Thank You

I am finally getting accustomed to my school schedule and I decided to make a routine inspection of my website. This included the customary inspection of the hit report and email inbox. I am honored that there are still people hitting my site. If that is not a vote of something for my return I don't know what is.

That being said, I am still fairly busy. The biggest challenge is staying abreast of headlines. Actually, bigger than that is staying abreast of all the pundits. I haven't read a Krugman piece for a month--to be honest I don't miss the stuff.

I suppose I should comment on Arnold "The Harasser". I am willing to be equal opportunity on all of this behavior stuff. Before election, I want to forgive. After election, I have no patience. It was this logic that would have made me most likely to let Clinton slide back in 1992 (I was out of country and never had time to read the newspaper back then). George W got a slide for youthful indiscretion as well. Where it is easier to let W go is that he was not a "public" figure yet. Slick Willy and Arnold were. Granted Arnold was not elected, but so what? Just as I said on William Bennet and Kobe Bryant--a public figure should know better, and if not they should suffer. I make no excuses for bad behavior.

When it comes to damage control I advise the W, Bennet, and Arnold approach--admit, admit, admit, and then apologize. That being said the public must make a judgement about whether or not to believe an individual will change. In the case of Arnold I am not convinced.

Republicans should never have fallen for the glitz and should have backed McClintock from the beginning. It is all over, whether Davis or Bustamante, there will be a Democrat in the California Governors mansion at the end of the week.

*My disclaimer is that I may be full of it on my prediction because I have not looked at a poll in a month:)

More Slacking

I really hate to do this, but I think I am going to have to take a temporary hiatus. When I don't even have time to spend a few minutes last night listening to and analyzing the President's speech then I am sure that I don't have any chance of maintaining this site. I am sure I will return. This site will still be here as a resource, but it might be a while before I am back in the saddle of making timely commentary. To the few faithful I am trully sorry.

Slacking

I am sorry, I have been slacking. I realize that I need to update the readers of this site. I am about 2 weeks out of date and slipping fast.

The problem is that I have just begun an MBA program. Right On Everything is really more of a hobby--especially since I actually pay to have the privilege to post my opinions. I do hope that at some point Right On Everything might actually cause some editor somewhere to say: 'my goodness, we need this guy to write something for our Op-Ed section!' But reality forces me to realize that I might actually benefit more from serious attention to my studies. My attention to my studies not only cuts into my time to write, but makes it near to impossible to track the writing of others, not to mention read a newspaper. The hard thing is that I REALLY enjoy writing this stuff and I know that I do have a few people who actually keep coming to read my stuff.

What I have decided to do is to keep this site going, but in a scaled down fashion. Right On Everything will become a weekend site--Saturday to be specific. I will give that a try. Come here once a week and see what I have to say. Because of this my writing may turn out to be somewhat more philosophical in nature. Or I may make a general roundup of things that have transpired in the week. I may even finally put my thoughts on conservatism into writing. There is the possibility that as I become accustomed to being a student again I may actually post more frequently. I do have a laptop that I take to class and it is theoretically possible for me to write while ignoring professors. My real goal is to become accustomed to the school routine soon enough to make practical commentary on the Democratic primaries. I will keep you posted on my progress.

I apologize if this is disappointing. If you want to be reminded when I post, or you just want to complain please feel free to drop me a line at james at right on everything dot com.

Otherwise, see you back here on Monday!

Geoghan

How exactly does the New York Times figure that Geoghan being killed in prison equates to a need for better run prisons? Because it panders to the homosexual movement? Please don't tell me that Geoghan is to Gays what Mandela was to Black South Africans. Did we forget what Geoghan was in for? Hasn't it always been an unspoken expectation that child molesters tend to get wacked in prison? And isn't it sort of accepted that they deserve it? Okay, you may say he wasn't a molester, he was a pedophile. SO WHAT?!?!?! Why give it a scientific name? This guy was a monster. I don't care if you are gay or not, pedophilia is SICK! Which by the way reminds me of a question that I have never seen a good answer on. If a male adult has sex with a male kid, regardless of the fact that this is pedophilia, why is that Male not Gay? Last time I checked, Gay was male on male. Even if the adult male is married to a woman, the moment he has sex with a teenage boy, in my humble opinion, he is GAY! Not to take this on a further tangent, but therefore ALL scout masters who commit pedophilia ARE GAY. Sure it might be argued that the pedophilia came first, not the homosexuality. But don't tell me that pedophiles are not Gay. You might rightly argue that not all homosexuals are pedophiles--fine. But please don't tell me I am hateful for stating the obvious fact that pedophiles are Gay. I am in no way condoning the issue of pedophilia as an excuse for hating Gays. Next unanswered question. If Catholic priests are sworn to celibacy, where the heck is there any room for discussion about pedophilia? As far as I am concerned sex, straight or gay, violates celibacy requirements. This is the real story. When did the Catholic church go all soft on issues of sex?

Affirmative Diversity

I am beginning an MBA program. This week is orientation week. Before arriving I was not sure why we needed seven days of orientation on where the bathrooms were. It turns out that, amongst other things, we needed two days of orientation on why diversity is a GOOD thing. There is the argument that recruiters want to recruit at programs that provide diverse job candidates, there is the argument that recruiters want diverse managers who can understand how to target minority markets, and then there is the argument that since we (yeah the dumb white males) will be working with women and minority managers we need to practice how to not act like racist bigots! Weak. Really weak. This is a private university so I guess I have no place to criticize them since they are not doing it with tax dollars. But it still irritates me because what it shows is that the liberal group think on diversity has taken control of the marketplace. Even in an historically conservative institution, in a department known mostly for teaching how to calculate the bottom line, the liberal BS about diversity is there. And they have me sit there for two days on it because obviously they know that we won't buy it unless they brainwash us with it. It just makes me sick.

Homosexuality and Pedophilia

All I want to say is here is some interesting reading. The debate goes on.

And Now for the U.N.

I am watching things unfold after the bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq. I am watching to see if this will wake up the UN just the way that the recent bombing in Saudi Arabia supposedly awakened the Saudis. It is the realization than terrorists or Baathists will not see the Saudis or the UN as neutral non-combatants. In fact terrorism is all about attacking the innocent so they never should have had an illusion, but they do. The UN is ignorant--or should I say that countries like France are ignorant. Do they think that the UN can continue to function with a weakened US? Do they think that the UN will still have the authority to enter countries and police truces if the US is not there to back the actions with the threat of force? The UN is not a neutral observer. The terrorists believe that the UN is a tool of the West. The Middle East, India, South East Asia and Africa have only nominal power in the UN. Western powers hide behind the UN as the vehicle for pressing Western values. France is as guilty of this as the US. As for me, I don't mind that we are trying to spread Western values of freedom, but the UN has many members who do not see the bigger picture. They really think that it is some high-minded organization where debate leads to logical conclusions.

This really is best understood if I explain my take on Osama. At the end of the day his goal is to unite all of the Arabs or Muslims in a holy war that places him on the throne of a great empire. He sees the riches of the oil monarchs and wishes it for himself. The reason he, Saddam, the Iranian Mullahs, and the short guy in North Korea will never collude on strategy and thereby give us easy proof of linkage is because at the end of the day they all have the same vain ambitions and each would simply get in the way of others. They are united in purpose and rhetoric, but not in operation. For this reason, success by one is inspiration for the others. No member of the axis of evil can look on the UN as a positive thing. The UN is simply the tool for the US to intrude on Iraqi and North Korean sovereignty. The UN becomes the excuse for taking military action. To say the UN is neutral is no different than saying that the US Congress is neutral.

I wish the UN did not have to suffer this tragedy to realize the obvious, but should they now wake up to reality I will welcome their involvement.

I Have Heard This Before

"[T]he next election will be the biggest in at least a generation".

That is the theme of a piece by William Kristol. He may very well be correct, but I doubt it. I doubt that even with a Bush victory we will be any further along than we are today.

2002 was supposed to be the biggest election. It would be a referendum on the contested election of Bush and the vision he has for our country. The referendum pretty clearly broke our way and Bush won. As a result what have we seen? Conservative judicial nominees are filibustered in unprecedented fashion. Tax cuts are passed only after slimming them down and Bush begging the same Senate Republicans he put back in power to vote his way. The war on Iraq was delayed in order to appease moderate desires for more negotiation--yet in the end we still went to war and possibly delayed economic recovery by as much as six months.

2000 was supposed to be the biggest election. Everything I said about 2002 applies.

