truly firm line against Iranian firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for 'tough UN sanctions' against their imminent spike in Uranium enrichment and nuclear development. Unfortunately, 'tough UN sanctions' is an oxymoron, and Iran's development of nuclear weapons will utterly destabilize the region.
  

• Regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the President took the bold step of bringing leaders from both sides to the table in advance of last month's UN pow-wow in New York. The jury is still out on exactly why the move was a 'bold step.' The President managed only to snap a few photos, and leave without having brokered any sort of agreement spare the vague commitment to talk about talking. Obama's Nobel Peace price could be justified here as an award for the specter of peace, but talks about talks mean little to the refugees in the Gaza strip.

• Well, surely the President has done much to confront that evil, global scourge climate change. With the President's party in charge of both houses of Congress, and a December deadline looming to come up with a plan, surely the President's sympathetic efforts have more than paid off. In three words, not so much. The President's plans to halt climate change have been scuttled for want of his quixotic quest to nationalize America's health care - a task that is also in jeopardy of failure.

All of which is to conclude, as we did from the outset, that President Obama must surely have been awarded this year's Nobel Peace prize for doing absolutely nothing. Given the new standard, naturally, there is no reason why yours truly shouldn't be a candidate for next year's award! Or for that matter why you, fair reader, shouldn't also be a candidate for the award yourself.

After all, we have probably accomplished about as much for world peace as President Obama.

Lolcat of the Week

My message to law school.


see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Starving for Leadership

This afternoon the Economist magazine ran a particularly astute assessment of the Obama Administration's recent missteps.

The piece rightfully takes aim at the President for his handling of a panoply of issues, ranging from Afghanistan to inaction on climate change legislation.

[Link]

While the column merely points out in dry fashion what SNL did quite humorously, the indictment of President Obama remains the same: the President has talked a great game, while accomplishing very little.

The article's implication is that the world waits for America to assert some kind of leadership on virtually any issue of substance.

Unfortunately, Americans find themselves in a similar predicament. Alas, Obama fiddles while Washington burns.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Reasoning With the Unreasonable

Today I was pleased to enjoy a rather depressing documentary about the truly dire straits besetting citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The film, shown in a fascinating law school course on Globalization & the Preservation of culture, recounted he plight of Congolese women who are increasingly the victims of rape from both their country's soldiers and enemy forces alike. As a fortunate man with a loving wife, two kid sisters and a terrific mother, I could not help being viscerally angered by the plight of so many women in a nation so far away.

Ever the policy dork, the documentary and parts of our discussion prompted me to recall the article below from last Wednesday outlining the perspective of the situation taken by UN Peacekeepers. According to then Washington Times,

There will be no end to the ravages imposed on women and girls in eastern Congo until firm laws are put into place and enforced with trained police and honest judges, the U.N. human rights chief says.

[Link]

The UN assessment is interesting because, in many ways, it mirrors exactly that view taken by my classmates - that somehow there is a civil solution to the chaos that would be more effective than a military one.

While political stability and the rule of law are eminently desirable aspirations, there remain two glaring problems with the prescription.

First, the UN strategy would require the support of an international community that has been hitherto apathetic of the Congo's situation. Creating laws and training police are both well and good when such a venture has the broad support of countries willing to make the investment. But the situation in the Congo has worn on since the early 90s. Why should the world suddenly develop an interest in the matter now when significant forces are concentrated in two foreign theaters of war; when countries are in the midst of a global recession; and when many citizens of all stripes are becoming increasingly isolationist toward world affairs?

Second, the UN solution presupposes that the militia on both sides are apt to listen to reason after having more than established that they are utterly unreasonable. No persuasive orations about the rule of law, and the need for elementary humanity will convince a blood-thirsty regime to lay down its arms. Add to this point the brief codicil that the Congolese regime is thoroughly corrupt, and you have a situation that cannot be solved by any appeal to mankind's higher angels.

Simply put, bringing peace to the Congo will require the commitment of a significant force, from an international community that seems more interested in bemoaning the atrocity than actually doing anything about it.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The Pirate Follies

There's really not much in the way of analysis on this story, but the Yahoo headline below was easily the funniest I read today.

Somali pirates attack French military flagship - Yahoo! News

Proof once again, kids, that crime doesn't pay.

The Do Nothing President

The SNL skit over the weekend stirred the chattering class yesterday. Every pundit from Fox News to the ghastly MSNBC had something to say about the clip.

As is the case with any good piece of satire, its jarring aspect was its truth. To wit, President Obama has accomplished absolutely nothing since ascending to office, and the polls are starting to show it.

For those of us wary of the President's agenda anyway, the SNL piece is a welcomed condemnation of a President who is more smoke and mirrors than substance. Naturally, had the President actually forged ahead with his leftist agenda, the piece would not be nearly so funny.

