tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32669990696085325492024-02-08T08:11:22.633-05:00Conservative CrankCommentary and random musings from a committed conservative with some libertarian tendencies. Additional thoughts on Twitter, @conservativecraConservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-56747912889872467252015-04-13T11:03:00.001-04:002015-04-13T11:03:22.357-04:00Make A Radical Feminist's Head Explode With This One Easy Blog Post!**Note--I am a pro-life conservative. I am NOT endorsing abortion on demand. This is rather the inescapable end game if you a) embrace abortion on demand, b) obliterate the idea of any distinction on the basis of sex/gender, and c) use internally consistent logic.**<br />
<br />
Allow me to play devil's advocate for those who argue for abortion on demand. There is a stunning and inexcusable gap in current practice that must be addressed:<br />
<br />
Abortion on demand must be available, without any additional restrictions beyond those already in place, for fathers.<br />
<br />
I'm sure many radical feminists are even now taking to their <strike>fainting couches</strike> <b>outrage blogs</b> at the previous sentence alone, but we're only beginning.<br />
<br />
Allowing only the woman carrying the baby to decide to have an abortion on demand is a clear violation of civil rights and equal protection. It is obvious gender discrimination on its face alone.<br />
<br />
Since having an abortion on demand is a right, per modern feminist theory and jurisprudence, one cannot deny that right to someone. Furthermore, because it is a right, one may compel another to take actions to preserve and fulfill that right. Denying that right to men is therefore a violation of men's civil rights on the basis of gender.<br />
<br />
The father bears an equal burden financially for the baby as the mother by force of paternity laws, and so if the mother can have an abortion on demand because a child would be a financial burden to her, the father should be able to compel an abortion for the same reason. In fact, since a mother is not required to provide any reason to have an abortion up to the 20th week of the pregnancy, a man should be able to have an abortion performed without providing a reason as well.<br />
<br />
Feminists have long said that if men could get pregnant, there would be abortion clinics on every corner. If men can obtain abortions on demand, I have no doubt that the demand will increase and that more clinics will open to supply that demand, which means more abortion clinics for women to use.<br />
<br />
**Since this post is about a feminist issue, I will honor the great radical feminist blog custom of presenting straw men arguments and burning them down by indulging in it. Cue the outrage blogs again. It never is as much fun when someone apes the flawed tactics and statements of your most extreme members to make you look like absolute idiots, right feminists?**<br />
<br />
**Andohbytheway, this whole blog post is satire, which is not hate speech, and thus protected speech. Since I'm not a raving idiot who ignores the simple, obvious truth that there are in fact differences between the sexes/genders, I don't actually believe these arguments.**<br />
<br />
Some feminists would argue that hoary old "her body, her choice!" line. Well, I suppose one could argue that a risky medical procedure against a woman's will is unethical and possibly illegal, but fortunately feminists have abolished that concern with very public arguments that abortion is so safe that it needs no oversight and simple measures such as making sure that there is a nearby hospital that would handle any potential complications or that abortion clinics need to pass the sort of inspections for cleanliness that any other healthcare setting must are totally unnecessary burdens. Bravo, Wendy Davis!<br />
<br />
The father contributes half the genetic material, and so he has every bit as much claim to ownership of this "clump of cells" as the mother. Now, some feminists might claim that we know with certainty who the mother is but not the father. However, with a simple genetic test we can establish paternity beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't even need to do an invasive procedure on the mother to obtain a sample, a simple blood test will accomplish it, which is such a minor burden for the mother that I'm certain courts would be happy to permit it.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Still other feminists might argue that since only a woman can get pregnant, only a woman can decide. That sounds like gender discrimination pure and simple, which any good feminist will shriek is wrong in any other context, and we must be consistent.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As a side benefit, since there is a great deal of crossover from radical feminism to environmentalism, having abortions on demand for men will probably lead to a dramatic decrease in the birth rate once the men get to take mulligans on pregnancies, and there will be less people running around to pollute the Earth.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, feminists, when it comes to abortion, remember to check your pregnancy privilege.</div>
Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-65819613547034788092014-02-08T16:05:00.002-05:002014-02-08T16:05:32.160-05:00An Open Letter To Witchwind, Radical Feminist<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Dear Witchwind:</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I am a straight male (translation:
cis-normative heterosexual oppressor of wymyn) who came across your
blog after you wrote a fascinating exposition on your own phobias and
pathologies entitled <a href="http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/" target="_blank">PIV is always rape, ok?</a> This piece was published by you on your blog
December 15, 2013, and I believe I first read it (translation:
collected information with which to batter radical feminism) a few
days later when it was linked at <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/" target="_blank">Ace of Spades HQ</a>. I have also recently read your post entitled <a href="http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/in-retrospect-to-the-85000-reformism-and-other-things/" target="_blank">In retrospect to the 85,000, reformism and other things</a> which
expressed fear of men reading your blog and that the very fact that
men read your piece was a threat.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I find this definition of threat
curious, but it is consistent with your apparent willingness to
ignore accepted definitions of words in your posts. You describe
heterosexual intercourse as PIV (penis in vagina), and state that it
is “a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and
simple.” This is not plain and simple at all, primarily because it
is not true. Your formulation means that either intercourse and rape
are identical, meaning the words are perfect synonyms, or that all
intercourse is a subset of rape.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Your working definition of rape appears
to be any sexual activity that may potentially cause harm to a woman.
