Pro-Choice and the Superbowl Ad

This year's Superbowl will include an ad concerning abortion. The ad has not been shown yet but here is a description of it:

The ad shows Tebow and his mother Pam discussing her decision not to end a difficult pregnancy in 1987. Pam carried the baby to term against her doctors' recommendations, and her child grew up to be the Heisman-trophy winning University of Florida quarterback, who many consider the best college football player in a generation.

Predictably, the women's movement is outraged. Here's an example from the Huffington Post:

The Women's Media Center and a coalition of organizations dedicated to reproductive rights, tolerance, and social justice is calling on CBS and the NFL to pull Focus on the Family's anti-choice propaganda ad. We do not have to see the ad to know Focus on the Family's real agenda. While pretending its message is a "celebration of life," their true intent is to have the government intrude in women's reproductive health decisions. The subliminal messaging of the ad is also a thinly veiled effort to shame the one in three American women who have an abortion and a dangerous suggestion that choosing to carry a pregnancy to term -- regardless of the risks -- is the right decision for all women.

From the description, the ad is designed to sway a woman who is considering an abortion to have the baby. It says nothing about outlawing abortion. It simply advocates a choice. That's not how the women's groups see it. To them, any message that is not in favor of an abortion must be anti-choice.

Focus on the Family's ad is surrealistic in its argument that a woman who chooses not to have a child may be depriving the Super Bowl of a football player. It uses one family's story to dictate morality to the American public, and encourages young women to disregard medical advice, putting their lives at risk.

In general, I am pro-choice but that means that the choice can go either way. I find it surrealistic that anything that does not urge a woman to have an abortion is anti-choice.

This aspect of the women's movement has bothered me for decades. They call themselves "pro-choice" but, to them, the choice is always to have an abortion. They do not want a choice, they want an abortion. The term "pro-choice" is for public relations, only. Their real agenda is pro-abortion. They see children as nothing more than a drag on a woman's career. Usually this aspect of the movement is well-disguised but every now and then it shows itself in all its ugliness.

Focus on the Family's ad goes against the approximately 70% majority American view that reproductive decisions should be left up to a woman and her physician; against the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that such decisions are protected by a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy;...

There is nothing in the ad that conflicts with this. The choice still remains with the woman. The ad is nothing but a reminder that the alternative to an abortion is a living human being who can go on to make his mother proud.

Update: The actual ad is so innocuous that you can blink and miss its message. All of the fuss in advance probably did far more to advance its message than the actual ad.

Who Is Rich?

Who is rich? This topic comes up regularly, mainly when Democrats draw a lower limit on who is wealthy and therefore whould be punished for it through higher taxes. Democrats have set the limit as low as $100,000 per year but President Obama has consistently set it at $250,000 per year. Daniel Gross of Newsweek and Slate recently chimed in that, yes indeed, $250,000 per year makes you rich. His case is in two parts. The first one is a numbers game - if you are making five times the median income and more than 98% of the population then you must be rich. The second is that someone with this income level can afford to live in the most expensive communities although he admits that it would be a stretch.

I've written about this before, also and I have two rebuttals.

First, annual income is a poor indicator of wealth. Total assets is a much better indicator. Who is richer - someone who makes $250,000 per year but has a mortgage on his $4,000,000 house or someone who makes $250,000 per year and owns his $4,000,000 house outright? Or someone who makes $200,000 per year but owns a $5,000,0000 house outright? Obama and Gross count the first two as being identically rich and the third one as being middle-class.

Second, even if you make more than 98% of the population, you still can't live like someone who is rich. You might be able to afford a McMansion (with a mortgage) but you cann't afford a palatial spread like Al Gore or John Edwards. You might be able to afford an illegal immigrant cleaning woman but you aren't going to have a full-time staff. You can afford a private plane as long as it's a Cesna and you fly it yourself but you are not going to be collecting jets like John Travolta.

The truly rich are not the upper 2% of the population, they are the upper 0.1% of the population. They make many times $250,000.

Clearly, Obama, the Democrats, and Gross are playing with statistics in order to inflate the number of rich. Why? Because there are not enough truly rich to fill their coffers. This is all class warfare games. Obama needs more taxes so he is trying to hit a sweet spot where he gets enough taxes to be useful without causing a tax revolt.

The IPCC and the WWF

A couple of weeks ago it came out that part of the IPCC's 2007 report was exaggerated. The report claimed that Himalayan glaciers would melt completely by 2035 and it claimed a 90% confidence in that claim. It turned out that this claim started as an off-the-cuff remark by an activist. It was included in an article and picked up by a position paper put out by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The truth is that it is impossible for the glaciers to melt that fast and only a small subset of the Himalayan glaciers are even being monitored.

The IPCC claimed that this was a last-minute addition to the report which had bypassed the normal review process. That left the hanging question, was this an isolated incident? The answer is that it was not isolated.

The IPCC report claimed that 40% of the world's rain forests will be destroyed by global warming. The basis for this claim? Another paper produced by the WWF. Again, the WWF quoted a paper that was fundamentally flawed. In this case, it used figures from logging and drought and applied them to climate.

When the IPCC report report was released in 2007, there were rumors that the original draft hadn't been scary enough and that they were under pressure to make global warming sound much more dangerous and to assign confidence levels to the findings. I'm going to take the IPCC's word that the glacier claim was a last-minute addition and I'm going to speculate that the rain forest claim was a similar late addition.

The implication is that the original report was not going to force governments to make fundamental and painful changes. The authors of the various chapters were told to go back and include worst-case projections as the most likely. They may have been given a stack of WWF position papers. Regardless, bad information from pressure groups found its way into at least two chapters of the IPCC report.

It should come as no surprise that the WWF cherry-picks its figures to make a stronger case than the evidence supports. What is surprising is that anyone from the IPCC would rely on these papers. This should call into question everything in the IPCC report.

UPDATE: As I expected, there are dozens of places where the IPCC's only cited source is the WWF. See Donna Laframboise's blog for details.

UPDATE 2: Remember Climategate - the leaked emails from the prestigious Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University? The Guardian has poured through them and found that the figures the IPCC used for China were seriously flawed. China doesn't have a lot of weather stations. The question was how man of them were influenced by urban expansion as opposed to climate change. The IPCC relied on a paper that had problems. The words "screwed up" were used. This is the first real link between the leaked emails and the IPCC but, in the tiny world of climatologists, it probably will not be the last one.

The Republicans' Dilemma

The Republicans are rising in the polls. A Republican won a Senate seat in Massachusetts that had been in Democratic hands for a century. Things are looking up for the Republicans. The only thing is, they didn't have anything to do with this rise.

The Republicans lost favor four years ago because of several factors. A big one was President George W. Bush. By his sixth year, Bush was a drag on the ticket. The war in Iraq also hurt them. The public was sick of it. They were spending like Democrats (you know that the Republican Party has lost its way when Nancy Pelosi can run as a fiscal conservative with a straight face). What hurt them the most, though, was corruption and scandal. Multiple scandals gave the impression that the whole party was corrupt.

This not only influenced independents, it also dispirited the Republican base and drive a wedge between Republicans and their natural allies, the Libertarians. Many high-profile Libertarians voted for Obama as a protest vote against McCain's record as a big government Republican. This is nothing new. Bush was far more centrist than he is given credit for and the conservative purists never forgave him for it. Similarly, Gore lost a lot of votes because of Clinton's centrism.

The Republicans have not redeemed themselves in the last four years. Rather, the Democrats have torn themselves down.

A year ago the Democrats announced their "wave" strategy. They would bring their entire agenda to a vote as quickly as possible starting with small pieces. As the legislation passed and the public saw progress, the Democrats' agenda would gain popularity forcing Republicans to either start voting with the Democrats or put themselves on record as being against popular reforms.

Obviously the wave didn't work. The Democrats thought that their success in 2006 and 2008 meant that the country had moved to the left. They were wrong. Much of the country was against their agenda. The rest was amazed at the Democrats' tone-deafness. Unemployment and the economy were the top two priorities for nearly everyone not in the Democratic Caucus. The more the Democrats focused on their agenda the more out-of-touch they seemed.

On top of that, the Democrats' execution of their wave strategy was flawed. The idea was to build on successes but they ended up tripping over themselves in the news cycles. They would pass something and move on. By the time Obama signed it into law, they had begun something new. Newcasts prefer the drama of open debate over Presidential signing ceremonies. It was easy for the successes to get lost in the noise. And none of the successes were pure. Credit card reform should have been popular but the Democrats gave the banks major concessions including six months to implement the new rules. The result is that most people saw their credit card rates go up because of Congress. The Stimulus was supposed to be "pork free" but simply hid it better than most bills. Nearly a year later, most people think that it was a failure.

While the Democrats were tearing themselves down, the Republicans stayed on the sidelines, voting against Obama. This is a tactic, not a strategy.