1994 was pretty big. 1996 was key as a follow-up to 1994. 1992 was big. Every election COULD be a big turning point, but rarely is. 2004 could be big, but I doubt it. If a Democrat wins he will declare the major combat of the war on terror complete and look to the remainder of the war as a police operation while focusing on the Liberias of the world while calling them breeding grounds for terrorists. Republicans would likely retain operational control (or at least veto control) over Congress. This would return us to the legislative experience of 1994 to 2000--not a bad thing in fiscal terms, but just a gradual slope towards more bureaucracy as the Democratic President utilized Executive Orders to accomplish the goals of liberal socialism.

On the other hand, if Bush wins he will probably get about 3 more Senators and about 10 more Congressmen. Operationally the House will be the same, especially since none of the new Congressmen would be conservative (all the conservative districts already have Republicans). They would be moderates that would guarantee that Hastert is Speaker, but otherwise willing to bolt with the Blue Dogs on the same type of issues that moderates have done this on in the last 3 years. The Senate would still be filibusterable by Democrats--Zell Miller already votes with the Republican majority so having his seat become Republican is not really any different. Bush will continue to split the difference and avoid confrontation. The major combat operations of the war on terror are for all intents and purposes complete. All that is left is to mop up and continue to define new alliances that will enforce the Bush Doctrine. The only bright side is that tax cuts that are intended to sunset may actually become permanent.

I hope that Kristol's piece provides encouragement to the conservative masses to go to work for this election, but I am not convinced that history will see the election of 2004 as a defining moment.

Bring on the Doctor

Up until today I had been a little bit ambivalent about the possibility of Howard Dean being the Democratic nominee for President. Not anymore. He wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal and I all I can say is that it had Liberal written all over it with a big L.

His platform contains a logical flaw.

In the beginning of his piece he argues that we need nationalized health insurance in order to save costs: "The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities."

This sounds good. Free businesses from the cost of providing an employee health insurance benefit and allow businesses to focus on what they do best. Of course as a well-trained conservative I quickly asked myself: 'if businesses don't pay for it, who will?' Dean was nice enough to answer later in his piece: "Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration."

Sounds like good rhetoric. Take down the big corporations that keep circumventing taxation by using corporate tax loopholes. But, are these not the same corporations that need to be relieved of the burden of health insurance costs so that they can be more productive? If we relieve them of one cost and impose another cost have we freed them up to create jobs or invest in the economy? Dean would say that he wants to free small businesses from health care costs and stop loopholes for big corporations and therefore there is no contradiction. When does a small business become a multi-national corporation? Does a thirty-employee company that is incorporated and exports to Japan count as a multi-national corporation? I once worked for a company like that and they took advantage of all the same loopholes that Boeing uses. Take it the other way, does he really intend to not have nationalized health care cover the employees of big corporations? This is the mindless kind of stupidity you get when liberals try to come up with plans for socializing the economy.

I could also pick on the silliness of nationalized health insurance or his plan to put tax cuts only in the hands of those most likely to spend it or his careful little dance around budget deficits with this quote: "the federal budget must be balanced over the business cycle". I think it is sufficient to point out that he has contradicted his own principles in the very same Op-Ed. Anyone who thinks like that will be easy for Bush to run against. So I say bring on the Doctor!

A Purple Heart

For about a week I have wanted to find one statistic: the number of police officers killed each year in the United States. I had a theory that they would make the number of deaths in Iraq look small especially since we are not just fighting remnants of the Baathist regime but also policing the country. I must admit the numbers were not quite what I expected but I decided to pull an 'I report, you decide' moment.

Deaths in Iraq as of August 19, 2003: 312. This includes British forces.

Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the year 2001, excluding those killed on September 11th: 70 killed feloniously, 78 accidentally killed while fulfilling official capacities for a total of 148.

And a few other numbers.

Accidental Military Deaths (not in Iraq or any war) for 2000: "113 on-duty deaths (108 deaths in FY 1999) and 322 off-duty deaths (321 in FY 1999)" for a total of 435.

Murders in New York City for the year of 2002: 590.

These are just some numbers that should give perspective. I am not saying that the lives of US servicemen are not valuable. In fact, I cringe every time I hear a report of another death. I also turned into a blubbering basket case one day when I saw an interview of a wife who had just had her baby who would never see his father. What I AM suggesting is that I still believe that this war was justified. I further believe that we must stay until the country of Iraq is stabilized. For that purpose the loss of life is low and we should be thankful for that. We have not even come close to the point where the loss of soldiers justifies second-guessing our mission.

Regulating Krugman

It seems funny to me that pundits on both sides say: "We still don't know what started the chain reaction on Thursday. Whatever the initial cause, however, the current guess is that a local event turned into an epic blackout because..." (Krugman). I never set out to make this blog a site for spinning for the Right. In my mind part of being conservative is to be honest. Paul Krugman on the other hand chooses to use his New York Times position to spin like crazy. Immediately after his caveat he dives into muck by saying that the problem is because of deregulating the transmission network. He completes it with this whopper: "And the cause of that neglect is faith-based deregulation."

Obviously he has an axe to grind on the issue of deregulation, but it still is somewhat surprising. My big criticism of Krugman is that he waves his PhD in front of you then forgets all his academic integrity in the pursuit of partisan arguments.

The truth about deregulation is that it can work, but does not always work smoothly. Here is an example of a more balanced analysis of deregulation and the problems we see. The truth is that true deregulation will cause prices to rise in some cases and the politicians are afraid of this. For example, true deregulation would make charge people more during peak usage times and allow them to make the self interested economic decision to avoid usage when it is costly. Politically this would cause liberals to scream that poor people are being forced to pay for expensive electricity. First off they are not forced. Second of all if we really feel concerned about them then provide a direct energy subsidy to poor people, don't regulate the entire system.

The really interesting thing about Krugman is that he should have read his own paper before spouting off today. In an article in the business section of the New York Times, Floyd Norris reports: FirstEnergy may be the culprit--"Early reports traced the problem to failures at FirstEnergy transmission lines in Ohio. The company acknowledged that an alarm system had not been working at the time”; and FirstEnergy has been having problems all summer that have been reflected in the stock price and customer satisfaction.

But Krugman says this: "Under the old regulatory system, power companies had strong incentives to ensure the integrity of power transmission — they would catch the flak if something went wrong. But those incentives went away with deregulation: because effective competition in transmission wasn't possible, the companies providing transmission still had to be regulated. But because regulation limited their profits, they had little financial incentive to invest in maintaining and upgrading the system. And because of deregulation elsewhere, responsibility was diffused: nobody had a strong stake in keeping the system reliable. The result was a failure not just to add capacity, but to maintain and upgrade capacity that already existed."

Is it just me or do Norris and Krugman disagree? While this represents significant strides in journalistic maturity at the New York Times, it also demonstrates that Krugman is a liberal cheerleader. Norris ably demonstrates that a utility that ignores the transmission lines suffers. Krugman claims that owners of transmission lines have no market incentive to maintain those lines. I say Krugman needs to read his own paper. The only thing in need of regulation is Paul Krugman—and by the New York Times NOT government.

Simon Says

I am very captivated by the entire recall election in California. Here is the latest roundup of reading: Field Poll, Don Luskin, Weekly Standard, National Review, and Foxnews.

First off, the most interesting points from the reading.

The poll showing Arnold at 42% was misleading. "Last week's CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, Aug 7-10, was completed after candidate filing closed. But it uselessly included candidates not running... Moreover, it asked respondents if there was a 'good or very good chance of voting for….' In other words, the multiple name numbers added up to 172 percent" (NRO). In reality the Field Poll is more correct because it adds up to 100% and only allowed single candidate choices. Results? "It shows Bustamante, 25 percent; Arnold; 22 percent; etc."

Arnold IS NOT leading. The next interesting fact, from the Field Poll (as summarized by the Weekly Standard, bold by me):
Bustamante 25%
Schwarzenegger 22%
Tom McClintock 9%
Bill Simon 8%
Peter Ueberroth 5%
Arianna Huffington 4%
Peter Camejo 2%
Larry Flynt 1%
Other Candidates 5%
None of the Candidates 5%
Undecided 14%

Everyone points out that Bustamante is at 25% and Arnold at 22%, but then ignore that UNDECIDED is polling at 14%. We have a good old-fashioned political race on our hands with plenty of undecided voters to fight over.

The One Third Strategy
Let's talk about strategy here. California is an interesting state. At least for Republicans. If you look at California electoral history going back to 1996 you see an interesting trend. I am looking at the ballot topping election every two years (Governor or President in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002). The results go like this (I provide the largest third party result).