To quote your working definition, “intercourse is inherently
harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in
women. . . . Pregnancy = may hurt, damage or kill. Intercourse = a
man using his physical force to penetrate a woman. <i>Intention /
purpose</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> of the act of
intercourse = to cause pregnancy. PIV is therefore intentional harm
/ violence. Intentional sexual harm of a man against a woman through
penile penetration = RAPE.”</span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Logically speaking,
your argument is complete bullsh*t. For example, all PIV would not
qualify as rape under this definition because there are scenarios
where pregnancy cannot happen—a woman who has had a total
hysterectomy is not raped by PIV, because she cannot suffer any
“intentional sexual harm” since she cannot become pregnant.</div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
By your logic,
anyone who walks down a flight of stairs is an attempted suicide,
because the risk of falling down the stairs cannot be completely
eliminated, and a fall may hurt, damage or kill.</div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
I will also assert
that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that not every man desires
pregnancy as an outcome every time he has intercourse, which would
render one of your underlying premises invalid.</div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Even if I concede
your invalid premises, however, it still leads to absurd conclusions.
Every male of every species that ever procreates or even engages in
intercourse is a rapist by your argument. Furthermore, rape ceases
to have any meaning of its own, as you reduce it to simply another
word for intercourse (or PIV, to use the absurd RadFem term). You
very much do in fact belittle the experiences of women (and men) who
have suffered rape, particularly violent, forcible rape, which is in
no way synonymous with consensual intercourse. You further insult
non-RadFem women by telling them that they have no sexual liberty,
and cannot consent to intercourse because they are brainwashed and
could never allow anything in their vaginas other than an infant
being born. In my opinion, this shows a heterophobia on your part
that I suspect you would label rank bigotry and discrimination if it
were applied in reverse, i.e. a straight male decrying all lesbian
relations as felonious.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">You
seem to have an all-pervading hatred of all things men. You not only
oppose their (imagined) Illuminati-level control of all things, but
state that there is no room for any male in the agenda or cause to
advance women's rights. You state that enlightened women, such as
yourself, can see through all this and that men will never change,
yet then demand that men give you money, property, essentially the
universe. I offer you and all your RadFem allies this instead
(WARNING—SATIRICAL CONTENT AHEAD):</span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Settlement in a
location that has not been pillaged by men—an intact region of the
Amazon rain forest seems reasonable, as it has not been despoiled and
contains adequate food and water.</div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
And nothing else.</div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
No heavy equipment
for clearing the land for farming, because such equipment was
invented and built primarily by men.</div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
No gasoline or any
products dependent upon the petrochemical industry, since these all
come from a crude simulation of intercourse by penetrating the earth
with drills (which are just phallic symbols, of course).</div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
No vaccines or
antibiotics, because these were discovered/invented by men.</div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
No firearms for
defense, since they were invented by men.</div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Finally, no men for
procreation, no male domestic animals for maintaining your
herds/flocks. After all, we're all rapists anyway. I'm sure you can
start from scratch in mud huts with stone tools and get to successful
cloning within 30 or 40 years before your movement goes extinct.</div>
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Or, maybe, you
could renounce your irrational hatred of men. I don't expect that,
of course, since your writings indicate a zealotry wholly divorced
from reality, but this Femtopia sounds like exactly what you want.
No men, no influence from the patriarchy's toxic ideas or desire to
control your womb. Just you and your fellow RadFems, sitting in the
jungle telling each other how smart and superior you are, dying off
one by one from illness, injury or starvation, and with no way to
propagate yourselves, until the last RadFem living lives out her days
ranting at the trees how this is all the fault of men.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sincerely,</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Conservative Crank</div>
Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-77687645749388082702013-09-11T17:21:00.003-04:002013-09-11T17:21:45.382-04:00Remembering 9-11 and BenghaziThe most important part of today for me, aside from remembering and honoring the innocent victims and brave emergency responders and passengers of Flight 93, is to not forget why it happened and who is to blame.<br />
<br />
9-11 happened because radical Islamists hate the United States--it's culture, it's wealth, it's defense of Israel/Jews. Islamists hate the freedom that is at the foundation of America because it allows for liberty, and for people to make decisions that might conflict with the Islamists' view of a perfect sharia caliphate. To them, any act no matter how barbaric is permissible if done for the greater glory of Allah or to cause harm to the infidels. Alas, my understanding of history is that when religion and politics are in bed together, the usual product of that union is bloodshed.<br />
<br />
Benghazi happened--well, we still don't have an openly acknowledged reason why Benghazi happened. It certainly was not about a YouTube video. My best understanding (cribbed from various sources) is that the Libyan mission included CIA running arms to Syrian rebels fighting against Assad (where the fighting is primarily two strains of Islamists pitted against each other, though there are some less extremist elements in the Syrian rebel forces), and another group of extremists (the Al Qaeda affiliate in Mali) decided to make a little statement and perhaps score some surface-to-air missiles in the bargain.<br />
<br />
My point is, radical Islam is a mortal foe of the United States. Radical Islam will accept nothing but complete obedience and adherence to its vision of the world. Radical Islam must be marginalized and, when an imminent threat, crushed ruthlessly. Those who renounce extremism and allow for the peaceful coexistence of others are not my enemies, or enemies of the United States. But those who would kill another because they pray to a different god, or do not follow their particular strict moral code, those have no place in the world and are the enemy of all. Those who would give no quarter to the infidel deserve no mercy, and the sad reality is that millions who believe "death to the infidel" is a central part of good religious practice would rather die than tolerate a Christian or a Jew living peacefully nearby. Those who can change and tolerate others, all well and good, but those who do not must be dealt with, by force if necessary to prevent their ability to harm others.<br />
<br />
The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of mixing religion and government. This is why the First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly addresses it. However, the Founding Fathers also understood the value religion has in society for contributing to moral well-being and order, at least in the Christian faith. Although often now misunderstood, particularly by atheists with an agenda, the First Amendment does not call for the banishment of religion from the public sphere or anywhere there is government involvement. Instead, it prohibits government from establishing a state religion or church, and also prohibits the government from abridging religion. I could rant for pages about how this element of the First Amendment is often ignored, but that is for another time.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-76591340079418171062013-09-02T14:04:00.000-04:002013-09-02T14:11:27.633-04:00A Case For Impeachment of President Obama--Libya, Syria, and the War Powers Resolution<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I will attempt to lay out a case for
the impeachment of our 44<sup>th</sup> President that, had the
Congress any integrity at all, would surely result in the filing of
Articles of Impeachment and likely a successful conviction in the
Senate. I will also make a brief argument for the timing of this,
should Boehner grow a pair.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A couple disclaimers up front: I am not
a lawyer, nor what most people would recognize as a “scholar” of
the Constitution—i.e. I do not have a degree in Government or Law,
with an emphasis on the Constitution. What I do have is a pretty
good grasp of political philosophy and philosophy in general, which
is certainly adequate for an understanding of the Constitution as
intended by Madison and the other framers. I will not be seriously
entertaining penumbras and other such perversions of the original
language as understood at the time of passage of the Constitution or
the relevant Amendments.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Two relevant links here. <a href="http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm" target="_blank">This</a>
is the full text of the U.S. Constitution and <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp" target="_blank">here</a>
is the text of the War Powers Resolution (sometimes also called the
War Powers Act).</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It is also important to note that the
Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution is itself an open
question.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Okay, enough with the pre-game, on to
the matter at hand.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Article I, Section 8 states:</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="background-color: #444444;"> </span><span style="background-color: #660000;">The Congress shall have Power To . . .