Come November, the Republicans are going to have to stand for something more than a "no" vote. Right now the Tea Party movement is the most vocal in the country and they have not forgiven the Republicans for their spending excesses durng the Bush years. The Republicans are going to have to come to terms with the Tea Party if they want to win. They are also going to have to exercise some discipline if they want to stay in power once they regain it. 

Democrats' Dilemma

A year ago, in the wake of the inauguration of Barack Obama, Democrats told themselves that they were the wave of the future - that the Republicans were doomed to be an increasingly regional party representing a single, shrinking ethnic group (white men). When the Tea Party protests started, they told themselves that this was nothing but racist whites protesting a black president. The first couple of special elections went the Democrats' way, bolstering their opinions. When polls showed that their popularity in general and their agenda in specific were unpopular they ignored it.

In the November elections the Democrats lost two governorships but gained a house seat in an unusual special election. Democrats pointed out that those states usually elected a governor from the party not in the White House and insisted that the special election was more important.

With last week's special election for Ted Kennedy's seat, Democrats finally have to face reality. They and their policies are deeply unpopular. The question is if they can rebuild the party's image in nine months?

There are significant obstacles. In 2006 they ran promising to end the war, balance the budget, and, possibly, impeach Bush. None of that happened. Bush was too powerful, they said. They had to have their own man in the White House in order to effect change.

In 2008 they ran on a platform of ending the war, balancing the budget, universal health care, and general change. They won the White House and the biggest majorities in both houses seen in generations. This time they can no longer run on promises. They have to run on results and things don't look good for them.

Last week, President Obama said that the same voter discontent that swept him into office also swept Brown into the Senate. On the face of it, this is a strange remark but I think that he has a point. Fiscal conservatives were unhappy during most of Bush's administration. He took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. Granted, he had an economic downturn and a couple of wars that were not included in the projections he inherited from Clinton, but spending under Bush went way up. This was a source of irritation rather than a cause until 2008 but the Democrats included it in their campaigns, anyway. It worked. Many Libertarians voted for Obama, figuring that he would spend less than McCain.

Things changed in the Fall of 2008. Between bailouts and the TARP, voters were suddenly shocked by the sums being thrown around. Obama continued and expanded this. The Democrats held off passing the 2009 budget until Obama was in office because it was so bloated that Bush would never have signed it but Obama never batted an eye. Leading economic authorities including some on Obama's team had previously said that government stimulus spending had never worked because it was never spent in the right place at the right time. Obama and the Democrats ignored history and passed a huge stimulus.

Then their is the health care bill which is in limbo right now. Obama called it a significant deficit reduction tool but anyone who has been paying attention knows that it employs budgeting tricks and future, unnamed cuts. In reality, it will increase the deficit.

So, right now, the most motivated group of voters is the Tea Party. These are people who are outraged by the growth of government and debt. By themselves, this group would be more of an annoyance than a threat. That's where the Democrats' record hurts them. They made a lot of promises in the last few years and delivered on very few. Even if health care passes, it is so far from what the Democrats' base expected that most are calling it useless. Obama's other major initiative, green energy, seems doomed to the same fate. Plus the war in Iraq is winding down on Bush's terms and the war in Afghanistan has escalated. None of this is going to energize the Progressive left to turn out and vote.

Finally, there is the great mass of voters who are not committed to specific ideals. Their biggest priority is unemployment and has been all year. Obama ignored this. All these people have heard from Washington since July has been the push for health care reform (and it's been confusing and ugly). Even when the House passed a massive jobs bill, the news was overshadowed by the Senate health care debate and hardly anyone knows about it.

Obama is trying to recalibrate himself against bankers and big business and for the middle class. His record is going to hurt him here. His first year was typified by bailouts and deals.

To further complicate things, anything that Obama does to mollify the Tea Party will outrage the Progressives and vice versa. Tax credits for child care are all well and good, if they actually pass, but they will not bring the unemployment rate down.

Obama is talking about a commission to find ways to balance the budget but it will not meet until after the election. It may end up being more smoke and mirrors when Obama needs some popular successes.

The Case of the non-Disappearing Glaciers

The IPCC's 2007 report said that the Himalayan glaciers would completely melt by 2035. It even gave this a high degree of confidence (90%). Recently, they had to backtrack on this claim. What happened should cast doubt on the IPCC as a whole.

The Himalaya claim originally came from an article in New Scientist which is not peer reviewed. It quoted an Indian scientist named Jawaharlal Nehru who had mentioned that the glaciers would melt in 30 years in a phone interview. It turns out that Nehru had not done any actual studies to back this claim. He was exaggerating to make a point. What is more, he was only talking about a small part of the Himalayan glaciers.

It's bad enough that this claim made its way into an IPCC report but the route that it took is the real scandal. The author of the offending chapter took his figures from a campaign report put out by the World Wildlife Fund. It turns out that the person writing the chapter did not have any expertise on glaciers and, rather than research peer-reviewed literature, he turned to a summary produced by an advocacy group. The WWF obviously cherry-picked their data since they were relying on publications that were not peer-reviewed.

Despite the sloppy science behind the claim, the IPCC still gave it a 90% confidence rating. When the utter impossibility of the claim was brought up, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC dismissed the challenges as "voodoo science".

For years we have been told that the IPCC was made up of disinterested scientists who were the best experts on climate. If anyone dared express skepticism, he was branded a Climate Change Denier. This recent article dismisses TV skeptical meteorologists as deniers who get their information from right-wing talk shows instead of from real scientists.

This whole episode shows that the IPCC reports are written by people who are no better informed and who quote left-wing sources. Granted this is one small example but there is no guarantee that the rest of the IPCC report represents any better science. Former members of the IPCC have complained for years that the reports are written by ideologues who reject valid challenges to their interpretation of the data.

UPDATE: It gets worse. The scientist in question knew that he was including unverified data but stuck it in anyway in order to apply political pressure.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

This is exactly what the skeptics have been saying since the last IPCC report came out - that it included exaggerations and flawed science for political reasons.

What's the Matter With Massachusetts?

After the 2004 election a book was published called What's the Matter With Kansas? It was later turned into a movie. It's premise is that the Democrats actually represent the best interests of the people of Kansas but the Republicans kept exploiting wedge issues that didn't actually matter to most people to win elections. This was very comforting to Democrats since its message was that there was nothing wrong with their basic values. They just needed to package them better. Barack Obama was a big believer in this book.

Now the same sort of reasoning is being applied to Massachusetts. The vote wasn't really a rejection of health care so Democrats don't need to adjust their plans. An example of this reasoning is How Romneycare killed Obamacare by Timothy Noah in Slate.

First, a little background - Massachusetts already has a form of universal health care. It served as a model for the legislation being considered nationally. So, the fact that the people of Massachusetts have personal experience with the system and elected someone who promised to stop it on a national level should be proof that it is a bad idea, right? Not to Noah.

Noah quotes some exit polls which show that health care was the most important issue to voters. 56% placed it as their top concern, well ahead of the 25% who put the economy first. Noah then quotes a different poll that puts the number of voters who are against Obamacare at 52%. Not an overwhelming majority, but a percentage that matches Brown's share of the vote.

So far, so good. A majority of Massachusetts don't like universal health care.

Noah doesn't stop there (he can't or he wouldn't have a point). He goes on to quote some statistics on Romneycare. 60% supported it when it passed. This grew to 69% in 2008. These polls are meaningless to the current debate. Noah just threw them in to make Romneycare seem more popular than it currently is. He eventually admits that support has been declining. It was down to 59% in September, 2009 and 54% last week. That's quite a drop - 15% in less than two years. Noah attributes this drop to the economy and concern about rising premium costs. I am less charitable and I think that the drop is because the longer they live with it, the less the people of Massachusetts like it.

Noah also tells us what percentage of doctors like Romneycare which is irrelevant to the election. He just wants us to know how great the program is.

The rest of the article is Noah's attempt to reconcile support for Romneycare with rejection of Obamacare. His conclusion is to think the worst of the people of Massachusetts, that they are selfish.

In the absence of any other logical explanation, I conclude that Massachusetts voters cast their vote for Scott Brown in the parochial spirit that Miller describes. Bay Staters saw no reason to vote for health care reform because they already had health care reform. Without Romney, that calculation wouldn't have been possible.

Actually, there is nothing to reconcile. Noah throws out poll data as if they all came from the same source and covered the same people. They do not. Consider - 54% of the total population of Massachusetts still favor Romneycare but 52% of the people who voted are against Obamacare. Keep in mind that the actual voter turnout was a subset of the total population. No one asked the actual voters if they approved of Romneycare and a significant percentage of Brown's voters (48%) based their vote solely on health care.