2002 (Gov): 47.3% Dem, 42.4% Rep, 5.3% Green

2000 (Pres): 53.5% Dem, 41.7% Rep, 3.9% Green

1998 (Gov): 58% Dem, 38.4% Rep, 1.2% Green

1996 (Pres): 51.1% Dem, 38.3 Rep, 7% Perot, 2.4% Green

Do you notice anything? Sure, you might argue that the quality of candidate makes a difference. I disagree. These are very different candidates and elections over four election cycles. The notable trend is that Republicans can't get more than 42% of the vote. Just in case I was wrong about that I took a look at the highest Republican vote getters in statewide elections for the same years. Here it is:

2002: McClintock for Controller got 45.1% of the vote.

2000: Yes, it was George Bush at 41.7%

1998: Quakenbush for Insurance Commissioner got 49% of the vote for the win, Jones for Secretary of State got 47% of the vote for the win, and Fong for US Senate (against Boxer) got 43% of the vote.

1996: Yes, it was Bob Dole at 38.3%

To be fair there are some people who got more than 42%. But I am going to throw out Quakenbush and Jones because both were incumbent holdovers from Pete Wilson days. They held positions where the incumbent should win unless they have really gotten bad publicity for screwing things up. Even then, at no time did anyone break the electorally critical 50%! Furthermore, Quakenbush soon left office under a very dark cloud and Jones opted to avoid higher office because, one can only assume, as the chief election officer he could read the tea leaves. So the real election that year was Boxer vs. Fong. Even against the very liberal Boxer, a Republican candidate could only get 43% of the vote. In deference to McClintock's performance last year, I will say the Republican statewide maximum is 45%. You can only win three way races with 45%!

When a party is in the minority in a bad way the party tends to become more conservative (or liberal depending on the party). I grew up in a one party state (Hawaii), and the only Republicans were conservatives or the really rare and brave political opportunists. The party is conservative because all the young moderates in the state conclude that being Republican or Democratic is like six of one and half a dozen of the other--they just want to be elected. California party rules may serve to exacerbate the problem, but none the less if they could hold majorities moderates would reside and succeed in the party--give me another reason why Pete Wilson won nominations. With the power of moderates on the decline many believe that a moderate can not win the Republican primary in California. Some point at the Republican primary for Governor in 2002 as an example. Even with the backing of the White House, an early lead in polls, and lots of money Riordan lost to the conservative. Granted this may have had more to do with bad campaigning but it seems convincing to many. One must also ask where was Arnold in 2002? Why did he sit out the race? This is really the message that Simon and McClintock should be sending. He sat out the race because he could read the tea leaves as well.

Republicans in California have an electoral problem. While it might be interesting to discuss how they got there (ignore prop 187, the problem is that conservatives like me have left the state for places where gay marriage and high taxes are not problems) the issue for today is what this means for the election.

It is possible that if conservatives had put a moderate like Riordan or Arnold on the ballot against Davis in 2002 that Davis would have lost. But that is a hard case to make. The independent/third party voters went for a more liberal alternative to Davis--Davis WAS the moderate.

If California is anything like the rest of the country 33% of voters are truly conservative, 33% are truly liberal, and the rest can't seem to choose between ice cream and milk with their cake. For this reason the first gamble of the recall was that liberals, conservatives, AND moderates would dislike Davis enough that he would be recalled--I am willing to believe that this was a safe bet. The second gamble was that it could be a three-way race with the Democratic stand in, Riordan, and Issa (or any conservative for that matter). In a race like this the Democratic stand in would go liberal and it would be a contest of whose base has better turnout. I am not sure that the result of this gamble is yet clear.

Smart Democrats saw this equation and wanted a Feinstein who had the moderate credentials to not lose votes there even while going liberal to activate the base. She passed. Bustamante helps the Republican case. But instead of Riordan we got Arnold. Same politics, better marketing. Meanwhile conservatives can't seem to decide on which conservative to back. The problem in choosing one conservative is that both Simon and McClintock understand the high stakes gamble. Neither will withdraw without a guarantee that the other will also withdraw. Because as soon as Simon withdraws his supporters will go to McClintock REGARDLESS of any endorsement of Arnold. The same would be true if McClintock withdraws. At that point the conservative becomes a 20% candidate next to Arnold's 22% and then we have a real race for the undecided voters. Conservatives have two choices to make. First, do they want a guaranteed win, or do they want a fighting chance. Either way they need to narrow the candidate field. The only difference is should they both withdraw and endorse Arnold or does one withdraw and instead of endorsing Arnold endorse the conservative rival. In Option A they ensure a Republican victory with all the perks that this enjoins for the Republican party in fundraising and power--the gamble is over and while technically a loss for conservatives, a positive hedge is in place. In Option B they just might pull off a win, but if they lose they may be in the political wilderness of an eternity and the infighting of the California Republican party will get worse.

All of this discussion may be academic because the third place finisher in the polls right now is someone named UNDECIDED. If the California election data I presented above is any predictor I am willing to bet undecided will mostly break in Bustamante’s favor. Which would give him at least 35% on Election Day--enough to win in a three-way race. That still leaves about 5% to break for Arnold.

All of this being said, I am endorsing a plan that will never happen. Simon and McClintock join forces. Simon is the key to this. As the Republican nominee for governor last time around he has the best claim to rightful candidacy I can see. But he also has had his chance and failed. Simon could bow out tomorrow while maintaining a high profile by buying advertisements advocating a recall of Davis. Or he could become the nominal chair of the McClintock campaign. Either way this makes him the magnanimous savior of the Republican right. Bush could sweeten the deal by offering him a high profile post in the administration. All in preparation for McClintock and Bush endorsing Simon to run against Barbara Boxer in 2004. I think the conservatives have the goods for proving that Arnold is not up to the task and then they would only be running against his fame. If they could demonstrate to Republicans that together they can offer a solid 20% of the vote then Republicans will start to go their way. The Bush White House can have it both ways by encouraging Simon to move yet remaining officially neutral. Since the current electoral strategy is to write off California in 2004, it really would make little difference if Bustamante won or Arnold won while being mad at the White House. Even if Bush backs Arnold what is the pay off? Arnold will not win with a majority of the vote so there will be no coattail to leverage. Regardless of outcome Bush will poll at 45% come 2004. The real question is can a scenario be arranged where Simon might create a nice enough image for himself with moderate voters that he could beat Boxer and thereby improve Republican strength in the US Senate.

At the end of the day it comes down to one thing: what does Simon say?

Fat

I am fat, not over weight, just fat.

Now I have that out of the way, I want to comment on this article. For a moment I was worried that the article would conclude that there should be a government benefit to cover stomach reduction surgery—but it turns out there already is in some states. Here are the money quotes (bold emphasis by me):

Raechel believes she gained steadily over the years because she's hungry all the time. ''I eat and feel full, and then 20 minutes later, I'm hungry again.'' There are both healthful foods and junk foods in their home, but she admits she frequently eats junk food because it tastes better.

When Raechel was 9, she went with her mom to Weight Watchers at the local VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) Hall in their hometown. Raechel weighed in and followed the program but wouldn't go to the meetings.

After several failed attempts at losing weight, Raechel says by this summer, she'd basically given up and was eating ''whatever, whenever. I know I eat too much, but I think, 'Why stop now?' "

Gastric bypass ''is a tool. It's not a cure,'' Wittgrove [the surgeon] says. She will have to dramatically change the way she eats and begin exercising more, and his staff will help her do that. His group conducts a nutrition and exercise class for patients a few days after surgery, and they call and check in on them monthly.

Wittgrove says there are several things Raechel needs to do for the rest of her life: drink lots of water, exercise daily, eat protein first at every meal to feel full longer and protect lean muscle mass during the rapid weight loss, take supplements and avoid snacking.

Raechel is following a broth and Jell-O diet this first week, but that's OK because she's not hungry... It's one week since the surgery, and Raechel weighs 308 pounds, a loss of 15 pounds. She's starting to add soft foods back to her diet. Her choices: soft-boiled eggs, cottage cheese and refried beans.

Okay, enough! What am I trying to say? P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-I-T-Y!!!!!!!!