declare War</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“But Crank,” one could reasonably
point out, “Korea and Vietnam did not have a formal declaration of
war.” And that is true on its face. In fact, it is more than true
in regards to Korea, where Truman did not even seek retroactive
Congressional approval, and would have been grounds for impeachment
had Congress pursued the matter. However, the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution did give LBJ the blessing of Congress to use the
“conventional military” in Vietnam.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Due to the FUBAR messes of Korea and
Vietnam, in 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over the
veto of President Nixon. I will quote the most relevant portions of
this blessedly brief bill.
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Section 2(c):</div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: #660000;">The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief
to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a
declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its armed forces.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Section 3:</div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: #660000;">The President in every possible instance shall consult with
Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into
hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances . . .</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Section 4(a) begins:
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="background-color: #660000;">In the absence of a declaration of
war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="background-color: #660000;"></span> </div>
<span style="background-color: #660000;">(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement
in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
and continues in paragraph 3:</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="background-color: #660000;">. . . the president shall submit
within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to
the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting
forth--
</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #660000;">
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #660000;">(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United
States Armed Forces;</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #660000;">
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #660000;">(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such
introduction took place; and
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #660000;">
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #660000;">(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or
involvement.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Finally, Section 5(b) states:</div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: #660000;"> Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is
required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is
earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed
Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required
to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has
enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed
Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is
physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the
United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more
than an additional thirty days if the President determines and
certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military
necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces
requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of
bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Okay, a fair bit of verbiage there, so
I'll break it down based on what seems to be pretty unambiguous
language. Article I, Section 8 is completely self-explanatory,
stating that declarations of war are among the Congress's enumerated
powers, and thus is the only branch of government with the authority
to declare war. So far, so good. The War Powers Resolution seeks to
carve out a space for the Executive Branch to act in response to a
fast-developing situation without a prior Congressional authorization
for war, presumably to keep the country from being bushwhacked (see
also Harbor, Pearl).
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Section 2 of the WPR specifies that the
President must have a war declaration, a separate bill authorizing
military force (ala Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), or “a national
emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Note that this
is not a suspicion of a pending attack, and that it must rise to the
level of a national emergency created by said attack. Libya did not
rise to this level, and Syria does not either.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Section 3 requires that if
circumstances indicate pending hostilities, then the President shall
consult with Congress if possible prior to commencement of
hostilities. This was clearly possible in Libya. Until this past
weekend, it seemed quite likely that Obama was not going to consult
Congress.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Section 4 requires that the President
submit in writing to the House and Senate within 48 hours of
hostilities commencing a report that includes the circumstances that
required involvement, the legal justification for involvement, and
the expected level of involvement and the goals of the involvement.
This did not happen with Libya.*</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Section 5 states that the President has
60 days from the time specified in Section 4 to either get
Congressional approval to continue the military involvement or GTFO,
though he may take another 30 days to get the military out provided
he gives a written justification to that purpose to Congress. This
also did not happen with Libya,* with Operation Odyssey Dawn and
Operation Unified Protector lasting from 3/19/11 to 10/31/11, which
is considerably longer than 60 days.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
So, where does all this leave us?
Well, as I've outlined here, President Obama violated at least 4
separate sections of the War Powers Resolution with respect to Libya.
That makes Libya an illegal war (well, use of the armed forces in
combat, it was pretty one-sided). The War Powers Resolution is the
only currently accepted framework for the use of the military without
a preceding Congresssional declaration of war or other legislation
authorizing the use of the military. Therefore, President Obama has
also violated the separation of powers and overstepped the authority
of the Executive. The facts, as they say, speak for themselves.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
How does Syria fit into this? At the
time I am writing this, Obama has not yet begun bombing Assad's
regime. If he does so without Congressional authorization, he is in
violation of WPR Section 2 by my reading. If he follows the pattern
with Syria that he did with Libya, he will also be in violation of
Section 4. Section 5 would likely not apply in Syria as no one
expects that anything will go beyond a couple days of lobbing
missiles at targets from offshore or outside the SAM envelope.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When I began writing this post last
week, it appeared Obama was prepared to launch unilateral action
without consulting Congress. If Congress does vote to attack Syria
(which seems unlikely to me), then the remaining portions of this
post regarding Syria are null and void. The remainder of the post
assumes that Congress votes against military action.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
If/when Obama attacks Syria without
abiding by the WPR, that is the perfect impetus for initiating
impeachment. However, the major thrust (for the purpose of this
post) would be from Libya. Given the facts of the case, there is no
question that Obama is guilty of an illegal military action, and such
a verdict in the Senate should be a foregone conclusion. There are
three possible outcomes, none of which are good for Obama or
Democrats.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
Outcome 1 is that he is found not
guilty of launching an illegal military action contra the
requirements of the WPR, for which the facts speak for themselves. A
first-year law student could successfully prosecute this with his
textbooks behind his back, and an acquittal would expose the basest
political motives among those who do not vote for a guilty verdict.