I think that Noah has it all wrong. 48% of the people of Massachusetts dislike Romneycare. Elections are not decided by an even distribution of the electorate. They are decided by the people who are motivated to turn out and vote. The people who are happy with Romneycare or feel that Obamacare would not affect them were less likely to turn out. The people who want Romneycare eliminated saw this election as their chance to show their discontent with their system and keep it from spreading.

That's a much more charitable view of the people of Massachusetts. Noah might have had a case if support for Romneycare was still high but with it running nearly even, voter motivation was more likely to be the deciding factor.

Of course this isn't very comforting to the Democrats. They can't shake their heads at the selfish people of Massachusetts who are unwilling to share their great health care system with the rest of the world. Instead they have to recognize that a majority of the people who actually turn out to vote in a very liberal state would rather vote for a Republican than see Obamacare passed.

Hope and Change a Year Later

So, where does President Obama stand a year after his inauguration? He has had some successes and some notable failures. Ideologically, his administration has been a mixed bag, giving ammunition to his many critics. He included people who are part of the 9/11 Truth movement and admirers of Chairman Mao, Wall Street insiders, and veterans of the Chicago political machine.

Progressives will hate me for pointing it out but Obama's biggest successes have been extensions of Bush policies. Iraq continues to improve and most of Obama's policies to stabilize the economy were continuations of Bush's. Bush was already shifting troops into Afghanistan before Obama ordered further buildups.

Obama's most spectacular failure was his promise to eliminate partisan politics. If anything, things have gotten worse. Bush never had more than 50 votes in the Senate but managed to establish a working majority. Obama needs 60 votes to pass anything. Part of this is because Obama is pushing a much more partisan agenda than Bush did and part is sheer arrogance. With clear majorities in both houses, Obama and the Democratic leadership felt that they didn't need the Republicans so there was no outreach to them as a group.

Obama invented the phrase "Wall Street and Main Street" but his administration is often seen as putting Wall Street ahead of Main Street. The various versions of health care reform have major concessions to Wall Street and the credit card reform gave banks several months to raise interest rates before it went into effect.

Probably Obama's biggest mistake was giving health care such priority. His first budget projections showed that the White House expected the recession to end in early Summer followed by a robust recovery. Accordingly, he and the Democrats passed a huge stimulus which was packed with pork. This energized the Tea Party movement. Obama expected the economy to have improved on its own by now, allowing him to claim credit. Instead the recovery started months later than expected and has been very weak. There is a very real chance that the economy will slip into a "double dip" recession. Unemployment figures only stabilized because of the huge number of people who have stopped looking for work. The real jobless rate has continued to climb and is at a post-WWII high.

Americans want to see the President focusing on their top priority - jobs. Instead, the only subject that Washington has concentrated on since July has been health care. This tone-deaf approach and the prospects of a new massive spending program has alienated independents and made the Tea Party stronger.

Overseas, Obama is popular with most of the world but has no standing with world leaders. He has strained relations with traditional allies like the UK and Turkey. His overtures to Russia and Iran have been rebuffed. Despite his promises about the effectiveness of "intensive diplomacy", Iran and North Korea have accelerated their nuclear weapons programs.

A recent poll showed that most of the country still approves of Obama personally but opposes his policies. He runs a real risk of becoming the next Jimmy Carter who was considered a nice guy who was in over his head.

Obama has expressed his desire to be the next Ronald Reagan - a president who changed the relationship between the country and its inhabitants. There are two lessons that he should learn from Reagan. First - Reagan had major Congressional losses in his mid-term elections. Obama can expect to lose most of his majorities in Congress and it is not out of the question for the Republicans to gain control of one or both houses. Second, Reagan was able to pass his agenda despite never controlling the House and losing control of the Senate in 1986. Like Reagan and Bill Clinton, Obama has to learn how to get along with the Republicans if he wants to salvage his presidency.

Kill the Bill

Congress should kill the Health Care bill immediately. There is no good argument for passing it. It does not meet its original intent of "bending the curve down." Instead it will bend it up. Any long-term savings will come through the draconian practice of limiting coverage so that people will be less likely to seek care. It will not be deficit-neutral. Any pretense that it would reduce the deficit (through future cuts in benefits) were abandoned with the compromise with the unions. It imposes an economic burden on young, healthy people who do not have the minimum coverage the bill requires.

There is no mandate for this bill. While it is true that Barack Obama included health care reform in his platform, this bill is at odds with Obama's promises:

• Obama promised to allow importation of cheap Canadian drugs. That was dropped in an early round of deal-making.
• Hillary Clinton included an individual mandate in her health care proposal. Obama ridiculed this in a debate and ran campaign ads against it.
• John McCain suggested taxing current benefits to pay for his health care proposal. Again, Obama campaigned against this.

The most recent compromise is one of the most outrageous. Non-union and private industry workers will have their benefits capped but government union workers will not. To show how this works, my benefits are likely to be taxed (I work for local government but am not in a job class covered by a union) but the people I supervise will not be taxed. I should add that pay and job responsibilities have nothing to do with it. I am a working supervisor. Most of my time is spent doing the same job as the people I supervise. Further, two of the six make more than I do. On a national scale, Nebraska is exempt from extra costs that the other 49 states will have to pay because of back room deals. So much for equal protection under the law.

At this point the election result in Massachusetts is still unknown. The fact that it was ever close shows what a bad idea the health care bill is. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one and every state office is held by a Democrat, the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat should be a forgone conclusion. If a traditionally liberal state has turned against the bill then imagine how the rest of the country feels about it.

No one can say with a straight face that this is a good bill. The hope that the public will come to love it once it comes into effect (well after the 2012 presidential election) is baseless. Instead this has become a contest of wills. Obama and the congressional leaders are fixated on passing something and no longer care about the actual outcome. Vanity and stubbornness are poor reasons for taking over a sixth of the nation's economy.

Haiti and Katrina

A common thread in stories about the mobilization of US aid for Haiti is that the Obama administration is "determined not to repeat the mistakes of Katrina". Katrina started Bush's long slide into the least popular president in recent history.

Most of the common knowledge about Katrina is false. News anchors rushed stories on air without bothering to verify them and outright misrepresented many facts. The public at large thought that the Superdome was full of people were were trapped for days because of government inaction. In fact, the Superdome was a staging area. The people who were in the Superdome when the flooding started were taken out fairly promptly. They were quickly replaced by people rescued from their roofs who were taken out and replaced, etc. One network showed the unused medical facilities on an air craft carrier without mentioning that the doctors had set up emergency centers on the mainland in order to be closer to the refugees. The networks reported that people were shooting at rescue helicopters but later investigations could not find any proof.

A lot of things worked as well as they could, given the problems on the ground. Popular Mechanics took a close look at the myths of Katrina.

Much of the anger against Bush was whipped up by the anti-Bush crowd. As the water was still rising, they were sure that Bush had caused Katrina itself by not approving the Kyoto Protocols or had cut funds that would have shored up the levees to pay for the Iraq war. Governor White of Louisianan also slowed things down. The government could not begin providing aid until she officially asked for it and she took an extra day before signing the request over partisan bickering.

Bush didn't help things. Air Force One did a fly-over of the damage making Bush look more like a spectator than a hands-on leader. Bush explained later that he wanted to spare local law enforcement the burden of a Presidential visit. He should have given this explanation before Air Force One landed in DC.

If didn't help that the point person for relief efforts didn't seem to be taking the job seriously or that his resume was pretty thin.

The logistics in Haiti was terrible. The port is closed and the airport is already overloaded. If this disaster had happened during Bush's watch, the left would already be calling for his head (again).

So far, the Obama administration has done everything it could but there is no easy way to rescue a city of two million with that much damage. I hope that Obama's critics show more class than Bush's and concentrate their efforts on aiding the Haitians instead of attacking the President.

Is Obama Weakening the Dollar?

Are Obama's policies hurting the dollar? Daniel Gross of Slate and Newsweek says no but he doesn't tell the whole story.

Gross lets you know where he stands from the beginning.

It's an article of faith among many analysts that the U.S. dollar is in trouble. The response to the financial crisis, they say, has debased the currency. The culprits are the Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates to zero, printed money, and vastly expanded its balance sheet, and the Obama administration, which has run up huge deficits by embracing Keynesian efforts to stimulate the economy.

The words "article of faith" imply that this is an opinion, possibly based on partisan politics. In fact, this is a core economic belief - that you can't debase your currency without reducing its value. Obama has printed trillions of dollars of new money. A year ago there was a real fear of deflation so applying some inflationary practices could be seen as a good thing but this has to be reigned in or it will have long-term consequences.

Gross ignores these consequences which undermines his column completely. A very real possibility is that the US government will get so deeply in debt that it cannot meet day-to-day costs while meeting payments on the national debt. This has not happened yet but it will unless Obama changes course. China knows this as do most other countries. This is where the long-term threat to the dollar comes from. Gross makes his point by ignoring future trends and only looking at the last decade.