I am fat because I love to eat and I hate to exercise. Given the choice of what to do in the evening after work I would choose to eat chocolate anything while watching TV. Raechel is no victim, she is a lazy slob. She goes on and on about how she wants to be a college softball player yet claims that she can't walk for very long. Hmmm. I want to play in the NFL, but am I doing anything about it? No. Do you feel sorry for me? Please don't. Does it matter to me that she is fat? For the most part no. Except there is one little problem. Read this:

Raechel's family has to pay about $3,100 of the total of $28,000 for the surgery and hospitalization. The cost of the laparoscopic operation varies widely. Insurance coverage depends on the severity of the patient's obesity and varies by provider and state. Brenda says that if her insurance agrees to cover it or if she gets the money together, she ''will definitely have it.''

You and I are paying for her surgery! Because she is too lazy to discipline herself we are paying for it with higher insurance rates. Obviously some states have caved to the fat lobby and made it mandatory. Just the simple fact that companies are required to insure employees creates too much demand for unneeded surgery!

I am so irritated by this that I have now lost my appetite for lunch. Great!

Liberia

This piece is a good starting point for debate. While there may be many reasons to disagree with Fareed Zakaria's conclusion, there is little doubt in my mind that he is correct that Iraq is a rarity while Liberias are to be expected. It would be good to develop an approach and strategy for dealing with these types of conflicts. I am not proposing a Clintonian policeman policy, but I am saying we need a national consensus on what to do--even if we conclude to do nothing. Without a consensus or strategy we are left to react to each new conflict that can be marketed as fertile ground for terrorists or a humanitarian crisis. I suspect this discussion will help us come to grips with what our role in the world should be when obvious national interests are not at stake.

House of Saud

This is an interesting, even if long, read. I am still pondering the question of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. However, there is one postulation I am certain of. Read this quote first: "SOON AFTER the 9/11 report was published, Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal flew to Washington and challenged President Bush to release the redacted portion. This dramatic gesture notwithstanding, the Saudis will maintain their posture of denial in the near term, regardless of what happens in Washington. If the 28 pages are withheld, the Saudis will claim unfair intrigues based on concealment; if the pages are released, they will complain of false accusations emanating from the Jews." This very well may be the simple explanation about the Saudi interest in releasing the redacted portion, but my theory is this: they want it released so they can figure out who is giving the Americans information. They want to catch the leak and chop his or her tongue off. Rhetoric aside, they know how professional and accurate our intelligence can be and they fear that we might be on to them. What is there to be on to? I think the biggest problem is that the monarchy is weak and divided. There is a fair chance that there could be internal strife in the near future. Unwilling to confront this reality, or force the issue, the Saudis who would be our friends are looking the other way while their rivals court fundamentalists. Again this is my theory, grounded in little fact. But I suggest you ponder the possibility.

Something is Wrong Here

I hate to admit this, but I finally read a Maureen Dowd column I enjoyed AND agreed with. Dowd is a liberal if I ever met one, but she is taking pot shots at most of the Democratic candidates for President--and she did it without once criticizing Bush! I often skip her pieces, but she gave it an irresistible title: "Blah Blah Blog". I was sure this would be a criticism of me (you are supposed to laugh now), but it turned out to be critical of the many phony blogs created by the various candidates for President and even Tom Daschle. Incredible. Maybe pigs can fly after all.

Introduce a Friend!

It is time to increase the number of readers. I am making a shameless plug for you to promote this site by telling a friend. I'll even make it easy for you. Click on this link and most of the email has already been composed for you:) If you prefer just use the "email this" link at the bottom of each post to refer a friend to a post.

Buckley Weighs in on Gay Marriage

I will have to let these articles stand alone with little comment for now. But I do think Buckley makes some good points on the issue of gay marriage, from the viewpoint of conservative principle, here and here. For the conservative it would be preferable to not change existing laws or amend the constitution. But faced with the intent of the gay marriage movement and the reality of current interpretations of the constitution by the Supreme Court conservatives are faced with a choice of accepting gay marriage or amending the constitution. To be honest, I am still undecided on the issue of an amendment so I find these pieces worth reading in my own decision making process.

Oops, You Didn't Do Your Research

I hate to call a liberal pundit into question for his facts. But so much of his piece in the Wall Street Journal rests on an incorrect fact. Who am I talking about? Peter Beinart. He states, in reference to Howard Dean, that: "The mystery of the 2004 Democratic campaign isn't that a governor has caught on--that happens in most presidential years. The mystery is that there is only one governor in the field, and that he comes from such a tiny state." OOPS!!!! Not only was Bob Graham a Governor, but he was Governor of FLORIDA! It is really hard for me to slam on Peter too much since I like the way his piece blames Clinton for the destruction of the Democratic Party. But he is either not paying attention to the campaign, OR he is flying loose and free with the facts. I guess he might just be buying the Dean line that Graham is not a major candidate. I suggest that this calls into question Peter's premise that Dean is doing well because he is a former governor and the only one available to the Democrats. Dean is doing well because he is new and original.

Religious Litmus Test

Here is a piece by Robert Novak about the Democratic litmus test on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that warrants some fair discussion in American politics. If I firmly believe because of my religion that abortion is wrong, is it acceptable for me to stand on that issue politically? More appropriately, is it acceptable for a judge to be influenced by deeply held religious convictions? To turn the issue on it's head, if I was a scientist in the field of space travel and therefore had firm views that there was no life on Mars worth worrying about would this disqualify me to work at NASA? Sure you might say, this is a straw man, but my point is simply that he would or would not qualify depending on my own view of researching life on Mars. Like it or not, abortion is a highly charged political issue AND religious issue. There is no way to remove the influence of religion from thinking on the issue of abortion. I think Democrats are making a mistake. They should be honest and say that they want no judges that favor the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Stop attacking deep personal beliefs as evidence of the wrong temperament for the court. Surely Democrats would not disqualify, for reasons of judicial intemperance, a judicial nominee with deeply held beliefs about abortion being a right for women?

NY Times Over Dramatic

Today the NY Times has this article, which essentially says: Halliburton is getting a sweet deal thanks to Dick Cheney. As I read it I was concerned. Not that Halliburton is getting a great deal, but that the reporter was not telling the entire story. The story says that Bechtel is withdrawing from bidding for an oil field project in Iraq because: "competitors have begun to conclude that the bidding process favors the one company already working in Iraq, Halliburton". One reading the article gets the serious impression that Bechtel is in the same business as Halliburton and that Bechtel is getting NO work in Iraq. This seems to be incorrect from my impression of older stories. So in the interest of self education I went to the corporate sites for Halliburton and Bechtel. The first thing that strikes me is that they are definitly marketing very different services. Halliburton is focusing on the needs of the petroleum industry--all needs. Bechtel is a big construction company that claims as one of it's most recent big projects the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transist system and the Chunnel. And then the big whopper. Go ahead, read it for yourself. That is right. Bechtel is already in Iraq rebuilding infrastructure. Did they bid for that? I don't think so. They got a quick deal to rebuild roads that will be subject to future bidding just like the Halliburton deal. Why? Because they are the best at doing the job they got hired to do and we don't want to wait around for bids while the infrastructure of Iraq suffers. Sort of the same reason Halliburton is rebuilding the oil industry. Shame on the New York Times for implying that Bechtel was being screwed by Dick Cheney.

UPDATE: I have just posted an abridged version of these comments on Reductio Ad Absurdum

Arnold

Why not? He is an improvement over Gray and he can not run for President.

The issue hinges on the question of an old and over used truism: 'As California goes, so goes the country' (something like that). Ever since Californians lead a tax revolt and provided the country with Ronald Reagan people on both sides of the political divide have been wringing their hands and lamenting that California dictates national trends. But there is far too much anecdotal evidence that this is NOT true. California made services to illegal aliens, well illegal, but you haven't seen other states clamor to codify such a move. California made it illegal to use affirmative action in college admissions and the Supreme Court sure didn't listen on that one. California overwhelmingly voted for Gore in 2000--any questions? California inspects your car for fruits and plants before allowing you into the state--nope they don't do that in Texas, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, etc. California made gay marriage strictly against the law--maybe someone should send a copy to Vermont and Massachusetts, huh? California has a state budget crisis but Utah does not. My point is that California does not define the fate of our nation.

So it is not logical to conclude that every state with a budget crisis will recall their governor. For example, the laws for recalls are unlikely to be identical, Representative Issa lives in California, no state has a budget crisis as bad as California's, and not every governor got elected with only 47% of the vote. In fact, look at the same data and ask how many states gave a total of 10% of the vote to independent candidates? California is unique, every state is unique.

Even if the country did follow why would it matter? One can only assume that it is because it scares the heck out of politicians. It is as if Rep Issa broke the code of all politicians--'never, ever, make things harder for everyone.' You see if there is anything learned by voters everywhere it will be that recall is a great way to remove politicians who don't keep promises. Davis promised to take care of the problem and voters gave him a chance. After 9 months at it there is little evidence he is living up to the deal. Why not set a precedent that politicians need to deliver quickly? Why not keep them nervous?