Any (D) Senator in a state that is even tinged purple should
rightfully be toast in the next election.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
Outcomes 2 and 3 both hinge on that
Obama is found guilty, and appeals to the Supreme Court** on the
grounds that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. If the
WPR is found constitutional, then the guilty verdict would stand. If
the War Powers Resolution is found unconstitutional—then Obama has
violated the separation of powers as outlined in Article I, Section
8, and would still be guilty of an impeachable offense. The WPR
would also have been overturned, preventing further unapproved
military action. In this scenario, I expect that Congress will come
up with a new version of the WPR to allow rapid response in emergency
situations that would pass a constitutionality test.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When should the House file Articles of
Impeachment? I would argue that it should take place 48 hours and 1
minute after the initiation of hostilities against Syria, assuming
that Obama does not meet his obligations in Section 4 of the WPR.
That would allow for another count in the Articles and would show
that Congress is in fact deadly serious about separation of powers.
If Obama does not attack Syria, then the Libya actions are themselves
sufficient, in my opinion, for trial and conviction.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Now, I am aware that there are numerous
other scandals that could be used as fodder for impeachment
proceedings against Obama, but those are beyond the scope of this
post. I believe that Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the NSA
scandals should all have a place in the Articles as well. I'd like
to also see Solyndra and the IRS thrown in there, but those are more
complicated cases to make from where I'm sitting. As a side benefit,
Articles could also be filed against Eric Holder for Fast and
Furious, enforcing the illegal DREAM act executive order, and the New
Black Panther Party case, and against Hillary Clinton for
Benghazi.***</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
*As far as I know—I'm pretty sure
that this would have gotten significant talking head coverage if
Obama had gotten Congressional authorization. I remember plenty of
talking head coverage that he did not do this, and even Wikipedia
notes that Obama never received authorization, so I'm fairly
confident in asserting this.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
**I'm not sure if impeachment can be
appealed, but rest assured that the WPR will end up before the
Supreme Court at some point if Obama is impeached on these grounds.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
***Yes, I realize Hillary is not in
office. But a guilty verdict could bar her from holding any office
in the future.</div>
</div>
Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-90352612651873162042013-07-07T23:06:00.001-04:002013-07-07T23:06:29.689-04:00A Return to Blogging and Some Tidying UpIt's been quite some time since I posted here. Some of that has to do with frustration at the electorate, and much of it has to do with the demands of meatspace--job, family, etc. Nonetheless, I hope to begin writing again here, probably 2-3 posts a month.<br />
<br />
I've also changed the description of the blog somewhat. Whereas I once described myself as "a committed conservative with some moderate tendencies", I realize that is not really accurate. I was allowing myself to be trapped by a leftist prism on what constitutes conservative and moderate in regards to social issues. Although I have compassion, I would not categorize myself as a "compassionate conservative" in the mold of George W. Bush. Specifically, this realization came to me during the recent Supreme Court deliberations and decisions on gay marriage. I realized that it does not make me a moderate to support fair treatment of homosexuals, just as it does not make me some reactionary h8ter because I oppose state-sanctioned gay marriage.<br />
<br />
Further introspection has made me aware that I have a fair libertarian streak in me as well. Again, I had previously allowed my interpretation of libertarianism to be unfairly biased due to a false preconception, that libertarians were simply about legalization of drugs. What I discovered was that libertarians (as opposed to the Libertarian party) were those who wished to maximize individual liberty. To my thinking, this puts libertarians (classical liberals, as Locke or Madison might have understood them) much closer to conservatives than the modern liberals (Democrats, Socialists, Communists, etc.), although on a different axis.<br />
<br />
However, I am in no danger of going on full-on libertarian, which stands only a few steps away from anarchy in some respects. I believe that a strong but tightly limited government is necessary for the common defense, a precursor to having any degree of liberty in society as opposed to a Hobbesian jungle. I believe the Founding Fathers were much, much smarter than many people give them credit for by choosing a constitutional republic rather than a democracy or even democratic republic as the blueprint for the United States. Unfortunately, the original Progressive movement from Teddy Roosevelt over a century ago has gradually altered that blueprint, building up paper mountains of laws and regulations that have pushed inexorably in a direction of statism. But this author will not quietly submit to a socialist agenda, or the implicit messaging of <em>der State über alles</em> that modern leftists such as President Obama support.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-23993215239230194352012-12-16T19:38:00.003-05:002012-12-16T19:38:31.235-05:00Culture Wars, Part II--Schools and SocialismIn the prior post, I briefly covered two topics, acceptance that conservatives have lost the culture war, and what that meant in terms of the loss of cultural touchstones. This post addresses the how and why.<br />
<br />
How did this happened? We let it. We let liberals, by which I mean socialists, take over the schools and destroy our youth. The nanny state believes that it, through the schools, is the proper authority to raise and guide children, not the parents and extended family. I laughed when I heard that Hillary Clinton wrote a book called <em>It Takes a Village</em>, because even as a teenager I knew the premise implied in the title was ridiculous, but I'm not laughing any more because I now know that there are a great number of people who actually believe that.<br />
<br />
Why did this happen? Because the socialists waged total war, while the conservatives sought a limited action. Socialists fought on every front all the time, always making sure to keep an eye on the long game as well, whereas the conservatives were focused on the individual battles and merely lamented about gradually losing the war. Ask any Vietnam vet how well a limited action works out in the long run. And the ultimate long-term goal was to gain control of the schools, because compulsory education guarantees that virtually every young, malleable mind will be able to be shaped by teachers, without the children realizing it, until they become just like the teachers.<br />
<br />
