It Shows Who's Boss

The 2012 Golden Globes Awards are now history. Ricky Gervais was positively tame, and barely used, so it was disappointing. But I did come away with two observations.

First, Julianne Moore, presenting with Rob Lowe, flubbed her lines. We’re talking about a professional actress and maybe 20 seconds of dialog, and she couldn’t manage because her teleprompter stalled. I’m guessing this is one reason Hollywood stars are so forgiving of Barack Obama.

Second, look for a moment at the “Best TV Series, Drama,” category. It included “American Horror Story” on FX; “Boardwalk Empire” and “Game of Thrones” on HBO; “Boss” on Starz; and the winning “Homeland” on Showtime.

That is, no nominee for best TV Drama Series was produced for the public. All were produced for cable. In today’s America, there is a digital divide, so the saying goes. If you want to watch good drama, you have to pay for it.

The Hollywood elite have no problem with this model. They make money off this model. But apply the same model to healthcare and they’re outraged. Hollywood never cries that “All Americans deserve equal access to drama.” They have no qualms about producing a product the relatively well off can access immediately at the theatres and on cable while the relatively poor have to wait months for video rental.

Though their work puts many of them well into the 0.1%, they don’t feel their field should be regulated to help the poor, not even access to Nurse Jackie. Doctors, seldom in the 1%, our work routinely misrepresented on TV shows, are chastised for setting up cable equivalents known as concierge medicine, even as cable sweeps the drama awards at the Golden Globe. 

Truly, an American Horror Story...

Rick Perry: Pissing Away the Lives of American “Kids”

January 15, 2012

Per the LA Times online edition, Kim Geiger reports (1/15/12): Texas Gov. Rick Perry, [trying to] revive his sputtering presidential campaign, said Sunday morning that the Obama administration has gone “over the top” in criticizing Marines who were videotaped urinating on Afghan corpses.”

Why?

“Obviously, 18, 19-year-olds make stupid mistakes all too often,” Perry said in an appearance on CNN's “State of the Union.”  “These kids made a mistake, there's no doubt about it,” he said. “But to call it a criminal act, I think, is over the top,” and in fact the Marines have so far not been officially accused of crimes, even though the Geneva Conventions specifically forbid desecration of the dead.

This is a sober attitude and sensible understanding on Perry’s part, and I’m sure he will be equally restrained when reports of Taliban fighters voiding on dead Americans surface. But it leads to this problem:

Perry is in favor of expanding foreign wars, of doing “whatever it takes” to achieve victory; he declares his fellow Texan Ron Paul’s idea of bringing home the troops dangerous. That is to say, he’s in favor of putting 18 and 19 year old “kids,” who are prone to going “over the top,” in more hot-spots around the world. Frankly, it’s a piss-poor idea, and explains why Perry is no longer polling #1.

All A-Twitter…

January 13, 2012

Ron Paul is 76 years old. But he has the energy of a much younger man...and the following. Here’s just one example:

I look at the national Twitter counts of the various Presidential candidates over the last week, the number of tweets mentioning each candidate:

Barack Obama        116,803

Mitt Romney            215,873

Rick Perry               68,638

Jon Huntsman        44,309

Rick Santorum        96,878

Newt Gingrich         65,906

Ron Paul                 279,839

Jon Huntsman, who bet it all on New Hampshire, has the fewest Tweets coming out of Granite State; he will be spit out by the Palmetto State. 

Newt Gingrich and the two Ricks can’t get out of 5-digit territory. 

Barack Obama, that darling charismatic leader of hope and change who so captivated the youth of only 4 years ago, barely passes the 6-figure mark. 

Ron Paul more than DOUBLES the number of weekly tweets of the President of the United States. Only Mitt Romney comes close, getting 77% of Ron Paul’s traffic.

Ron Paul, a bit of a grandfatherly crank, the oldest man in the race, a man who was born in 1935 and had an obstetrical degree before there was ultrasound, OWNS the Internet. Go to YouTube. Check out the hits on Paul websites and compare them to those of other candidates. Look at the pro-Paul Internet ads spreading like viruses. This man captures the imaginations of the youth more than anyone could themselves imagine...and more than Barack Obama could hope for, or change.

President Obama inherited a bad situation, the result of a big-spending Republican who frittered away two terms on foreign wars. Barack Obama made things much worse, spending to such an extreme the Bush II regime appears in retrospect humbly frugal, and extending but only barely revising what can now be called the Bush/Obama wars. As Peggy Noonan put it month’s ago, he inherited a bad situation, and he made it worse...much worse.

Barack Obama owns the moment, and has to take responsibility for it.

But Ron Paul owns the future. And as Nick Gillespie of Reason.com often reminds, the future’s so bright we’ll have to wear shades.

The GOP Visits A Psychiatrist…

Fools are my theme, let satire be my song. 

Lord Byron 

A tired appearing older gentleman enters a psychiatrist’s office; he is white, well-dressed but strangely carries a few straws of chewing straw in his breast pocket; he holds a bible in one hand and a copy of Free to Choose in the other; he presents  with an uncomfortable affect and a patrician air...