Then there are the Republicans--which brings us back to Arnold. Arnold will win--count on it. This will be a coronation thanks to Rep Issa. The only question at this point is how Arnold will show his gratitude to Mr Issa. Republicans are mad. The rules of the recall grant the governors office to the person with the most votes. There is recent evidence that in statewide races California Republicans face a ceiling of 42% (the only exception was McClintock in 2002 at 45%). It is worth pointing out that because of the strength of conservatives in the California Republican Party, these candidates are overwhelmingly conservative. If the conservatives could have created a scenario where one solid conservative--Simon, Issa or McClintock--ran while a Democratic safety candidate like Cruz Bustamante ran and while the uninspiring moderate Richard Riordan ran it was a safe bet that a conservative could hold 40% of the vote. The only challenge would be to find a way to make sure only Simon, only Issa or only McClintock ran (looks like Issa is already off the list). Democrats realized this was the strategy and this is why they are crying "undemocratic" while hoping that all three would run and trying to get Feinstein to run. Arnold upsets the entire formula. Because he is not uninspiring like Riordan, because he and Riordan agreed to not run against each other, and because he was smart enough to wait long enough to not give Democrats enough time to respond. Why should conservatives care? Because Arnold is not a conservative, but he can draw conservative votes because he plays a tough guy who fights for right against wrong in the movies and he can win. Enough conservatives love that combination to fracture the conservative 40% block.

Should conservatives be concerned? Yes only because Arnold will be governor with no help from us (except Issa of course). He won't owe conservatives anything. But on the other hand I would prefer a Republican of any stripe to the existing Democratic monopoly in California. With that said, the optimal strategy for conservatives might be to convince Simon and McClintock to bow out and back Arnold.

Bush Not Nixon, But Not Conservative Either

This post appears as a comment on Reduction Ad Absurdum as part of my contribution efforts on that blog. I have made minor edits to improve readability here.

Conservatives need to wake up to one very serious reality: Bush is conservative when it makes for good politics. When it doesn't make for good politics he could care less.

Kevin Whited has commented on a piece by Bruce Bartlett. Bruce Bartlett thinks that Bush is little different from Nixon--i.e., not a conservative. Kevin disagrees. While I do think that Bruce exaggerates the similarities, I think it is worth pondering whether Bush is truly a conservative. I am not saying that I agree with Bartlett's final conclusion. And I even question some of his points. But I am saying that Bush has a problematic record. Here are the points that Kevin makes and my comments.

1) Campaign Finance Reform: Clearly Bush abandoned even his own campaign statements to sign the legislation. To excuse this because it should eventually be found unconstitutional does not excuse Bush from his own responsibility to uphold the constitution. At the end of the day Bush signed it in order to neuter McCain--a political consideration.

2) Education Bill. Bush promised education reform and to be fair he fulfilled a campaign promise. Any smart person would have predicted that Bush would not get all that he wanted. But at the end of the day he compromised a lot more than intended in order to remove a perennial Democratic issue.

3) More trade protectionist than anyone since Nixon. I think Bartlett is making an assertion here that is somewhat exaggerated. Bush's actual acts of protectionism have been limited. But, once again, political consideration was the motive--not principle.

4) Prescription drug plan. Sure there was a campaign promise to make this part of his domestic agenda, but did that mean he had to abandon conservative principle? Even Kevin admits that it is politics before principle: "This issue will be removed as one that can damage the President and the GOP. Granted, at the expense of sacrificing some purity."

5) War on terror. This is where I draw the line and think that Bush finally demonstrates principle. He leans against the wind, ignores critics, and refuses to compromise.

Four out of five are proofs that Bush places politics before other considerations. At the end of the day he is concerned about electoral victories. He does not go out on the limb for ideology. His appointment of judges is not enough proof for me, because while the fights have been controversial Bush has seemed distant and unwilling to make a fight. One might cynically conclude that the strategy is to offer conservative judges that Schumer will fight against in order to look good with the base, but not actually play the political hard ball necessary to get them approved. The admirable part is that Bush has co-opted Schumer as his assistant in solidifying the conservative base.

My problem with Bush is his spending. As I see it there are a few pillars of conservatism: tax cuts, spending cuts (less government), protecting cultural values, and protecting America. When it comes to actions a President can control he has done fine on tax cuts and protecting America. I often conclude there is little the President can do about cultural values other than speak to the issue and appoint judges. But when it comes to spending there is much a President can do. Bush has failed. While it may be unfair to make a strong comparison to Nixon, it is fair if you consider that they are both political animals willing to cut deals and use government in order to solve problems. They are government activists.

Which brings me to my real point. I really have no problem supporting a Republican politician who is a politician first and a conservative second. For this reason I will go to the polls and vote for Bush. I will even advocate his re-election on Right On Everything. However, I am not willing to defend him as a conservative. Bush is a politician. If conservatives expect him to take more conservative positions we must stop giving him passes on issues of principle and hold his political interest by challenging him to serve our interests. It is in that light that I (mostly rhetorically) make a general call for a conservative challenger in the Republican primaries. Is anyone interested?

August

August is traditionally the time when the White House, Congress, and the Press take vacation. Interestingly enough people do as well. Somehow the news stories quiet down and everyone except the junior replacements at the news networks hope that nothing big happens. Personally I am in the midst of several life transitions. As such I may be a little spotty on posts for the next few weeks. One of these transitions is an experiment of sorts. I have recently discovered Kevin Whited, editor of Reductio Ad Absurdum. He has given me the opportunity to contribute on occasion to his blog. I am inclined to see if I can juggle that and maintaining Right On Everything. It will enable me to have an interactive and public discussion with other conservatives. I will not make posts at his blog without also providing the same content here. What you will get if you read my post there is the dialogue with other contributors to Kevin's blog. Please feel free to give me feedback as usual.

Go Figure

I am not one to say that all Congress Persons need to read every piece of information. I agree with the contention that they hire good staff to do this. However, if I was a Congress Person who intended to be critical of President Bush for taking us to war and claim in the process that the President used faulty intelligence I would at least review the intelligence made available before opening my big mouth. This story is very irritating.

Fences

Normally I find a lot to agree with when I read the Wall Street Journal editorial page or anything by Robert Novak. But I find myself at odds with them on the issue of the Israeli fence around the West Bank.

The Wall St Journal says that:

if Mr. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expect Mr. Abbas to rise to the challenge, they will need to take steps to strengthen his political position. This will have to include addressing the issue of the unpopular Israeli security fence, which is being constructed well inside the borders of the West Bank and the existence of which is incompatible with any realistic vision of a permanent settlement.

Robert Novak says that:

[Bush's indifference on the fence is] profoundly depressing for those Republicans, in the administration and Congress, who have prayed that Bush would capitalize on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by insisting on a Middle East settlement including a Palestinian state. They think the president's intent is pure, but that he is overpowered by the combination of Sharon and DeLay.

I say: poppy-cock!

Let's use a hypothetical news story to make the point.

Today conservatives called on President Bush to tear down the wall around Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. It has been just a year since it was concluded that Al Qaeda was only located in a small mountain province. Since that time the US has responded to international calls for restraint by not invading or bombing the area. However, since Al Qaeda has continued to allow citizens of the mountain province to secretly leave the area in attempts to set off bombs in the major cities of Afghanistan the US administration has begun construction of a security fence. An annonymous source in the administration says that we should invoke the words of The Gipper by calling on the President to "tear down this wall!"

Do you see how ludicrous that sounds? Ignoring the issue of US interests for a moment let's just discuss whether the Bush administration official cited by Robert Novak who wants to use the words of Reagan is even competent. It is obvious to me that he or she was not paying attention in world history class or had a liberal professor that was too persuasive. The Berlin wall, while officially built to defend East Germany from the encroachment of the capitalists, in reality served the purpose of imprisoning East Germans. Reagan called for Gorby to tear down the wall in order to free the people of the Eastern Block. Let's make it simple: Russia built the wall to imprison their own people. Russia was not a democracy. Now let's move to Israel. Israel IS a democracy AND the fence is more analogous to a fence we have along parts of the border with Mexico. Israel is not trying to contain the people of Israel, it is trying to keep OUT illegals!