But like so much of what conservatives have been saying recently about the economy and economic policy, this weak-dollar argument ignores current data and recent history.

Gross does some ignoring of his own about recent history. He presents this chart as proof that the dollar has not been hurt by Obama. It shows the dollar gaining value between 1995 and 2002 then entering a steady decline. There is a sudden rise in late 2008 through early 2009 followed by a steep decline.

What Gross is not mentioning is that the Bush administration had a "weak dollar" policy. Bush wanted the dollar to lose value in order to ease the trade deficit. His administration weakened the dollar through low interest rates and high deficit spending. The main change that Obama made to this policy is to speed it up.

If Bush weakened the dollar between 2002 and 2008 through borrowing and spending then how can Gross argue that the same actions under Obama will not do the same thing?

What about that spike in 2008? That happened when banks and financial institutions world-wide seemed on the verge of collapse. Many investors felt that the US was better positioned to survive the fallout of the collapse than other countries. As soon as the crisis was over the dollar resumed its long slide.

An uncomfortable true for both conservatives and progressives is that many of Obama's policies are continuations of Bush's policies. This is an example.

The Cold Winter

The temperature has been a top story all year. Ok, it's only January 10th but that's still a long time for weather to dominate the news. This is not a local story, either. The entire Norther Hemisphere is in a cold wave the like of which has not been seen since the 1970s. The obvious question is where that leaves global warming?

On one hand, it should be pointed out that this is a weather event. Weather happens and you cannot draw too many conclusions from it. This has not stopped warming alarmists from pointing to events as evidence of global warming. A number of people claimed that Australia's recent wildfires were caused by global warming.

On the other hand, events like this aren't supposed to happen any more. Global warming was supposed to show up first in milder winters. According to the experts, the world has never been as warm as it is now. The words "catastrophic warming" have been use numerous times. We are counting down the months left to act before we reach a tipping point an the world has warmed so much that all life is doomed. You would think that with all that warming going on we wouldn't be setting record cold winters.

I guess that the world has not warmed all that much after all.

Bubbles

Once again, Paul Krugman is arguing that, despite encouraging signs, the economy is not recovering and will not recover without more government stimulus spending.

First, according to accepted standards, we are out of recession. What Krugman is worried about is a "double dip" recession where the recovery is cut short by a second recession. He never says this, though. He is too busy making parallels with 1937. According to Krugman, the government cut back on spending in 1937 and that lead to a recession which prolonged the Great Depression. Other economists have pointed out that economics in 1937 were much more complicated than Krugman's version so I will dispense with the 1937 parallels. The real question is if the government can spend its way into prosperity?

The current recession is so bad because so much of the economy was debt-driven during the last decade. Housing values, stock prices, and financial assets were valued too high and everyone involved was borrowing against the paper value of these assets. When prices fell, people started defaulting on loans and stopped buying in general.

The easiest way to get things moving again is to get everyone to act like the crash never happened and go back to spending. That isn't going to happen. People are being a lot more cautious with their money and are paying their debts down. In the long-term, this has to happen for a healthy economy. In the short-term, it slows the recovery to a crawl.

What Krugman is proposing is for the government to mimic what individuals were doing and spend without regard for consequences. The hope is that people will start spending again and the economy will heat up enough to stand on its own without the need for government support.

The paradox here is that FDR did just that for years. He spent like crazy and only slacked off when it looked like the economy was finally recovering on its own. If several years of government spending was not enough to restart the economy in 1937, then how much does Krugman think would have been enough (the quick answer is the amount spent during WWII but I addressed that fallacy weeks ago)? Also, how do we know when we have spent enough and can scale back? Krugman does not address this. He doesn't know how much is needed, he just knows that we are not spending anywhere near enough.

Krugman also ignores the biggest issue - by engaging in massive debt-backed spending, the government is creating its own bubble. This may restore the bubble-based economy but it is still a bubble and cannot be sustained. Following Krugman's advice will eventually cause a new bubble-induced recession as deep as the current one but with a government too cash-strapped to help.

Looking Back at 2009

Events in no particular order:

The Obama Transition Team announced that the questionnaire for possible appointees would be the most detailed ever in order to ensure an ethical administration. It included questions such as "Have you ever owned a gun?" or "Have you ever dated a Republican?"  or "Did you pay all of your taxes?" Answering "yes" to any of these disqualified you from a government post.

Obama spent much of the year traveling to foreign countries and apologizing for everything that America ever did. This was so successful that Afghans are now burning him in effigy.

After years if insisting that they were not against war in general, just the war in Iraq, Democrats have realized that they are against war in general.

The left throws around the term "teabaggers" as if they had been using it all of their lives. I would bet that a year ago, 99% of them didn't know of any use for the term except something for making a cup of tea.

When the Obamas spent Christmas in Hawaii a year ago the big news was how good he looked in a swimsuit. Now it's how tired he is.

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush. Ironically, he seems to have read one of Bush's old speeches on just warfare instead of his acceptance speech. He probably skipped out on the parties after he realized that he had read the wrong speech.

Obama is quicker to judge the Cambridge police force than terrorists.

The general world population still thinks highly of Obama. On the other hand, the world leaders keep laughing behind his back. At Copenhagen the top leaders said that they were unavailable for a group meeting. It turned out that they were already having a meeting without Obama. He found out about it and crashed the meeting half-way through.

The US has long enjoyed a special relationship with Great Britain. Obama redefined this, substituting the word "snubbed".

The senators who held out the longest on health care got the best rewards - hundreds of millions for their states. Those of us in the other 50 states wonder why our senators are so cheap?

The stimulus amounted to something over $2,000 for every person in the country. So far, I haven't seen $2,000 spent on my behalf.

I'm not sure what constituency Obama is trying to please. Conservatives and Libertarians hate him. His economic advisers and lack of a public option in health care have alienated the Progressives. The tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans will hit unions hard. Pacifists gave up on him after he ramped up the war in Afghanistan twice. Environmentalists are disappointed as are gays. Neither has gotten any priority. Centrists are shocked at his deficits and his takeover of the banking and automotive sectors. Who is left to support him? Even Doonesbury and Arianna Huffington have turned on him.

The Return of Terrorism

The White House described the Christmas attempt at blowing up a jetliner as a terrorist act. This is interesting since the word "terrorism" had pretty much been banished from the Obama administration in favor of "man caused disasters". Now terrorism is back. I can think of several reasons:

1. There just isn't any other term to describe the possible downing of a jet carrying 300 passengers.
2. The "suspect" has admitted ties to al Qaeda.
3. Blow-back from the Fort Hood incident. That was obviously a terrorist act but the Obama White House has yet to use that word in describing it. People have noticed and are wondering just how divorced from reality the Obama White House is.
4. Then there is the competence issue. Obama entered the White House with no executive experience and it has showed constantly. He was vacationing in Hawaii when the incident happened. The White House is playing up the fact that he was briefed.

The Obama administration may have had its "Heck of a good job" moment. Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano insisted that everything worked like clockwork. In fact, someone on a terrorist watch list boarded a plane with explosives concealed on his person and was able to ignite them. The only thing that kept the plane from blowing up was the failure of the explosives to explode. It is little consolation that, after his attempt failed, the suspect was wrestled to the ground by civilians. Obama needs to fire Napolitano as soon as possible to show that he is serious about homeland security.

60 Votes

It is no secret that the Senate is as polarized as is possible. The health care vote and several others have been 60/40. This is due to more than simple polarization. It centers around math and the magic 60 vote number.

According to the rules that the Senate has used for the last few decades, 60 votes are needed to end debate. The Democrats have exactly 60 votes including two independents who caucus with the Democrats). If the Democrats had 59 or 61 votes then things would be different.

If they had fewer than 60 votes then they would have to court Republicans. There are a few who are open to crossing party lines, especially if given some incentives. If they had 61 or more votes then they could lose one or two and still pass their agenda.

So, with no margin for error, the 60 votes force the Democratic leadership and the White House to do whatever is needed. In some cases they twist arms, reminding stragglers that Obama has a long memory. In other cases they simply buy votes with up to $100 million for a Senator's state.

At the same time, the Democratic leadership decided that it is easier to force Democrats into line than to court Republicans. With no incentives from the other side, the Republican leadership can do their own arm-twisting to keep the Republicans voting in a block.

The result is a polarized Senate and a string of 60/40 votes that will continue until the 2010 election.

Triumph or Death March?

The Democrats are pulling out all the stops. They will pass health care reform on Christmas Eve, even if they have to bribe the hold-outs with $100 million grants to their states. Currently the public is against the bill and it will be passed on a party-line vote so there is no cover for Democrats. Why are they pushing so hard to pass something so unpopular?