Psychiatrist: Hello..GOP is it? Glad to meet you. Thanks for coming in to see me.

GOP: [Nervous tick, speaking hesitantly]: Yes, yes...glad to meet you as well. Are we done yet?

P: Not quite yet. I see you were referred by a Dr. Paul. It says here he’s a gynecologist?

GOP: He sees my wife. After her last visit, which I attended, he thought I should meet with you.

P: Do you know why that was?

GOP: I wanted her to stay home, barefoot and pregnant, and school the children and clean the house while supporting her desire to rise as far as she could in the business world...

P: What about the glass ceilings?

GOP: She should clean those too...

P: I see...Tell me, where do you live?

GOP: In a big tent.

P: Ah...OH! I see Dr. Paul was concerned about multiple personality disorder…

GOP: Yes, exactly. I don’t know what he’s talking about. Can you help me?

P: I’ll need a little more information, first. What do you see as the problem?

GOP: The budget. And the debt. The budget and debt! We need to take the budget seriously. The debt is growing out of control.

P: So you’re willing to look at cutting everything?

GOP: Well not the military, of course. That can't be cut! Defense is paramount!! 

P: So none of the troops in over 100 countries abroad can come home?

GOP: Not a one! Too risky. Wouldn't be prudent. Like Vice-President Cheney said after 9/11, we must act as if a 1% chance of a danger from abroad is equivalent to a 100% danger. We can’t afford any risk.

P: Isn’t that the Precautionary Principle the Left uses when discussing global warming. We can’t risk even a small chance of irreparably harming the planet…?

GOP: They’re completely different!

P: How so?

GOP: Well, in the case of global warming, the alleged science is discovered by scientists whose grant money is supplied by the taxpayers. They don’t get tax dollars to play with unless they claim the science shows global warming. Whereas, when it comes to discovery of foreign threats, taxpayers pay high-ranking military officials and State department officials who work to find foreign threats, aided by public spirited companies in the defense industry that help us in this never-ending fight.

P: American troops garrisoned in foreign lands...That’s also to protect us?

GOP: Sure. They want us there. It’s protective.

P: And if foreign troops were garrisoned in America?

GOP: Are you insane? We don’t want them here. That would be inflammatory.

P: You believe in a small, modest, Constitutionally limited government…

GOP: Just like Jefferson's!

P: ...capable of policing the world and fighting multiple foreign wars simultaneously?

GOP: Only much, much larger! [Facial grimace…] Can you help me?

P: What about domestic policy?

GOP: We want to keep the government out of your business. Regulatory growth has been explosive, and harmful. This must stop, and stop now!

P: So you’re willing to get the government off the backs of the marijuana entrepreneurs?

GOP: Absolutely NOT! It’s a gateway drug that causes much harm!

P: And your solution to the harm of using drugs?

GOP: We have to throw the users in prison.

P: Can’t you just leave the users alone?

GOP: Don’t be ridiculous. It’s not like they’re businessmen…

P: But how does favoring small government tie in with a drug war?

GOP: Well, when we put all the marijuana users in prison, we won’t need a big government to handle the remaining citizens. [Rapid eye movement…] Please, can you help me?!

P: So you’re for less government…

GOP: Yes!

P: ...that controls what people smoke and eat…

GOP: Well, not tobacco or trans-fats! That nanny-state stuff won’t fly with me!!

P: But you’ve used marijuana yourself, I understand…

GOP: Just during my youthful experimentations...Hey, you can’t hold that against a guy!

P: But now you want to…

GOP: Lock them up and throw away the key. Exactly!! Can you help me?

P: I understand you favor federalism.

GOP: Absolutely. It keeps the federal government in check and allows the states to be laboratories for liberty.

P: So if marijuana were legalized at the state level, for medical or other reasons…

GOP: I’d have the DEA dragnet large areas to round up people for federal prosecution.

P: And if judicial rulings went against you?

GOP: Damn activist judges! They need to rule based on the laws Congress passes, not on what they wish the law were. That’s what democracy is all about.

P: What’s your position on Obamacare?

GOP: Very destructive; hopefully it will be overturned by the courts. [Unconscious toe tapping…] Please dear God, can you help me?!

P: Just a few more questions. Tell me about spending under Obama.

GOP: Outrageous! Huge deficits. Massive bailouts and reckless stimulus spending. 

P: And the bailouts and stimulus spending under GW Bush?

GOP: What?

P: The massive spending--the most ever until Obama--under Bush 43?

GOP: Yes?

P: I’m asking your thoughts about it…

GOP: What about it?

P: Your thoughts on the massive spending and deficits…

GOP: This massive spending and deficit growth under Obama is killing the country!!

P: And under Bush?

GOP: I’m sorry, what is your question? MY GOD! HELP ME!!

P: I’m beginning to see your problem.

GOP: What problem?

P: Let me ask you, how do you feel about choice?

GOP: Choice! That's anathema. This abortion choice culture has deadened our society and created irreparable harm. I blame the liberals.

P: I was talking about school choice…

GOP: Choice! That's a saving grace. The culture of school choice has enlivened our society and created great benefits. Without it, generations of children are deprived of an education to favor special interests that hold the Democratic Party in thrall. I blame the liberals.