For a more specific example, the Left fought to have prayer removed from schools for decades, and have achieved almost total victory in this. They lost many court cases along the way, but always they probed for a new angle, a different judge, and gradually they chipped away at a ritual that was once a given and have turned it into a historical footnote in most districts. Having accomplished this, they now attack the most sacred of the American Christian cows--Christmas itself. How many districts now insist on parity between Christmas and Kwanzaa, or have banned any sort of Christmas celebration? Does anyone actually know what Kwanzaa is and celebrate it for those reasons? Search Ann Coulter's column archives for a devastating indictment of Kwanzaa and its founder--the short version is that the holiday's roots are about as genuine as a three-dollar bill and that it not-so-secretly promotes radical socialist redistribution.<br />
<br />
Volumes could be written on how public schools have been subverted to left-wing ideology, but I don't have the desire to tackle all the evils at this time. For my purposes at this time, it is sufficient to acknowledge that this is the case.<br />
<br />
The next post in this series will be Culture Wars, Part III--The Triumph of Relativism and Divinity of Self.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-48927391881453679202012-12-10T20:13:00.000-05:002012-12-10T20:13:02.023-05:00Culture Wars, Part I--Where We First Went WrongIn the ongoing culture wars, conservatives continue to be routed by liberals. The recent election proves this, where a slim majority reelected a man--Barack Obama--who has made negative net progress on the economy in the past four years over a man--Mitt Romney--who has rebuilt numerous now-successful businesses. Now, we could argue a great deal about who on the Right is to blame for this specific failure, but the truth is that it is all of us. We have ceded the entire war on culture and values in the name of political correctness. To be sure, other elements are in play--which I hope to discuss later--but we have failed the Founding Fathers.<br />
<br />
We have allowed separation of church and state to be twisted to mean virtual banishment of religion, especially Christianity, from the public sphere. We have failed to inculcate entire generations with mores and norms that were a given for centuries in Western Civilization. How many children or young adults can describe the framework or the meanings of even a fraction of Aesop's fables? Would they see the ant as a horrible villain and the grasshopper as oppressed, or would they even understand that so much of the current culture encourages them to become grasshoppers? Would they jeer the mouse for removing the thorn from the lion's paw? What about other former cultural touchstones? Would they understand Hansel and Gretel is an object lesson on poor planning and disobeying one's parents, or would they decry the violence of the story as too toxic for children? Would they understand the parable of the prodigal son as the love of a father (and God) for his child, or see it as a template for endless largess for the wealthy to the poor, even if one is poor after having squandered his own wealth so foolishly?<br />
This is the first post in a series on this topic. Next will be Culture Wars, Part II--Schools and Socialism.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-90611404696681920012012-08-31T22:55:00.000-04:002012-08-31T22:55:22.788-04:00Thoughts on the RNC, and Paul RyanI watched or listened to a fair bit of the Republican National Convention the past few days. Now that the convention is over, I have a number of thoughts. Some of them may not be strictly convention related due to the gap since my last post, especially some of the material on Paul Ryan, but the focus will be the RNC.<br />
<br />
Overall, I think the convention was very successful. There was a concerted, focused effort to build up Mitt Romney and illuminate the shortcomings of Barack Obama, and I imagine the organizers are probably, and rightfully, quite pleased with themselves today. And now to my thoughts, organized in almost no particular order (Ryan is last for a reason, though).<br />
<br />
1) Ann Romney--There were multiple speeches by non-political figures, including members of Romney's church with stories that cannot fail to move a person with any sense of compassion, but Ann Romney's speech was the most memorable, and the most helpful, to the cause of making Mitt Romney more approachable for those who only knew him as that rich Mormon guy from Massachusetts. Frankly, I liked him more after her speech--and I already was finding him more likable than I did in the heat of the primaries or even a couple months ago. She has shown that she will be an asset to Mitt Romney as First Lady.<br />
<br />
2) Clint Eastwood--The most talked about speech of the convention right now, a bit of political commentary and improv comedy that has extremely polarized responses--I caught it on the web later. Ace at <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/" target="_blank">Ace of Spades HQ</a> is a huge fan, as is Sean Hannity. Most liberal commentators are not. While I personally appreciated what he was trying to do, and think it was funny, it certainly was a bit of a non-sequitur. If it gets people to laugh at Obama, and opens their eyes to his flaws, then it was a success. I don't think it will cause any harm to the Romney brand, though Clint may find himself invited to a lot less parties.<br />
<br />
3) Mitt Romney--I did not see or hear all of Mitt's speech, but I've read both left-wing and right-wing takes on it. With the exception of actual Democratic operatives (CNN includes high-ranking members of the DNC in its review of the the convention), the consensus seems to be that the speech advanced the cause of his candidacy. Some of the more right-wing pundits believe it was Mitt's best speech--though he does not exactly have the reputaion of being a barn-burner on the stump. Nonetheless, he did not commit any gaffes, and nothing else that happened this week appears to have harmed him. Incidentally, getting ahead of Obama on going to Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Isaac is a brilliant move.<br />
<br />
4) Governor Susana Martinez--This speech was a tour de force, and was tied for the second best speech of the convention that I heard. A remarkable life story, a conversion that comes from a small epiphany--not like Paul on the road to Damascus, but a sudden realization that her own values align with conservatives and the Republicans, not the liberals and the Democrats--this is a story that wins converts, not just voters for a single cycle. Her delivery of the speech was very impressive, and I sincerely hope she remains prominent in the party.<br />
<br />
5) Senator Marco Rubio--I missed this speech as well (Thursday's schedule was not conducive to following the convention), but once again he is gaining lots of accolades. He is one of the true rising stars in the GOP, and has acquited himself quite well in the Senate as well as a speaker--but I still need to see a lot more before I am ready to nominate him for President. Having read the transcript and heard the speech, he did well, very well indeed. I do have high hopes for Senator Rubio, but his time has not come yet.<br />
<br />