To be fair, although I think the dishonesty of Novak and the WSJ on this issue does not merit fairness on my part, these opinions are not driven by anything more than realism about US foreign policy. The reality is that Israel does not make sense. What I mean is that being the ally of Israel at such great cost is not logical. Israel has no significant natural resources, they are not an irreplacable trading partner, and other than proximity to the Suez canal there is little that is strategic about their location. In fact, it is our friendship with Israel that provides the greatest proof that Bush's foriegn policy is not about OIL. You see, if oil was all that mattered we would have abandoned Israel and have made friends with Saddam. So why are we allies?

I often ponder this question to no strong conclusion. But I do have a few ideas. It is a matter of history and familiarity. In the years immediately following World War 2, Israel served our interests in keeping the Suez canal open and out of European or Soviet control. During the Cold War Israel was our beach head in the Middle East. And some how we came to see ourselves as the protector of democracies. The clincher however is the holocaust. When it comes right down to it Americans feel an emotional responsibility to protect the down-trodden. There is something in US politics that is very powerful about policy that seeks to protect those who suffer. Over time these things have been reenforced by simple familiarity with Israel as an ally we can trust.

All along this has created a great conflict for America. On the one hand we care about things like right and wrong, but on the other hand we need oil. So we try to walk a tightrope. Novak and the WSJ propose continuing on the tightrope for as long as possible. Bush instead recognizes that Israel is simply trying to protect itself. I do not think that this is some conspiracy of Neo-Conservatives deceiving the President and I do not believe that the absence of a fence will strengthen Mr Abbas' position in Palestine. But I am sure that a fence will lessen the liklihood of bombs in Israel. The real statement that Mr Bush should make is: "Mr. Arafat, stop those bombs!"

See You on Monday

I will not likely be posting again until Monday. I did stay up late Thursday night (Friday morning) posting just to be sure you would all have something to read. Please enjoy.

If you are hoping for a comment on the economic data, here it is: Hooray! I haven't time to read Paul Krugman yet, but just the title convinces me he is really out in left field. I am just appalled that rather than admit that the numbers look good and that he is wrong, he looks for the only dismal issue in the nation--California--and tries to extrapolate some greater meaning. I will read the article and comment in detail when I return.

The Gay Marriage Issue

One argument often cited against gay marriage is the slippery slope. Most recently, the slope towards polygamy and polyamory. In and of itself I think that a slippery slope argument is not strong enough to win a debate--any debate. In fact, if I was an opponent of a slippery sloper I would simply offer a compromise--agree to let X go and agree to ban Y. Thus the slope disappears. The gay movement may want to consider doing just that.

So, I feel we need a more compelling argument.

The gay movement also has a weak argument. They keep trying to argue that they are denied a "right". When it comes right down to it the right that they are concerned about is the right to express love in any way they feel. Besides the point that there is an irony to the sexual revolution now wanting to embrace the actual institution it once rejected, serious people should wonder why this is a right and why the gay movement thinks that this is the ultimate way to express love. To be fair this is not the only argument for gay marriage, but it is the only one that can not be legislated away. All other arguments are for economic benefits that simply require an update to laws to allow for any two persons regardless of sex of the parties to enter into mutual agreements for the receipt of benefits such as Social Security.

In making the argument for love, the gay marriage movement actually sets good terms for debate. What they raise is the question of the nature of marriage. What is marriage for? Is it for love? Is there no other reason for marriage? Tell the Indian programmer who just returned to India for his arranged marriage to a woman chosen out of a newspaper that marriage is for love. Tell the Filipino mail order bride that marriage is for love. I will admit that in the West love has become an important condition for marriage. Our culture glorifies love in marriage. We also glorify some concept of destiny. We embrace the fairy tale of Cinderella and more recently The Princess Bride. What is the line? "Marriage. Marriage is what brings us together--today. Marriage--that blessed arrangement. That dream -- within a dream." That dream--within a dream. Our culture idolizes the entire process. Who can blame the gay person for feeling that life has excluded them?

Why the fairy tale about marriage? Why any fairy tale? Let's try another fairy tale to make my point. How about the most discussed (according to this website): Little Red Riding Hood. If you read through the entire piece (or at least scan as I did), you will find this quote: "Other interpretations range from a focus on the idea that it is a simple cautionary tale, to a plethora of psychoanalytically based interpretations which generally radiate from a sexual / initiation source..." (emphasis mine). I am willing to discard all the gobbledy gook of all the PhDs who need to justify their degrees in literature by defining some new meaning in the red cape and focus on the cautionary tale. Simply put it was meant to scare the bejesus out of little kids in order to keep them from getting too close to wolves and asking dumb questions about their ears and eyes. Parents needed to keep their kids safe.

What does this have to do with marriage? The cultural fairy tales about marriage as the romantic end all of life are there to get us to marry. If the tales really told about how the couple argued on their honeymoon, or how child birth was so painful, or any number of things about marriage that are arduous do you think anyone would get married? If they didn't get married what would their fate be? Why do you think Cinderella's wicked step sisters couldn't get married? They are in the story to make the point that only selfish and mean girls can't get married so be nice.

Why did culture evolve such fairy tales? One might conclude that marriage had other benefits. If the fairy tale made it easier to get the young couple to agree to marriage then all the better. Just as the benefits of keeping children away from wolves justified scaring children, the benfits of marriage, protection from economic and social instability, justified making marriage seem romantic.

Does this still apply today? The welfare state has come pretty close to making it seem as if it does not. But I believe that it still does. Why? Because it still protects children. Ultimately there is no kind of homosexual sex that might result in child birth. Try as they may, there will be no accidental birth. However, in a heterosexual relationship this is possible for all except presidential interns. The ideal is marriage in order to protect children--not for love. Gay people need to understand this and embrace it. They need marriage to work in the traditional way just like I do. They need children to be born in to stable two parent families rather than grow up in single parent homes as wards of the welfare state. As for expressing love, they can do that in their rooms and in contracts and in the way they live.

The real slippery slope has already been slid down--it is the slope of forgetting why culture has certain traditions. It is in forgetting why these traditions are of value to all. Forget polygamy and polyamory and forget expressions of love. Instead focus on the real tradition and ask if the value that each tradition provides for our collective society is worth maintaining. In the case of marriage, I believe that it is.

Oil Out of Crap

Thanks to Nick Schulz for this and this post on The NRO Corner today. Just to sum it up for you. There is an article in Discover magazine that reports on a company that has developed a process whereby they can convert anything containing Carbon into Oil while producing mineral and water as by-products. Nick, who edits a technology magazine, asks if any experienced scientists can vouch for the legitimacy of this process.

He has received some comments from engineers on the article. Some sceptical, and one very positive.

I offered Nick an alternative point of view. The economic one.

You see, I am convinced that most science is like computer programming which I know a little about. The question is not if something is possible, but rather how long it will take and at what expense--more specifically, is it worth it. Let's use a simple example. An electric car is possible, but each car costs SO much money that it is not economically feasible. What is obvious to me from the article is that the interviewer did not ask the hard detail questions on costs. Sure, I realize that he did have some lines about costs, but let's look at them. First quote:

"We will be able to make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel," says Paul Baskis, the inventor of the process.

Please note the future tense there. Right after the reporter got done listing the $50 million invested by individuals and government just to do the research. Further in the article you will read that the first plant cost $20 million to build. Next quote:

It will make 11 tons of minerals and 600 barrels of oil [a day]

600 barrels of oil which will sell on today's market for $30 a barrel for a total of $18,000 a day. At that rate it will take him three years just to cover the cost of building the facility. Not too bad so far. Final quote:

And it will be profitable, promises Appel. "We've done so much testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," he says. "This is our first-out plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five years, we'll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production company. And it will get cheaper from there."

That is where he exposes himself. You see the reporter should have asked why the costs will go down. Is that because turkey guts will get cheaper, or he will have written off the fixed costs, or is it because he is assuming that more people will adopt the technology and he will be able to spread the costs over multiple locations? I think he is only talking about the variable costs of turkey guts and keeping the lights at the factory on. He is not including the initial investments, or the reality of how much more his oil cost in terms of the opportunity cost of the natural gas he claims to pump back into the system. The real give away that they might be using rosy estimates was that the "authority" on how good an investment this is was the venture capitalist--you don't think he has an agenda, now do you?

I love technology. I am very excited about things like this. I really believe that scientists will make drilling for oil a non-issue long before it runs out. But I am not so excited that I think it will happen tomorrow. I would guess that this guy has really discovered a spectacular process, but I would also guess that it is more costly than he lets on. All new technology tends to be. Will it get cheaper? You bet it will, but can the idea last long enough for the idea to get cheaper? How long will it take to get cheaper? Many great ideas fail for reasons unrelated to the greatness of the idea, let's hope that this is not true of turning turkey guts into oil.