Because we are officially in the wee small hours of the morning here in Arizona, below is the SNL skit in its entirety courtesy of Hulu. Enjoy!

Muzzling the Generals

The Huffington Post had an interesting link paraphrasing Secretary Gates's speech on the Administration's Afghanistan policy (or lack thereof).

The crux of the Secretary's remarks was that generals outside of Washington need to 'zip it.'

[Link]

Certainly, Gen. Stanley McChrystal did not put the Administration in a comfortable position after his candid assessment of America's Afghan prospects last week.

But the Administration's bizarre reaction seems to be that of silencing the General rather than addressing the legitimate concerns he raised. Oddly, any time speech of any stripe is reigned-in, the left is keen to argue that we need more speech rather than less. Not so this time.

So, why muzzle the the lone figure willing to speak out on so important an issue?

The answer is simple. The Obama Administration intends to take a course different than that put forward by the commanding general on the ground.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Are You Anxious?

The New York Times magazine ran an interesting article yesterday that was easily among the most read articles in the paper.

The lengthy piece explored the research of Harvard psychologists who analyzed the inner workings of the 'anxious mind'. For a city so neurotic a city as New York, I suppose this fixation is unsurprising.

[Link]

What struck me most about the findings were the seemingly simplistic remedies with which they were mitigated. According to the article, the best way to treat an anxious mind was a mental form of infant self-soothing.

The best outcome, however it happens, is to rear a child who learns to wrestle his demons on his own

I suspect that many people in my generation suffer from some form of this malady or another. Or perhaps my assumption is biased by the inordinate number of such people who make their way to law school.

In either case, more so than any other, ours is a generation in constant need of stimuli. Hence my latest purchase, and even the need for this blog.

But the solution is really a familiar one. In fact, it's only a slight deviation from what moms everywhere have been saying from time immemorial, 'I'm busy right now'.

Or the adult equivalent, 'deal with it'.

Blogging & the iPhone

After lo these many week of debate, I finally gave in, and bought an iPhone.

My preliminary assessment is that its typing leaves something to be desired, but overall the keyboard is fairly intuitive. And the apps are, naturally, quite shiny. Not at all so difficult as I had feared.

In the coming weeks, I will probably add more thoughts on its utility for blogging, but for now please indulge me if I make more typos than usual.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Best Assessment of Obama's Olympic Failure

It was all but too easy to poke fun at the President's colossal failure to bring home the 2016 Olympic games to Chicago. Given how spectacularly he, indeed, did fail, poking fun now seems almost cruel. It would be a bit like Shaq O'Neil dunking on teammates in the Wheelchair Special Olympics. Just wrong in so many ways.

Naturally, such sportsmanship has no place in politics. But I think the best summary of the fiasco is below courtesy of Politico:

Monday-morning Quarterbacking became Washington’s favorite Olympic sport Friday after President Barack Obama’s in-person pitch failed to bring home the 2016 Olympics to Chicago – and in rather dramatic fashion.

[Link]

It's true. The President had no shortage of critics waiting to say I told you so (what remains most surprising is that Obama was willing to risk such international political capital on an event that Chicagoans were reluctant to host). But the reality is that no one knew whether he would prevail or fail until the votes were announced. Some on the right were even convinced of his success.

The bottom line is that critics have the right to say I told you so, even as Dallas Cowboy fans have the right to say Tony Romo shouldn't have thrown three interceptions in week one against the Giants. They are correct, but few could line-up under center, and fire off a pass at all.

This is not to say that any criticism is invalid wholesale. The President has many serious issues to attend to that he has not yet taken the time to address. From health care, to burgeoning unemployment, to the nuclear aspirations of Iran, to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, all of the above require leadership that the President has thus far failed to display.

Simply put, Obama's failure to bring home the 2016 games is but a small footnote in the President's growing legacy of failure on issues that actually matter.

To iPhone, Or Not to iPhone?

I'm taking the opportunity to blog from a friend's iPhone. I must say, it is quite the shiny device...

Any suggestions?

Lolcat of the Week

The lolcat of the week below gets a lot of sympathy from yours truly.

In an inadvertent battle with our tea kettle, my efforts culminated in a steaming pile of failure, and a burned hand.

Enjoy!


see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Is Pole Dancing a Sport?

Pole dancing lessons are now ubiquitous in many gyms across America (a joke about cardio workouts and heart rates is appropriate here but I will abstain).

But is it fair to call this pastime a sport?

According to some, the answer is a surprising, yes.

Fox News reports that the Pole Superstar competition is set to take place in New York over the weekend. On the line is some $10k for the dancer with the best moves and "athleticism".

[Link]

Is it a sport? Isn't it a sport? I'm not sure it matters a whole lot. The more pressing question is how one gets tickets to the event...