6) Condoleezza Rice--This speech I rank with Governor Martinez's, although for different reasons. Ms. Rice's story is in some ways the most remarkable of any of the speakers, summed up in her one line about going from Jim Crow Birmingham to the highest diplomatic position and most prestigious cabinet office of the United States. Furthermore, she gave this speech without benefit of a teleprompter, which is almost unheard of for a scripted speech in the modern political environment. It is easy to see why many in the Republican party, especially the more moderate elements, are drooling at the prospect of her running for office. It is not clear, however, that she has a desire to hold office.<br />
<br />
7) Representative Paul Ryan--To my thinking, Paul Ryan was the true star of the convention. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-romneys-present-ryans-future/2012/08/16/d0411adc-e7b8-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html" target="_blank">Krauthammer</a> wrote a piece a couple weeks ago that echoes my own thoughts, namely that Ryan is set up to be the standard bearer for the Republican party for a generation. I disagree only in that Ryan might actually be a two generation figure. If Romney does become the next President, and can in fact manage to turn around the economy, Ryan would then be able to stroll into the White House in another 8 years, since he will have played a significant part in said turnaround. After 2 terms as vice president and 2 terms as president, Ryan would sill be under 60--a younger, wonkier Reagan figure who could still have a strong voice for another 20 years.<br />
<br />
And then there is his speech--a speech that was filled with pointed truths (don't believe the fact-checkers--everything they harp on is either factually accurate or a matter of opinion) that several have called "devastating" and led Ace (hardly a font of unrelenting optimism) to pronounce the election <a href="http://minx.cc/?post=332377" target="_blank">"over"</a>. (Ace is feeling his oats a little less since the Nielsen numbers are in, but he still seems pretty positive.) The word I used at the time, listening to the speech, and that I've also seen used by others including Ace, was "evisceration". It was utterly damning of Obama's policies and failures, with both national elements and personal touches. Like many other speakers, he allowed for former Obama supporters to save face by not voting for him in 2012, but no other speaker that I am aware of managed to destroy Obama's record so thoroughly in the process.<br />
<br />
I thought Perry had fire in the belly at the onset of his campaign, but his nomination was not destined to be. Romney, I believe, will be adequate to the current challenges, but it is Ryan, with fire in the belly to spare, who can lead the Republican party, and conservative philosophy, into the future--and as of this moment, I do not see anyone on the political landscape who would make me happier in that role.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-23676252029538325202012-06-21T20:35:00.001-04:002012-06-21T20:35:54.037-04:00Executive Privilege and Fast and FuriousWith all due respect to the offices of Attorney General of the United States and President of the United States;<br />
<br />
Mr. Holder, President Obama, the two of you are a disgrace to this country, and anything short of impeachment and a criminal trial is too good for you.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege" target="_blank">Executive privilege</a> has been asserted by the Obama administration in response to multiple subpoenas from the Congressional Oversight Committee regarding documents from the program known as Fast and Furious. In case the reader has not been following this story, it is the operation run by the Department of Justice through the ATF that involved selling guns to known straw purchasers (illegal gun buyers) who would then sell or otherwise provide these weapons to the Mexican drug cartels. Another brief summary of the particulars of the operation can be found in <a href="http://dedicatedtenther.blogspot.com/2012/06/act-of-war.html" target="_blank">this post</a> by Dedicated Tenther. As a bonus, that link contains DT's thoughts on what should happen to those responsible.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Readers of conservative blogs or devoted followers of Fox News and/or the Drudge Report have known about this story for many months, but it has otherwise all but escaped notice in the mainstream media. I personally would think that the United States government being complicit in the death of several hundred* Mexican civilians and 2 federal agents (Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata) would be a major story, but much of the rest of the media has not thought so. Clearly, the escapades of Sandra Fluke, a professional activist who was either gravely misinformed or outright lied when speaking at the behest of Nancy Pelosi, and not as a sworn witness before Congress or a committee thereof, on the availability of contraception, is just one example of a story felt to be far, far more important than these murders.<br />
<br />
I mentioned this as one of the major scandals of the Obama administration <a href="http://conservativecrank.blogspot.com/2011/10/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html" target="_blank">last October</a>. At that time, I thought the illegal military action in Libya was the bigger scandal, as it was a clear-cut violation of the Constitutional authority of the Executive Branch, and more specifically the War Powers Act--itself a Constitutional crisis waiting to happen but at this time the law of the land. Fast and Furious has now risen to being on par, or nearly so, with the Libyan debacle through the President's invocation of executive privilege.<br />
<br />
Feel free to click on the link above describing exactly what executive privilege entails again. Candid discussions between advisers, unfettered advice for performing executive duties? Absolutely, go for it, there's no need for Joe Public to know if, say, President Obama and the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussed using an ICBM to eliminate Osama bin Laden once they thought they knew his location in Pakistan (set aside that it would have been an awful idea in practice--the point is whether or not the option was ever discussed is not of particular import to the public). But the problem is that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conspiracy" target="_blank">criminal conspiracy</a> is not a normal executive duty. I admit I have not read the entire United States Code, Annotated, but I am fairly certain that the sale of fully automatic weapons (or "machine guns" in some jurisdictions) and grenades to unlicensed individuals, or individuals whom are known to or reasonably suspected to then illegally sell or transport these weapons in furtherance of a criminal enterprise, is itself a crime. I am not fully informed on the legalities of "sting" operations and exceptions they provide to normal statutes, but I am pretty sure that one of the normal aspects of a sting operation is that <em>the contraband is not then allowed to remain in criminal possession.</em> If the FBI wants to sell explosives to a suspected terrorist, they make damn sure that the terrorists do not get to keep the explosives--which were probably fake in the first place. Contrast these elements with the geniuses in charge at ATF, who did not attempt to track the guns and may have even reprimanded agents who questioned this--well, I suppose it could be called a strategy, though idiocy is probably a much better word.<br />