P: OK. I’ve got enough. I think I can help you.

GOP: Electroshock? 

P: We can’t turn the voltage up high enough, I’m afraid. But don’t despair. There are other methods…have you heard of leeches?

GOP: Congress is full of them.

P: That’s what you need. You won’t be able to accomplish your goals without them.

GOP: You mean I need…

P: Massive blood-letting. Yes.

A Thought That Would Never Occur to Rick Santorum, Understandably...

 January 11, 2012

“This is a president who thinks he’s smarter than everybody,” Rick Santorum said today in South Carolina, criticizing President Obama for “trying to run people’s lives.”

Santorum, opposed to gay marriage equality, said HE would never try to run people’s lives.

Santorum, who seeks to strengthen the power of the State to throw hundreds of thousands of Americans into prison for using marijuana, said that unlike the sitting President, he believed people should run their own lives. 

Just according to Santorum’s rules...

Experience

A strange claim made the rounds just over a year ago in the run-up to the 2010 elections. Made by incumbents, the argument asserted many candidates running for the first time were “not qualified” for office. Since this argument may well resurface with Tea party supported candidates later this year, I think it worth analyzing. The question is: what qualifies a person to be a Congressman?

We already have incumbents sitting on finance committees who have no background in accounting, economics, or finance. We already have Congressmen working on committees impacting the troops or American foreign policy who have not previously studied world history, military theory, diplomacy, or even been overseas. We have Congressmen who blithely claim their actions are constitutional without benefit of a law degree or deep knowledge of Constitutional theory or history. We have members who micromanage healthcare decisions for the American public who have neither medical degrees nor published papers in the healthcare economics literature.  So where is this necessity for experience when so many of the incumbents seems personally satisfied with on-the-job training?

How much experience does one need to vote on bills without reading them, as most sitting members do? 

In 2010, throughout the country, dozens of anti-incumbent ads talked about Democratic incumbents who “vote 99% of the time with Nancy Pelosi.” How much experience is required to simply do what one is told? The same 99% figure won’t be used with regard to current House Speaker, John Boehner, since the Tea Party GOP freshmen are, for the first time in a long time, standing up even to their own party structure. Many Americans think that is a good thing, but it is likely harmed by “experience,” and certainly experience is not a pre-requisite.

Might a principled commitment to less government substitute for experience? After all, one does not need to be an expert in the automotive industry to determine the Constitution affords no grounds for the government to run it.

It was argued last cycle in Delaware we just can’t vote for someone who claims she was once a witch. Yet for years we’ve voted for incumbents who seem to think they are wizards…

Why Did Ron Paul Come in Third in Iowa?

With 99% of the caucus vote reported, Ron Paul came in third at 21% compared to 25% each for Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. (At least, that’s how it’s being reported by most media; when you look at the actual numbers, that 25% each for Romney and Santorum is actually 24.5% each, and Paul’s 21% is really 21.4%. So he’s 3.1% behind them, not 4%. Funny, when I was in school we were taught that 24.5 percent is rounded to 24%; I guess times change.)

The big Iowa win of course belonged to Santorum, a religious conservative who curried the evangelical vote in Iowa and won with it much as Mike Huckabee did in 2008. Huckabee, of course, quickly lost ground in subsequent primaries. (Meanwhile, Santorum lost the vote of his nephew, who published an article explaining  why he’s supporting Ron Paul.) 

Ron Paul was in a tight race for first with Mitt Romney until only two days earlier. Of course, the difference in Paul and Santorum votes was less than 4,000 people, but still Paul’s last-minute drop needs analysis.

Here’s part of it. In 2008 at the national level the November Presidential vote broke down as follows for age: 

Per census data: Citizens 18-24 were the only age group increasing in turnout from 2004. Citizens between the ages of 45 to 64 saw their voting rates slightly decrease. Voting rates for citizens aged 25 to 44 and 65 years or older were statistically unchanged between 2004 and 2008. 2008 was the second straight presidential election year where young citizens significantly increased their voting rates. 

Obama did well among the 18-24 age voters, helping him win the general election. In Iowa, Paul polled first among 18-45 year olds. But looking at the voting distribution at the caucuses, only 31% of the voters were in the 18-45 age group. 68% were in the 45-older group. To the extent younger voters--who could easily vote for Paul over Obama in a general election but would never vote for Santorum over Obama--were under-represented in Iowa, Iowa downplays Paul’s strength, yet Paul still came in a close second after a tie for first. To put it another way: if the age distribution of the 2012 Iowa GOP vote was the same as the 2008 national vote, with nothing else changed, Paul would have come in first last night.

People are now asking whether Santorum has the organization, money, strength, etc. to win. These are the same questions asked of Mike Huckabee in 2008. He got 35% of the Iowa vote, yet he didn’t come close to winning. Neither will Santorum. This will become a two-man race: Romney and Paul. Fortunately, these are the two GOP candidates who do best against Obama. It’s turning, like 2010, into a choice between the GOP Establishment and the Tea Party.