Rush Limbaugh thinks that the issue is so important to the Democrats that they are willing to sacrifice their Congressional majority for it. I disagree.

If you ask me why the Democrats lost their majority in 1994, I would point out that there were several factors. Gun owners were upset about anti-gun legislation and were organized. The population was outraged by Congressional scandals. Clinton ran on tax cuts but raised taxes instead.

If you ask Bill Clinton why he lost Congress, he will tell you that it was because he didn't get health care reform passed (in fact he told this to Congressional Democrats a month ago). It doesn't matter that Clinton's plan was deeply unpopular. He insists that the voters were punishing him for not getting it passed.

The current Democratic leaders bought into Clinton's fantasies. They are watching Democrats drop in the polls and convinced themselves that the only way to reverse this is to pass the health care bill. The fact that the majority of the country thinks that the reform is worse than doing nothing escapes them.

This is not new. George W. Bush did the same reasoning with the war in Iraq. Just before the war, public support was low. Bush was sure that once the shooting started, the public would get behind the war. This was true for a short time but the war became less and less popular as it dragged on. Regardless, I doubt that he would have predicted in 2003 that it would become a major issue, costing his party's majority status by 2006.

So the Democrats are caught in a death march. The lower their approval ratings the more frantic they are to pass something that they can call health care reform but the longer this goes on the lower their approval ratings drop.

Culture Wars 2009

Slate declared the war on Christmas over. At the same time, they question of it ever existed outside of the media. According to them, the media, particularly Fox News, lost interest in the subject so it is over.

Obviously, they just didn't get it. At one point, they mention that CVS is classified as being anti-Christmas but still sells candy canes. The two are not mutually exclusive. That was the whole point.

The forces of political correctness led by the ACLU decreed that any mention of Christmas in schools or other public institutions. Cities no longer have Christmas trees, just "holiday trees".

Taking their queue from this, several companies decided to remove all mention of Christmas. Stores like Lowes and Radio Shack avoided using the word. Employees were instructed to use "Holidays" instead of "Christmas". Of course, they still wanted people to buy Christmas presents from them. It was sort of a dance, with the stores trying to get customers to buy presents for an unnamed event that happened to fall on December 25th. CVS may sell candy canes but I doubt that they are honest about what they are for.

This attitude spread. People became embarrassed about saying "Merry Christmas" in public. They started saying "Happy Holidays".

All of this was silly. Very few non-Christians are offended by references to Christmas. Many Jews felt embarrassed that this was being done on their behalf.

But, that is history. Things have changed. Companies found out that they were chasing away Christmas shoppers. Not every company has changed their policies but man have. Target was one company that previously avoided "Christmas" but now allows their employees to wish a "Merry Christmas".

One obvious factor is the economy. Stores want to remind people why they are supposed to be shopping.

So, yes the war on Christmas seems to have subsided, but it was real as recently as last year.

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

When it was announced that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, a lot of conservatives (including me) were upset. It was obvious that he had won mainly for replacing President Bush and not for anything that he had actually accomplished.

Looking back at President Obama's acceptance of his prize, I don't think that he was very happy to win the prize. He knows how little he has accomplished, especially in international affairs. The prize was awarded so early in his administration that he didn't have time for any accomplishments. He was only a few days into his administration when nominated. Obama knows this as well as everyone else.

The Nobel Committee didn't do Obama any favors by giving him the award so early. He will spend the rest of his administration trying to live up to it. As a war president, it puts him in an awkward situation as shown by his acceptance speech where he made it clear that he believed in the concept of a "just war".

Because Obama already has a Peace Prize, he can never win one on his own accomplishments.

Obama showed his irritation. His acceptance speech could have been given by George W. Bush and he skipped several banquets and performances. A cardboard cut-out of Obama attended a Save the Children fund-raiser in the President's place.

Is Climategate Important?

When asked about Climategate, the thousands of letters and files leaked from Climatic Research Unit, a branch of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, Al Gore says that they are not relevant, that they are ten years old and only concern a few researchers. He is either misinformed or lying since the most recent email was from November, 2009 - just days before the leak. Even the politically neutral PolitiFact discounts the emails. They are wrong and here's why.

Back when I was in college physics, the joke was "first draw the graph then plot the data." This meant that regardless of your actual outcome, you should make sure that your data fit the "correct" graph. There was also a take-off of Planke's Constant which was "that number which when added to, subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into your result gives the correct one." All of this is harmless when dealing with freshmen lab results where the margin of error of the equipment is greater than the amounts being measured. It is much more serious when top researchers are using it. The CRU emails show that top climate researchers have dealt in this sort of "fixing". They know what the results should be so they have been playing with the data until the results are right.

So what? They are only a small group, right? There are two problems with this logic. The first is that these are the guys at the top. There are three sets of world temperature accepted by climate researchers and CRU provides one of them. If we hear that the top auditor at Enron is hiding problems, should we ignore him and believe the guys lower down (which is what happened)?

The second problem is that climate research is a small field. If one group is fudging the figures, others should notice it and question it. CRU's figures should not match the others'. This brings up an ugly truth about climate research - they are all doing it, either to hide the real measures or because they believed institutions like CRU and figured that their data must be wrong. Just because the CRU emails were limited to a few researchers does not mean that the others are all acting honestly. More likely most of them are doing the same thing. There are several indications of this in the CRU emails - the ease with which they could get editors of prominent publications fired is one example.

Once you know that a group of prominent researchers has been modifying data in order to tell a cleaner story (as a guest on the Daily Show described it) then you have to question everyone else's results. Given the small size and political nature of climate research, it would be amazing if the warming proponents had not adopted a siege meantality, hiding any weakness in their findings and exaggerating their successes.

Obama and Afghanistan

I'm writing this before President Obama's speech on Afghanistan but the details have already been leaked out. After two months of dithering and Obama's second policy review of the year, the results are about what was expected in October. We will add something like 30,000 troops but move them out of the villages to protect the cities.

Will it work? I don't know. It sounds similar to the plans advanced for Iraq by both Obama and Hillary Clinton prior to last year's election. Back then they advocated withdrawing the troops into a few large fortified bases which would be used to train a native army. Our troops would go out on short missions to destroy enemy strongholds but they would not try to hold ground. This was the exact opposite of the surge.

Afghanistan is a different country than Iraq. It is larger and more mountainous. The nature of the enemy is also different so the tactics used in the surge may not work and certainly would need a much larger force than Obama is willing to commit.

Will his new strategy work? Probably not. It seems to be ceding most of the country to the Taliban while preserving the cities.

The process that went into this new strategy will hurt, also. The Taliban knows what goes on in the US. They know that Obama is already looking for a way out. They also probably know that his strongest allies have deserted him on this. MoveOn has already released an email against the new strategy. Nancy Pelosi who has unprecedented power as Speaker of the House is on records as being against any troop increase.

Ironically, the people most likely to support the President are the ones he has spent the last ten months belittling - Republicans and conservatives. Had he followed through on his campaign promises for bipartisanship then he would be in a stronger position today.

Obama's Blunders

It's been slightly more than a year since President Obama was elected and ten months since he took office. In that time his administration has committed several blunders that will cripple the rest of his administration.

The Economy

In their first budget projection, the White House expected the recession to end in the second quarter followed by a robust recovery. Their reasoning was that this how the economy had responded to other (but not all) deep recessions. The expectation was that they could pass a major spending bill, call it a stimulus, and take credit when the economy rebounded on its own. Since they expected the economy to recover on its own, the Obama administration quickly lost interest in ti, moving on to issues closer to the President's heart.

Obviously, the economy did not recover as hoped. While there was some growth in the 3rd quarter, it was very poor and mainly reflected unsustainable growth in government spending. Jobs often trail the rest of the economy and this time is expected to be particularly bad with unemployment continuing to rise into 2010.

The economy topped every poll of Americans' top concerns with health care much further down on the list. For Obama, health care was the top priority and the economy seemed to have fallen off of the list completely. Obama finally seems to have noticed this and managed to squeeze a jobs summit into his schedule for December. This is too little, too late.

The Deficit

George W. Bush left a huge deficit behind. Obama quickly turned it into a monstrous one. One school of economists led by Paul Krugman insisted that Obama couldn't spend enough and that the multiplier effect of government spending would allow all of this spending to pay for itself. The fact that no government has ever spent its way out of a major recession was dismissed on the grounds that these governments had not spent enough. This was just what Obama wanted to hear.

The rest of the country has not been listening to Krugman and the size of the deficit has become a political cause all its own. Even the normally pro-Obama Newsweek has an article on how the deficit threatens America's long-term place in the world. This promises to be a millstone around Obama's neck, slowing or stopping his pet projects. At some point he is going to have to raise taxes, cut spending, or both. His options are limited because of his many promises that tax increases would only hit the rich.