<br />
By invoking executive privilege, President Obama has admitted in the legal sense that Fast and Furious was a sanctioned program that he was aware of, if not actively involved in it. Furthermore, if he did not approve of the program, there would be no need for privilege, and so a reasonable person can surmise that he approved of the program and the tactics used in it. We have a word for someone who plans and authorizes a crime--that word is criminal. When two or more people are involved in planning or committing a crime, that is a conspiracy. And a person who is negligent in his duties, or carries out a criminal act, is responsible for the consequences of that negligence or those acts. Any responsible gun owner knows that when they pull the trigger, they are responsible for anything that subsequently happens with that bullet, including if you were shooting at the man with a gun in your doorway but the bullet accidentally kills little Sally in the house across the street. Well, when someone or a group of individuals knowingly sells guns to criminals, and those guns are then used to kill people, the person or people who sold those guns is both criminally and civilly liable for those deaths.<br />
<br />
Now, it is tempting to say that the responsible parties should be extradited to Mexico for trial there--but that would be a lousy precedent to set for a number of reasons. However, being charged with a couple hundred counts of criminally negligent homicide and the relevant conspiracy charges in an American court is much more appropriate precedent, and anything less than a grand jury being convened to examine those charges is an injustice. It may be that there is not sufficient evidence to subsequently charge Obama and Holder, and while I doubt that is true, I would be satisfied that at least the proper procedures had been undertaken, if not the outcome. In all likelihood, however, I will have to resign myself to being unsatisfied as it is very unlikely that Mr. Holder will ever face criminal charges, and there is essentially zero likelihood of President Obama being charged.<br />
<br />
With any luck, this story will finally see the light of day and the public will know the extent of the arrogance and probable crimes of the current administration. I intend to follow it closely and write additional posts as warranted.<br />
<br />
*The actual number of Mexicans killed by Fast and Furious guns is likely unknowable, but according to the Mexican Attorney General as far back as September, 2011, at least 200 deaths were attributed to guns known to have come from this program at that time. The number I have most commonly seen tossed around is 300+, but I cannot independently verify that claim.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-24335754992723672482012-06-06T18:00:00.000-04:002012-06-06T18:00:08.207-04:00Why Wisconsin MattersI will try not to echo here what has been said in other parts of the blogosphere regarding Walker's victory in the recall effort yesterday in Wisconsin. I do think that there is much truth in the notion that this election is more important than the Presidential election this November. I have listed before my reasons why a conservative victory in November is critical, especially with regard to upcoming Supreme Court vacancies. In terms of what Joe Public will see and hear and be conscious of, Romney versus Obama will be the story of the year.<br />
<br />
However, in terms of a true shockwave to the American political system, Walker's victory likely heralds a sea-change.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
First, public sector unions have been broken, and decisively defeated. Make no mistake, this effort was an attempt by the public unions to throw their weight around, to punish a politician who dared to challenge them on their own ground, and they lost big. Fifty years ago, public unions were illegal, yet much of modern politics takes as a given that the unions have always been there and are a key constituency. The notion of government working for government workers is no more in Wisconsin, and similar changes will likely sweep other red and purple states in the next few years. Kasich tried this in Ohio but overreached--going after emergency services personnel was a grave error, due to their popularity and the attack ads that practically write themselves. As Walker showed, better to wound the beast than to immediately go for the kill. Show the public that austerity works on a small scale, targeting perks that no one in the private sector can hope for, will open the door for other cuts later, including public services that deserve fair compensation but not necessarily diamond-encrusted benefits. Second, a state that has been purple to blue for decades has looked at two alternatives--the liberal, welfare-state model and the conservative, limited government model--and chosen the latter. The money to fund large, bloated entitlement programs is gone, and is not coming back. See <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/329910.php">Ace of Spades HQ</a> earlier today--I won't steal all his thunder but the bullet point version is that future tax payers are tapped out, and now current tax payers have to start footing the bill. Like myself, and probably those reading this, they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore. The welfare state confiscates wealth in return for providing services--but what happens when the services cannot be funded even with excessive amounts of wealth being confiscated?<br />
<br />
There are a couple of lesser points. One is that President Obama has taken a serious hit, and his defeat is much more likely now than it was a year or even a month ago. Another is the credulousness of the media. For months they dutifully repeated liberal talking points that this was a national election, that it had consequences. Today, many old media outlets are downplaying the significance, as directed by White House spokesman Jay Carney who states that this was (paraphrasing) "only a governor's race, and has no bearing on November." This is an ongoing point in the conservative blogosphere, but this is a better weapon than most in that fight because of the abundance of liberal opinion and commentary, disguised as news pieces, that show the flip-flop.<br />
<br />
Change is in the air--not the Obama promise of rainbows and unicorns kind of change, but real change, the end of the FDR New Deal model of government. With any luck, the change will come sooner rather than later.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-53188675168420644462012-06-06T17:51:00.001-04:002012-06-06T17:51:05.415-04:00The Longest DayPlenty of other tributes out there today to commemmorate D-Day, the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany and ultimately, World War II. Veterans and even their widows are becoming very scarce, so thank one if you know one. <em>Band of Brothers</em> is a good introduction to the chaos, bravery and heroism of that Day of Days, but is only one small part of the entire story. <em>The Longest Day</em> features several stories and offers a larger view, both the book and the movie. If you have any family or friends who don't understand the significance of this day, take a moment to teach them.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-12171178573828860672012-04-25T19:29:00.000-04:002012-04-25T19:29:25.250-04:00The die is castWith the results of the most recent primaries in the books and Gingrich (unsurprisingly) supsending his campaign, the GOP primary is essntially a <em>fait accompli</em>, and we can get to the 6 1/2 month slugfest that is the general election.<br />