Bush Press Conference

President Bush held a press conference yesterday at a time of day when few people could watch. Just for fun go to the White House home page and see if you can find any reference to the press conference. What is wrong with this White House? Okay, I know that President Bush is not the best public speaker, but he is worse quoted than he is live. The few clips I have seen were great. He showed emotion and a sense of humor. He clearly is comfortable with reporters and willing to joke with them from reading the transcript. I think these are the things that the American people need to see live in prime time rather than reading the quotes that make him sound dumb. Karl Rove set the man free!

Speaking of which there were some really great comments in the press conference. Some reality expressed about how long it will take to establish democracy in Iraq, more directness about the '16 words', and a comment about gay marriage.

What I want to know is whether people are going to eat crow now about the '16 words'. After all, a lot of people have been going on and on about the President not being willing to take personal responsibility. I still contend that he has done that all along. Maybe they will be happy that he did it live at a press conference. I doubt it! The strategy is to weaken Bush through a thousand pinpricks. And, if Karl Rove is listening, this is the reason that Bush needs to be live in prime time. Because when people hear Bush speak they see the simple cowboy and they like it.

What I really am interested in is his comment about Gay Marriage. No, I am not going to take credit for this one. But I am happy to see him finally address the question in a way that indicates that he is taking it seriously. I am not sure that some of the headlines were appropriate. But he did imply that legal proposals are on the way. I would like to see what he has in mind. Regular readers will recognize that I have strong feelings on this issue. I am not in favor of gay marriage. I am, however, nervous that Bush will continue his track record of overdoing the government role in any solution.

Fundamentally there is a cultural debate that needs to be held, which is bigger than just gay marriage. The initial question of that debate is: 'Do Christian values have a place in our society?' President Bush obviously believes there is. I agree. The challenge is how best to do that without disturbing the rights of people to believe and worship however they choose. The real problem is that so much of western cultural tradition is rooted in Christianity. Why do you think American's feel this moral obligation to help poor war-torn countries like Liberia? Where does that come from? There is no self interest involved; yet there is a lot of compassion. Why do we value the life of an individual soldier? Why do we object to ideologies that imply that some are better than others are? Whether we like it or not many of these concepts are linked to or influenced by Christianity. If Christian values have a place then President Bush's complete statement is very appropriate and goes very well with what I have argued. The problem with gay marriage is that gay persons feel ostracized by people who look down on the gay lifestyle. Bush exhorted all Americans to be better Christians towards gay persons. And then he pointed out that being better Christians did not require accepting the legalization of gay marriage. Can you see that one with out the other would have been a contradiction? Can you see that you can't call on Christians to observe the higher ideals of Christianity while kicking the institution of marriage? Or stated the opposite way, we can't defend traditional marriage and at the same time be callous to the feelings of gay persons.

Because this and other issues are so important I return to my original point: put Bush on in prime time and let him be a bigger part of the debate on each and every issue that is important in this country.

What Is Bush Really Hiding? NOTHING!

That is the real question to ask about the blacked out section of the 9/11 report. Not some question about motives. I guess the President still has political capital on store with me because I don't believe he is just trying to cover and maintain some cool relationship with the Saudis. Furthermore, I think there is fair evidence that this adminsitration does not try to coddle unwilling or unneeded allies. Our success in Iraq makes the Saudis both unwilling and now unneeded.

What is really going on?

The first possible explanation is that this is just another example of what I will call 'intelligence caution'. I think spies are like any other technician in any other job where their word can mean the difference between trust and losing a job. For instance, in my line of work I am often asked if we can make some modification to a computer system so that users can do something special. The most important question I ask is 'who is the user?' This affects my answer. At a simplistic level the change the user requests can always be done, the real question is how LONG will the change take. If the user is someone who can get me fired then I prefer to sound optimistic but in my actual estimates I err on the side of caution. If it will likly take one day to make the change I hedge and ask for two days. If I am done early all the better.

What does this have to do with spies? I think they are in a similar position. They are always being asked to assess risks. If they underestimate the risks, as they did previous to 9/11, they will get burned if the worst case scenario comes to pass. However, if they over estimate risks, as some think they did with Iraq, at the worst we will eliminate a threat that was not as bad as thought, but nonetheless a threat. So when a report about all the details of 9/11 comes along then the spies and investigators ask themselves what are the risks of everyone knowing every thing that we know. In the worst case a bad guy gets spooked and runs or the Saudis are able to figure out who is the spy in the upper reaches of the royal family. Granted the bad guy may never read the report and the Saudi royals may be too dumb to figure it out, but why take the risk?

I want to know WHO blacked out the sections. Did the CIA? The FBI? The NSC? State? Or was it a White House political operative?

I am going out on a limb here, but I think it was some technician who wants to avoid risk.

What of the Saudi desire to see it released? The Saudis are honestly concerned about public image, but only when Washington cameras are focused on them. Once again I am going out on a limb here, but when all is said and done I think the Saudis want to know who in the royal family keeps telling Washington about all their dirty laundry. This is the second possible explanation for keeping the critical sections of the report blacked out.

It is clear to me that Bush irritates the Saudis. Why else would you have quotes about Bush Sr calling the Prince to tell him that Jr's heart is in the right place? Why else would the Prince storm away from a week at the ranch without holding a joint news conference? Bush Jr sees black and white, and if there is one thing I like about him it is that he is not afraid to identify it. There is no doubt in my mind that he is leaning on the Saudis and they don't like it.

So while I would love to read the report contents, I am actually satisfied that Bush is not giving the Saudis a pass on being bad, so I don't care. Now can the press and the Democrats move on to another story?

Tax Cut

I just got my $800 tax rebate check! Besides now knowing I have at least two kids and the possible range of my income you can also be assured that I love tax cuts in any form.

At a theoretical level I don't really care who gets the tax cut. At the end of the day all I am interested in is the total size of the tax cut. There are two reasons for this. First of all the total size of the tax cut has a direct effect on the ability of politicians to justify the total amount of spending. Remember it is the spending that causes the deficit, not the tax cut. Secondly, the larger the total tax cut the greater the total effect on the total economy. And the real stimulation for me is that if the economy turns up companies start hiring and all kinds of nice things happen. With this type of logic it would be really no difference if we just gave Bill Gates the entire tax cut or we spread it around.

Granted at a personal level I really enjoying being a part of the tax cut. Furthermore, I feel it is my civic duty to spend a fair portion of the money thereby stimulating the economy. To that end my wife and I intend to go out for a nice sit down dinner and tip lavishly! I love getting some of it.

The reason to spread the tax cut around is to keep me voting for Bush. It is sold as fairness, but if it is the economy we are concerned about, then giving Bill Gates a check for $100,000,000 can be just as effective as giving 100,000 families a check for $1,000 not to mention much simpler to administer. This is the segway to the first Democratic lie about tax cuts. That is that tax cuts need to go to the people that need them the most. I don't dispute that poor people would really appreciate the break, while Bill Gates wouldn't miss the money if we in fact raised his taxes a little bit. The real problem is that it is hard to cut the taxes of a person who doesn't pay taxes. The Earned Income Tax Credit for example effectively removes the poorest Americans from tax liability. The last time I qualified I actually made money from the credit! Therefore if I want to cut the total tax burden in the country by $1 billion then I am going to cut taxes even for the people who don't need it. If the real objective is to make poor people better off then forget tax cuts and write them a check--oops! I forgot I just explained how we already do that.

The other lie about tax cuts is that they cause deficits. When is a Democrat going to be honest and tell us what they really mean? Sure, they wouldn't get my vote, but they aren't going to get it anyway. What they mean is that without higher tax revenues, at some point, someone will have to cut spending. Democrats don't want to cut spending on precious programs and therefore they are against any tax cut.

Heres to happy sit down dinners all over America!

Senate Judiciary Committee

Last night I watched C-Span. It was the July 23rd vote on referring William Pryor to the full Senate for a vote on his nomination to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Setting aside the debate about Mr. Pryor, it was just fun to watch. Democrats and Republicans were at each other's throats. The Democrats tried to raise questions about Pryor's honesty to the committee and request more time to investigate. The Republicans countered that plenty of investigation had been done and nothing turned up. The Democrats tried to invoke Rule 4, which they felt allowed for a filibuster within the committee. Chairman Hatch declared that he had the sole authority to interpret the rule and declared that it could not be invoked in this case. The Republicans upheld his interpretation and then they voted on Pryor along party lines. Political high drama--good TV.