Obama's options on deficit reduction are almost non-existent. Even with rosy economic projections, his administration projected record deficits a decade into the future. With tax increases on most of the country off-limits and a party committed to additional spending, the only way to control the budget is to break major campaign promises - sure political suicide.

Afghanistan

For years Afghanistan was the forgotten war. Several things happened to bring it back into focus. Obama himself made it a major part of his campaign. Now the war is Iraq is winding down and the Taliban have reformed. The result is a constant stream of bad news from Afghanistan.

As with the economy, Obama hoped to address Afghanistan early then move on to more important matters (to him). The war did not go away. When asked for more troops, he mulled over the request for months with an answer finally to be announced in December. The public and the Democrats in Congress no longer support the war. This could have been avoided if Obama had been giving it more attention and justifying American involvement. His chance to do that is probably gone. Winding down participation in the war leaves the Democratic Party open to charges of being weak on defense. Continuing it will drag down his approval rating just as Iraq dragged down Bush.

Health Care

Health care reform was obviously Obama's top priority. His announced goal was to control costs before Medicare became unmanageable. The bills currently being considered will do almost nothing for this. Obama hoped to ram health care reform through Congress so fast that it would be passed before the Republicans could read the bill. Obviously, that didn't happen.

The health care debate is incredibly corrosive. Most of the country is not interested in it. They are worrying about jobs and the deficit. In contrast, both parties have spent most of their energy for the last five months doing nothing but debating health care. As a result, the country is sick of both parties. Back in July, someone high-up in the Democratic Party needed to put health care on hold and concentrate on the economy. Instead, jobs were placed on the back burner. Instead, health care is given such high priority that important votes are held on weekends.

The Democrats have convinced themselves that they lost Congress in 1994 because they failed to pass health care. As their polls drop now, they are certain that the only thing that will save them is the current health care legislation. In the meantime the rest of the country is screaming at them to stop wasting time on health care and fix the economy.

In the meantime, the Republican base is solidly against the current legislation forcing Congressional Republicans into reactive mode.

Foreign Relations

Obama counted on his popularity overseas to smooth relations. While he is still popular among the general world population, this has not translated into any achievements. He couldn't even get the Olympics. He went to China with a long list of topics and came back with pictures of the Great Wall. He has snubbed Britain, France, and Israel. Eastern Europe no longer trusts him. Japan has turned mildly hostile. The Russians have ignored his attempts at "resetting" relations. His attempts to repair relations with the Muslim world have not accomplished anything.

Possibly because he comes from a "Blame America first" background, his administration has also been silent on human rights. He was silent on the corrupt election in Iran and the protests that followed. He did not bring up human rights on his trip to China.

While Obama talks about nuclear disarmament, Iran and North Korea continue working on nuclear weapons.

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize simply for not being Bush but his only hope for a successful foreign policy will be to act more like Bush. This is the one blunder that he still has a chance of turning around.

The Meaning of ClimateGate

Last week thousands of emails, graphs, and computer programs from a British university were released by an unauthorized source. This was originally reported as the work of a hacker who filtered through who knows how much data. Later, many people including Junk Science decided that the emails, etc. had already been assembled for a Freedom of Information Request (FOI) and someone copied them from that source. Regardless, there are several implications.

Some skeptics have combed through the emails looking for a smoking gun. They found references that imply that researchers were manipulating the data. The warming true believers insist that these quotes are being taken out of context or were poorly worded. This is a dubious interpretation but I am going to accept it. There is no smoking gun here although there might be some smoke.

There are three other points that are very important. Two cast serious doubt on the famous scientific consensus and the third casts doubt on the base figures.

A chief argument against the warming skeptics is that there is a wide consensus in peer-reviewed journals. The emails show that this is a manufactured consensus. In one case a skeptical article was accepted for publication. The warming-believers managed to bend the submission rules so that a rebuttal could be published in the same issue instead of in the next one. In a couple of cases, an editor allowed a skeptical article to be published. The response was a discussion on how to have that editor fired (which happened in both cases). When one publication showed itself open to skeptical papers, the emails discuss how to marginalize the entire publication.

All of this creates a false consensus where dissent exists but is suppressed, then the lack of public dissent is given as proof.

Good science is reproducible. Twenty years ago a peer-reviewed journal accepted an article on cold fusion. Once this was published, other scientists tried to duplicate it but failed. In climate science, reproducibility means making the raw numbers and the methods of compiling them available to third parties for independent verification. There are emails discussing how to avoid doing this. There are cautions to delete emails so that they cannot be requested through FOI. Some scientists say that they would rather destroy their work than allow a skeptic to see it.

Climate science is a complicated field. You can't simply plug figures into a spreadsheet. Most of the final numbers have to be coalesced through custom programs. There is no off-the-shelf product that can do this and the climate researchers frequently have to invent new calculations. This opens them to errors. By hiding their work, they are implicitly admitting that there may be serious flaws in their calculations that they don't want the world to see.

Which brings me to the final point - the computer programs. Someone dug through the comments in a large program. A talented programmer was trying to get the program to work to reproduce some previous series and add new figures to them. He discovered numerous problems. In one case a function that returns the square of a number returned a negative (this is impossible in the real world but in a computer usually means that a result was too large for the field holding it). He tried rolling back the most recent changes without success. Eventually he concluded that the only way to get the program to work would be to go back to the earliest version. This was unacceptable because he didn't know how many problems the original code had that were corrected in later version. The conclusion was that the program was too poorly written and documented to be usable.

This is not the first time that this has been discovered. Several years ago Michael Mann (who is well-represented in the emails) released his results of a temperature reconstruction using tree-rings. This showed a long, stable temperature range until the 20th century when it rose so rapidly that it was nicknamed the "Hockey Stick". Later analysis showed that Mann's math was off and any set of random numbers would produce a hockey stick graph.

So, new, dissenting research is suppressed, the inputs into published papers is hidden from skeptics, and the computer programs used to calculate them can be buggy and unreliable.

Before the scientific community asks us to reshape civilization they need to start adhering to scientific method including opening their research to everyone asking for help when dealing with something that is out of their expertise.

For more information, the entire collection is here. The program comments are here. You don't have to understand programming to see that there are major problems.

Tarnishing the Brand

Traditionally there are stark contrasts between the two parties. The Republicans stand for pro-business, pro-military, fiscal restraint policies. Their traditional weakness is being perceived as cruel or uncaring. The Democrats are the pro-poor, anti-business, pro-equality, anti-military party. Their weakness is "tax and spend" and being weak on defense.

George W. Bush didn't like the cruel label and invented "compassionate conservatism". As implemented, this could be characterized as "borrow and spend". He lowered taxes but increased spending on all levels. This gave the Democrats an opening to expand their brand to be the party of fiscal restraint. At early as the 2004 Superbowl, MoveOn was running ads against the Bush deficit. In 2006 and 2008, the Democrats ran as the party that would balance the budget. That this promis was based on the budget under Democrat Bill Clinton with a Republican Congress didn't matter. A Democrat had been involved in one of the nation's few budget surpluses.

By abandoning the party principle of fiscal restraint, Bush tarnished the party. He did not get any credit for his spending but he got the blame for the increasing deficit. At the same time, the public tired of his two seemingly-endless wars and the Democrats were able to position themselves as the party that would handle defense more responsibly.

Now Barack Obama is facing the same dilemma - how to keep from tarnishing the party's image. So far he has done major damage to the Democrat brand.

First, the Democrats will not be able to claim to be the party of fiscal restraint for at least a generation. After being stable throughout the administrations of Reagan, the first Bush, and Clinton, the rate of spending increased under Bush but this is nothing to how it is projected to increase under Obama. On a graph, the growth in government is around a 30 degree line until Bush when it becomes a 40 degree line. Under Obama it jumps to a 60 degree line.

Obama attracted a lot of votes from people who were tired of Bush's spending and wary of McCain's promised spending. They expected him to be a pragmatic centrist who would reign in excessive spending. Many of these people are now attending Tea Party protests and are upset with both parties.

Since 2004, the Democrats have pushed the idea that, by fighting the "wrong war in Iraq," the Republicans made us less safe and that they would take the fight to the "real" war in Afghanistan. Obama started strong with a quick commitment of troops but, when asked for more than twice that many, he balked, waiting three months to make a decision. At the same time, Nancy Pelosi made it clear that she wants troop reductions instead of increases. The Democrats' claim to be strong on defense has been eroded, possibly giving it back to the Republicans.

Fiscal restraint and defense represent issues that the Republicans traditionally dominate. A strong case can be made that these are not important to the Democrats since they were never Democrat strong points. More important to the Democrats is how they are handling their core strengths.

Traditionally Democrats were the Robin Hood party - they taxed the rich (and middle class) and gave it to the poor. Obama promised to alter that equation by only taxing the rich and giving to the poor and middle class. Performance on this has been mixed. One of his early accomplishments was expanding a program for providing medical coverage to the poor. This was paid for by taxing cigarettes, a tax that hits the poor disproportionally. Plans call for taxing "Cadillac" health plans to pay for health care reform. This will largely hit middle-class union jobs.

The stimulus included the "making work pay act" which gives a $400 credit to everyone reflected in a small change to payroll withholding rates. Again, this mainly helps the poor rather than the middle-class.

The health care proposals being debated will also help the poor at the expense of the middle class who will foot a sizable chunk of the trillion dollar bill.

So, despite promises, Democrats have not really changed. They are still the party of Robin Hood.

More important is their relationship with big business and Wall Street. The health care bills under consideration represent several important deals. Drug prices are not included as part of a deal with the drug-makers. Hospital prices and doctors' fees are also unaddressed for the same reason. The mandate for everyone to buy insurance or be fined came from a deal with insurance companies in exchange for coverage for pre-existing conditions.

More important are the bail-outs. Banks were deemed too big to fail and given amounts of money too big to comprehend, then allowed to give portions of it out in bonuses. GM and Chrysler were also bailed out. These may have been desperately needed but they left the impression of a close relationship between Wall Street and the Democrats. Its hard to soak the rich when you are propping them up. This will probably hurt the Democrats a great deal. The far left was always anti-business and would have been happy so see all of these businesses nationalized (instead of the quasi-nationalization that we have).

Put it all together and the Democrats brand name has been tarnished. It is questionable if the Republicans will have burnished their own reputations enough to take advantage of it by the 2010 election but they have an opportunity.

Last Chance to Save America

I hate to sound as alarmist as Glenn Beck but the next week will determine the future of America. Health care is big but it is only the first step. To quote Robert Creamer form the Huffington Post:

Everyone realizes that health insurance reform is not just another piece of legislation. But its significance goes well beyond the fact that it affects one-sixth of the economy; or that it will massively impact our country's ability to create jobs in the future; or even that it will determine whether or not health care finally becomes a right in America.

If we succeed in winning health insurance reform we will have breached the gates of the status quo. We will demonstrate that fundamental change is possible. Into that breach will flow a wave of progressive change. That victory will also make it possible for us to pass legislation to restructure the energy economy -- to put the brakes on climate change and free us from the tyranny of foreign oil. It will make it possible for us to rein in the power of Wall Street and pass long-overdue comprehensive immigration reform. It will make it possible to structure a bottom-up economy that can produce the jobs of the future.

He's probably right. If we can't stop health care then we will not be able to stop the rest of their agenda.

This is about control - personal control. The Progressives don't want you to have any. Their first step is to establish a requirement for being a citizen living in America. I'm quoting from the Congressional Budget Office. Along with their budget analysis they point out that this will make it a punishable offense to fail to buy something. Once you have established that president, nothing is out of bounds.

And nothing will be out of bounds. Just look at the rhetoric from the last few months. The Progressives want to control how much you earn, how much medical insurance you get (including an upper limit). They will limit how you drive and what temperature your house can be. The health care bills alone allow them to punish you for weighing too much (insurance companies can charge as much as five times the base rate for "high risk" factors).

This will kill jobs and stifle freedom. It will not work. It's been tried all over the world and it always fails. Most of Europe is moving away from a Progressive agenda. France has chronic 20% unemployment (much higher for youth and Muslim) and their health care is running out of cash as fast as ours but they want us to be like the French.

The goal is to push so many changes through that the Republicans will never be able to undo them. There can be no compromise. The Democrats are using every trick in the book to advance their agenda. In order to get the health care bill out of committee, they promised to remove the public option. The bill that was introduced to the full Senate had it restored. Once it passes the Senate, the bill that both houses of Congress vote on will remove limits on abortion and no longer allow states to opt-out of the public option. When Republicans complain about bait-and-switch, this is what they mean. The final bill will be voted on late at night with no chance for anyone to read it.

Then they will use the same tactics to pass cap-and-trade and cripple power production.

On top of that, they will cripple the economy with new debt. They used book-keeping tricks to hide the real cost of health care $900 billion in ten years but the first four don't count). That's on top of Obama's projected record deficits for the next decade.

We are in for a lost decade like Japan's unless we stop it now.

World War II and the Economy

With an economic summit planned for December, it is likely that the Obama administration will ask for a second stimulus early next year. Part of the reasoning comes from a group of economists led by Paul Krugman. They maintain that the Great Depression and Japan's Lost Decade happened because the governments had not spent enough money. They point out that spending for WWII reached astronomical levels but just a few years later the national debt was back to manageable levels and the country began a twenty-five year boom. If the government just spends enough money then history will repeat itself.

It would be nice to believe that economics were that simple but there are a number of factors that make WWII unique. Simply spending without these other factors will not produce the same result.

The most obvious factor is that WWII was a war. It had a beginning and an end. By the end of the war the nation was sick of it. There was strong pressure to send the troops back home and get on with life. That put a natural end on the spending. In contrast, Krugman and company are proposing peacetime spending which will be hard to cut once it is established. What starts out as a short-term stimulus will likely turn into permanent programs.

Another factor was pent-up demand. The war years were years of deprivation. No new cars were built and few new houses. Even new clothing was a luxury and food items that we take for granted such as hams and chocolate were hard to come by. With the war over, people wanted these things.

By the end of the war, the US was the only major power to end the war with its manufacturing base intact. In fact, years of war spending had paid for upgrades to American factories. At the same time, Japanese and European manufacturing was in ruins. These other countries had to buy from the US in order to rebuild their own manufacturing bases.

In contrast, we are not experiencing any long-term privation nor are we bombing our competition out of business. No amount of spending in the US is going to dismantle Chinese factories.

WWII was financed by war bonds which were bought by Americans. When the debt was paid down, the money went to Americans who could spend it in the American economy. Our current debt is largely financed by long-term bonds sold to foreign countries. Running up a massive debt today means shipping dollars overseas and draining them from the economy.

When the Great Depression started, the Roosevelt Administration feared deflation. Under normal market conditions, high unemployment should have meant falling wages. The Roosevelt administration kept wages high through a combination of government coercion and union support. This system was finally scrapped during the war and never reestablished. This lowered the cost of hiring new employees. Krugman is advocating the opposite approach today. In a recent column he suggested that the government make it harder to fire or lay off employees. The Democrats have been working hard at raising the cost of hiring with increases to minimum wage and health insurance mandates.

Obviously the huge deficit that the nation ran up during WWII was only a small part of the story. Running up a new deficit and expecting a boom is irrational.

Justice or Ideology?

In 2001, President Bush declared war on International Terrorism. Last week, the Obama administration signaled that that war never happened with two separate actions.

First there is the Fort Hood shooter who has been charged with 13 counts of murder but not terrorism. There has been some argument (exclusively on the left) about whether his actions actually amount to terrorism. This is fairly ridiculous. He had a history of justifying terrorism and corresponded with radicals. Murder and terrorism charges are not mutually exclusive. So why not charge him.

Then there is the announcement that the terrorist known as KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) will be tried in New York rather than by a military tribunal. There is a long history of try foreign combatants by tribunals and there are good reasons for doing this. The Constitutional guarantees given to citizens are difficult to apply to apply to foreigners. Presenting the evidence against KSM in an open court will almost certainly compromise on-going intelligence operations. The sticking point here is the term "foreign combatants". The left has always held there there is no war on terror. With no war, there can be no combatants and no military tribunals, only open courtrooms. President Obama will not even use the term "War of Terror".

Keep in mind that this is not about justice. It is about ideology. We already know that he is guilty. KSM has already boasted of his guilt in front of a tribunal. The whole point of starting over again with a new trial is meant as a slap at the Bush administration.

There are several ways that this can backfire. The trial is likely to turn into a circus that runs on for weeks or months. The OJ trial turned the brutal murder of two people into a national joke. What will the KSM trial do to the murder of 3,000 people?

The worst thing that could happen is that, like OJ, KSM might not be convicted. It has already been decided that he will not go free. If he is not convicted then he will be charged with new crimes and stand for a new trial until he is convicted. This makes a mockery of the justice system. The courts exist to weigh evidence and decide guilt. We already know that KSM is guilty - he admitted it under oath. Trying someone when it is known ahead of time that he will eventually be found guilty of something makes us look like a banana republic.

Confused Priorities and a Tin Ear

There are a couple of reasons that the Democrats are likely to lose big next year - confused priorities and a tin ear.

Obama and the Democratic leadership have their priorities and these do not match the public's priorities. All recent polls put jobs and the economy at the top of the list. They want to know that their government is working hard to put things right. They are also concerned about the war in Afghanistan.