Quick Roundup

I am on a business trip and so instead of posting this morning, I was on an airplane. Rather than provide one of my normal lengthy posts I thought I would share my thoughts about the things I read in the newpapers while flying--as well as some general in flight observations. I read both the Wall St Journal and USA Today. I know that there is a big difference in the prestige and quality of these papers, but I think that they provide some different things which I value.

Airport Screeners
But before the papers. I went through airport security in a midsize airport. The lady behind me complained about the length of the security line. I don't get it, the line only took 5 minutes. Forget all the things that can be said about airport screening good or bad and recognize that at a minimum the screeners try their best to make it a quick process. I will say that I have observed that airport design does limit the ability of screeners to affect the flow. For instance it is no surprise to me that some of the longest line times are experienced in Atlanta where ALL people go through one central security checkpoint

In Flight Movie
It was that movie with Steve Martin and Queen Latifah. That movie made use of every stereotype about racist white people and hip hop black people and still managed to be funny without making me feel uncomfortable. I think that took courage to just have fun.

USA Today Gay Poll
The biggest thing that caught my attention was the poll results about how people feel about Gay Rights. Now either the pollsters made a mistake a couple of months ago, a mistake this time, or there has been a DRASTIC change in attitudes in just two months. I am convinced that my website has single-handedly made the difference--okay, maybe not;)

Tom DeLay
Things that USA Today thinks you and I should know about Tom DeLay.

Rod Paige in the Wall St Journal
Rod Paige, President Bush's Secretary of Education, made a case (link requires registration) for the use of school vouchers in the Washington, D.C. school district. He was doing fine on the general issue. Where he lost me was his statement that he and President Bush believe that an education is a "Right". What? It might be good policy, but it is not a right! Add this the list of proofs that Bush is a politician, not a conservative.

Barry McCaffrey
Am I the only one who thinks that his editorial (link requires registration) was pointless? I would much rather have preferred a piece where he admits that he was a fool in saying that we didn't have enough troops to win the war. He said that months ago. Now he thinks we don't have enough troops to win the peace. I wonder if he thinks we have enough troops anywhere? He may be right, but his credibility is sure shot.

Pilots Have All The Fun
Sitting next to me was an off-duty pilot. On the other side of him an attractive 18 year old girl. Let's just say that the pilot and the girl talked up a storm while I wondered why I didn't choose to become a pilot.

Holy Cow!

I have previously sited Veronique de Rugy as a good analyst of the out of control spending that the Bush White House is allowing to take place. Today she has a piece on National Review and I was thinking: 'I can guess what it says, I'll read it later'. And then I read it.

HOLY COW!!!!

I had to stop reading when I hit this quote: "Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively." Okay, okay, I know the education numbers are not a surprise to any conservative who was attentive when Bush and Teddy passed their version of education reform. But seriously, what does the Labor department do? Is that just because of unemployment checks? NO. I decided to check things out at the Department of Labor website. Sure the administration is planning on bringing Labor spending down for 2004, but what were they doing in 2001, 2002, and 2003? I might let them slide on 2001 since Clinton wrote that budget, but what gives?

It gets back to my point that this administration is not willing to confront anyone. If the Democrats want to investigate the President for making bad decisions they should forget about Iraq and focus on spending. The problem is that they would like to spend that much money as well. The administration does not want to defend spending cuts on the Sunday news shows. They do not want to confront the Teddy Kennedys and Robert Byrds of Congress.

Send Bush a check and he will sign it. W: it is time to get a stiff back bone on spending. Conservatives: I am afraid that the only way that W will listen is if we offer up a sacrificial lamb to challenge him in the primaries. Anyone interested?

Gay Marriage Debate

There are many interesting articles to sight today. First, reference my original comments to see where I stand. I have refined things a bit since the original comments, and followed up with this and this. I do intend to continue refining my views and continue making the case that gay people don't really need marriage. If expressing a commitment to love is so important there is nothing preventing them from writing a contract, creating a will, and taking out a full page ad in the local newspaper.

One of the more interesting people I have stumbled upon in my reading is Maggie Gallagher--because she generally agrees with my approach to the issue. I don't think she knows who I am, oh well the suffering of the small-time blogger. But, I am interested in getting a copy of her book and I recommend her brand new site MarriageDebate.com. I first discovered her on July 14th of this year (just so she doesn't think I am just a copy cat my original statement was made on July 1). She has just had her views included in the Weekly Standard. Good job Maggie.

What is really interesting is that National Review is now adopting the same line of reasoning. At the risk of admitting laziness I admit that it is possible that National Review has had this position for a while. What is really exciting to me is that Andrew Sullivan has finally begun to respond to the presentation of this argument. Here is his response to National Review today. While Andrew Sullivan can ignore me, as he has done since I have made every effort to let him know that I was debating his view on gay marriage, he cannot reasonably ignore National Review.

Like National Review I am hesitant to envision amendments to the constitution. As a conservative I am inherently opposed to changes for the sake of change. The problem is that without any action we are faced with a change. There is no doubt in my mind that if conservatives simply opt to keep arguing that marriage be left as is, within five years we will have gay marriage nationally. Cynically one might fairly wonder: "so what, the whole thing is going into the gutter anyway", but I am willing to fight. There is a clear cultural risk to further abandoning marriage. One need only ponder the question from the perspective of why there is little proof that gay marriage has ever been the part of any culture--Christian or not. All these years of cultural tradition cannot be all bad. And to say that because liberals have already weakened marriage over the last 40 years so gays cannot really make it worse is really just a distraction. Because B made A weak does not mean we should ignore the possibility that C will make A even weaker.

To be fair to Andrew Sullivan I am willing to accept his premise that gay people feel ostracized in society. He hopes that marriage will change that by allowing gay persons to express love in the same way that heterosexuals can. However, the love expressed in marriage is only the expression of my willingness to accept the consequences of sex with you through a commitment. I guess in a sense gay persons may mean the same thing. The difference is that gay sex will never produce unwilling third parties that also need the parties of marriage to express a commitment. Andrew Sullivan has done some research to counter the argument that marriage is only for the children. He has found some statutes in Wisconsin and Arizona that allow incestual marriage if parties are infertile or too old to bear children. I don't dispute that these may be examples of marriage for love, solely. But that doesn't mean that marriage was not originally institutionalized to protect children. It just means that some legislators felt bad for incestual couples and made an exception. Which brings me to a tangential point. Andrew Sullivan criticizes the National Review for not being truly conservative in supporting a constitutional amendment on marriage. His premise is that the true conservatives would defend the right of states to decide for themselves. Andrew, I've got news for you. You are the true charlatan. A true conservative, gay or not, would be opposed to court mandated gay marriage and instead favor allowing the voters or their elected representatives to decide the issue. The last time I checked the voters do not like gay marriage. Even Californians, in the home of the gay capital of the world clearly went on record against gay marriage.

I hope that we can return to being sensible on the issue. Let's fix marriage and make it consistent for the sake of confirming the family institution. Meanwhile let's also recognize that gay persons do not deserve to suffer. Expose the real suffering and let's eliminate it. As for the insurance that marriage provides, with few exceptions, which can be easily remedied, everything that gay persons need may be provided by a contract, a will, and a newspaper ad.

Conservatism Bleg

I understand that the term for inviting blog readers to submit information is: 'bleg'. I am now blegging. Actually I am feeling pressure. You see for a while I have been alluding to a future blog to explain my own personal take on defining conservatism. I am by no means delusional to the point of thinking that conservatism has never been defined. I just want to put into words what it means to me. Along the way I have occassionally posted things that are part of that greater discussion, but I really intend to put it all together in the mother of all blogs. Of course this assumes that Blogger, my wonderful host, won't crash;)

I have been putting it off, but yesterday I got an email from a reader providing me with a link to a site that he thought might be helpful in my attempt at defining the Unified Conservative Theory. I REALLY appreciated that. It made me feel a little pressure to realize that a reader ACTUALLY is waiting to read what I have to say. Then it gave me an idea. Since there is no way for me to ever single-handedly compile every thing that has been said in defining conservatism maybe readers would be willing to help me out. I know I don't have a large readership, but the few and the proud could be helpful. So, if you do see something out there in an article or the blogosphere send me a link; if you wrote an essay in a college political science class send me a copy; and if you have a recommended reading list send it to me. I can't promise to process or include everything, but I will make sure that you get a thank you.

I can be reached as always at james at rightoneverything dot com.

Thanks!