What do they get? Six months of constant talk about health care with cap and trade next on the list. The Obama administration rushed through a stimulus package, bank bailouts, and auto maker bankruptcies in order to clear the decks for its real priorities. Troops were rushed to Afghanistan early in Obama's term and a request for more troops submitted in September is still waiting for a decision. The latest report is that Obama rejected the four options given him and asked for new ones.

The fact that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are all ignoring the public shows an incredible, collective tin ear. It gets worse.

The White House has released figures about jobs created or saved due to the stimulus. I doubt that the public is buying into this. Unemployment is at a 25-year high. Even the major news organizations have found major holes in the official figures. In one instance, stimulus money went for raises. The White House maintained that this counted as multiple partial saved jobs.

Obama's supporters say that he saved the world's economy and averted a second Great Depression. Maybe. Most of the saving that he did was followup from policies begun in the last couple of months of the Bush administration. Regardless, Obama was also responsible for creating the over-used Wall Street/Main Street meme. For much of the year, the Obama administration has been seen as propping up Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. Firms that were too big to fail have grown larger.

Liberals have been outraged by bonuses and pay packages that still approach the GDP of small countries. Conservatives are shocked by the way that the administration has taken over entire industries. without input by Congress or the Courts, the White House was suddenly running GM, installing its own CEO and decreeing which divisions would continue and which would close down.

The deficit is an example of both a tin ear and broken promises. In both 2006 and 2008 the Democrats pitched themselves as the party of fiscal restraint. They pointed out that we were running a surplus during the Clinton years which went back into a deficit in the Bush years. "Put us in charge again," they said, "And we will return to fiscal responsibility."

This was an outright lie. Even before Obama's inauguration, Pelosi announced the suspension of "Paygo" (rules that required all new expenditures to be funded through new taxes or cuts elsewhere). While economists like Paul Krugman argue that deficits are good in a recession, the top Democrats refuse to discuss the issue.

The Tea Parties have been fueled largely by a sense of betrayal at the Democrats' spending. Rather than addressing this, they are dismissed with a derogatory term referring to oral sex.

History is against the Democrats to begin with. Presidents with long coattails usually lose party members in the mid-term elections. They could try to minimize this by paying attention to the polls. Instead they have convinced themselves that the only reason that Clinton lost Congress was because he failed to pass health care. They are clinging to health care as their 2010 salvation, ignoring the fact that at least half the country thinks that this bill will make things worse rather than better.

Parties that ignore their constituents always end up regretting it.

Dr. Who and Politics

You would expect a column on the British TV show, Dr. Who to be a politics-free zone. Unfortunately, with some people there is no such thing as a politics free zone. In a four paragraph column on Dr. Who in Wired, the writer, Scott Brown, injects this:

Sound familiar, America? Oh, I can hear the teabaggers now: This is defeatist talk! Doesn't sound like your cup of Tetley, eh, Glenn Beck? Fair enough: Enjoy your Transformers and the baby-faced club kids of the new Enterprise. But I'd highly recommend a field trip to Whoville.

Brown makes to many bad assumptions it is hard to list them all. First, he assumes that everyone who reads his stuff agrees with his politics. He compounds that by throwing in a derogatory term for the Tea Party movement. He also assumes that Enterprise and Transformers only appeal to conservatives (I guess because he considers both the movies and the audience to be less enlightened). Finally, he thinks that Dr. Who supports his politics. I'll examine this last assumption in depth.

First, I'm going to make an assumption. Since the Brown doesn't like the Tea Parties or Glenn Beck, I'm going to assume that Brown is a big-government liberal.

So, what politics does Dr. Who espouse? It's hard to generalize but there have been a number of episodes that have a strong Libertarian/anti-big government element. In fact it's a given that any episode that features a large government agency or big business, the agency or business will turn out to be run by evil aliens for nefarious reasons.

At the end of the first season the Doctor was on a satellite that housed a totalitarian government. This turned out to be a cover for a plot to recreate the Daleks. The following season a government agency called Torchwood seized the Doctor's TARDIS, saying that all alien technology in Britain belonged to them. They also opened a door to an alternate universe populated by Cybermen.

The Cybermen came from an alternate world where they were manufactured by a large corporation working with the government.

In a later season finale, a charismatic politician named Harold Saxon was elected Prime Minister. It turned out that Saxon was the Doctor's fellow Time Lord the Master who took over the Earth with the intention of using humanity to conquer the universe.

In the spin-off Torchwood, the government blew up Torchwood's Welsh branch and arrested the survivors. Their reason - they didn't want Torchwood to interfere with an alien race's demand for 10% of all children.

Clearly, in the Doctor's universe, big government and big business working with big government are bad. They inevitably end up threatening humanity.

So, why would Glenn Beck object to this?

Mourner in Chief

One of the President's duties is to act as the unofficial Mourner in Chief. When done right, the President helps the nation to put a tragedy in perspective and the President's approval ratings rise. When done poorly, the nation turns its anger on the President.

Bill Clinton's response to the Oklahoma City bombing comforted the nation. The event came at the end of a long series of public relations problems and repaired his image. His approval rating climbed.

George W. Bush took a day to strike the right tone but after that his response to September 11 was what the nation needed and his approval rating climbed into the 90+% range. Four years later his response to Hurricane Katrina was seen as inadequate and his approval rating started a drop that ended in a historic low.

How will the nation judge Barack Obama's response to the Fort Hood shootings? While not on the same level as these other tragedies, it was still a shocking event.

Obama's initial response was shockingly callous. Rather than changing his schedule, he simply inserted a mention of the shooting into a prepared speech. He didn't even lead with it. Instead he began with a "shout out" to a member of the audience who had won the Congressional Medal of Honor (he actually won the Congressional Medal of Freedom - the civilian version). Fort Hood's mention came two minutes later.

Obama has made some further remarks since then but he will not travel to Fort Hood until a memorial service on Tuesday. He spent Saturday lobbying Congress to pass health care. He even used the Fort Hood tragedy in this context, reminding Congressmen in marginal districts that their sacrifice was nothing compared to the people in uniform.

Over the last year the Obama administration has shown that it is single-minded in its agenda, no matter what else happens. The unemployment rate is at a 25 year high and a request for more troops for Afghanistan has waited two months for a decision but the Obama White House seems focused on health care. Even a major tragedy seems unable to get more than a moment's notice.

To their credit, the White House said that the timing of Tuesday's memorial service was for the convenience of the families and not the President. Still, one wonders. Obama postponed an overseas trip by one day. Had the service been any later it would have been much less convenient for the President to attend. Was this just good luck?

Regardless, the President has one last chance to set the right tone before public opinion starts to turn against him.

New York 24

What to make of New York's 24th results? Actually, the whole situation was so muddled that you can make anything you want of it.

To recap - this was a special election to fill a vacancy. Obama won it in 2008. The Republicans nominated a liberal who supported most or all of the Obama agenda. A conservative independent surged after getting support from Sarah Palin. The official Republican dropped out of the race and threw her support (including her robo-calls) to the Democrat. The Democrat won the election with 49% of the vote.

The result of this mess is that:

A Democrat won this district for the first time since the 19th century.
Even with all of this, the Democrat could not get a majority of the votes.
Even if the independent had sat the race out and allowed the Republican to win, the Democrats would have gained a reliable vote.

The most important lesson for the Republicans and independents (and I'm not the first to point this out) is that they need each other to win. If the Republicans had nominated a candidate who was closer to mainstream Republican then this seat would still be in Republican hands.

On the other hand, trying to turn a single special election into a national mandate to continue the Obama Revolution is a stretch.

A Year Later

A year ago the Democrats won big. The big question was if the election represented a national shift to the political left or a normal swing away from the party in power amplified by a charismatic minority at the top of the ticket. A year later it looks like the second scenario is the correct one.

The Republicans won the governor's office in two states that Obama won in 2008. Spin doctors are pointing out that these states usually elect the party that is not in the White House so we should not read too much into this election. In fact, that explanation confirms that the 2008 election was a normal swing instead of a permanent shift. If the country had shifted then the old rules would no longer apply.

The old rules also say that the party in the White House will have losses next year. The extent of those losses depends on how long the President's coattails were. Reagan, Clinton, and Obama all had long coattails. Reagan and Clinton lost seats. Chances are very good that Obama will lose seats, also.

This should concern representatives who were elected on Obama's coattails. By definition, they are people who won in districts that normally favor the other party. The thinking is that, either they profited from the halo effect of being in the same party as the President or that they got votes from people who turned out to vote for the President and who will stay home on off years.

The best chance that these representatives have of staying in office is to appeal to the people who normally elect Republicans. That means that they have to distance themselves from the Obama agenda.

What about the Republicans being too conservative to elect? That was tried in Virginia. It turns out that voters care more about economic issues. With the recession dragging on, the Democrats now own that issue and it is hurting them.