<br />
I admit that I had many resevations about Mitt Romney, and that I still have some. He is not the second coming of Reagan, he is not what I hope to have with Rick Perry, but he is the nominee. Romney is not as conservative as I would like (or as Ann Coulter has been screeching from her blog for the last 4 months), but neither is he as moderate as many feared, and he has already shown a willingness to go after Obama aggressively. There will be no McCain style, "my good friend," kid-glove treatment from the Romney campaign.<br />
<br />
Newt Gingrich said earlier today that while he personally believes he would have been the better candidate, that even he must unite behind Romney and that defeating Obama MUST be the priority. I would add that almost as critical is securing a majority in the Senate. It's going to take serious work from both branches to undo the damage from the past 4 years. There's also the minor matter of possibly as many as four Supreme Court appointments coming up in the next term, and a court packed with liberal justices for the next few decades could do tremendous harm to this country.<br />
<br />
I will not get needlessly dramatic about the importance of this election. The continued growth of the deficit and national debt may become an existential threat if it is not addressed and ultimately reversed, something the current administration has addressed in much the same manner that a 2 year old addresses having to go the doctor's office with a temper tantrum. The Republic will not fall if Obama is re-elected--but I fear that American exceptionalism will be put on life support, that our economy may be crippled to the point of an entire generation being lost to rehabilitating it, and that an unconstitutional expansion of executive powers will continue, more reminiscent of Roman tyrants than the limited powers envisioned by the Founding Fathers.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-48997012292787633002012-03-05T21:44:00.001-05:002012-03-07T21:34:44.617-05:00Remembering BreitbartI'm not a blogger of note, and I never met Andrew Breitbart. Others have written far more moving tributes, and more meaningful tributes, than I could. But the conservative movement has suffered a tremendous loss with his passing.<br />
<br />
However, I am certain that he would wish for people to carry on his tradition of challenging false narratives, maintaining intellectual honesty, and supporting all who are helping to advance the truth. I am reminded of the famous line by Jimmy Valvano, "Don't give up. Don't ever give up." Well, if the response of the blogosphere is anything to go by over the last few days, no one is giving up. Andrew's work was not done, because it never could be done.<br />
<br />
What he was, was the Prometheus of the conservative movement. He brought the vital spark that first pierced the darkness of the liberal media oligarchy, giving rise to hundreds and thousands of new flames to burn away the lies.<br />
<br />
I am Andrew Breitbart. And so are you.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-13381738443707031072012-01-08T17:52:00.000-05:002012-01-08T17:52:20.019-05:00Reviewing The GOP Field And The Crank's PickThis post is not a comprehensive review of all declared candidates; rather, it is of the six major candidates who remain: Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, and Santorum. I will comment at least briefly on each, but I may as well make this clear up front--I have considered myself a Perry supporter since he jumped in, and intend to continue to support him as long as he is a candidate. I will make my reasons for this clear in my comments. I will not say I endorse Perry, because I don't have sufficient influence for it to matter, but if I did, I would.<br />
<br />
Huntsman: I have not conversed with any registered Republican who has any enthusiasm for him. I've heard plenty of avowed liberals tout him as the best candidate in the field, though. I do not think Huntsman is a particularly good GOP candidate, though his record is fairly decent and he has been blasted unfairly for having been Obama's choice for ambassador for China. The man has no real charisma for me, and I have yet to hear him articulate a meaningful vision for how he will get this country back in order. To me, he is an also-ran and should drop out.<br />
<br />
Paul: I believe he is dangerously naive in his views of foreign policy. As I understand him, he would overturn the entirety of American foreign policy going back to Monroe, enacting an isolationist doctrine. I cannot support this philosophy even in the abstract, and definitely not when taking the particulars of the current world political environment into consideration. Given that I believe in a moral authority and duty to remain a superpower and force for good in the world, this disqualifies Paul for me. There is also the questionable (to put it politely) views he shows towards Israel, the seeming lack of discomfort he feels with being supported by white supremicist groups, and the newsletters he claims to have no knowledge of despite his name appearing on them and the income he derived from them. I do appreciate many of his ideas to limit federal power and reform the domestic agenda, but being this is 2012 and not 1796, we need someone with plans for dealing with problems both domestic and foreign.<br />
<br />
Gingrich: Newt has several problems. First, his personal life and scandals--the GOP does not get a free pass on dubious moral behavior the way a Democratic candidate does. Second, his legislative history is somewhat checkered--he failed to push his advantage as Speaker as far as he should have. He did help push through meaningful reform of welfare, and there were budget surpluses under his leadership, but in both cases he likely could have extracted even more from Clinton. His immigration policy is awfully lenient and sounds a lot like amnesty to me, without solving the border problem first. All this aside, however, he understands the need for a pro-active foreign policy, he has some ideas for attacking entitlements (though spit the bit with attacking Paul Ryan's plan), and he's not afraid to call out Obama or the media for their mistakes. I can support him to some degree, but I'm not convinced enough of the American public would, especially with months of non-stop media attacks.<br />
<br />
Santorum: Excellent social credentials, but weak on fiscal matters. He was destroyed in his home state in his last election, which doesn't speak well for his chances nationally. He has shown new viability in the past month, but it is not clear to me he can win the primary, yet alone the national election. I am not enough of an accountant to determine if his tax policies will work or not, and while I am ignorant of his specific plans for entitlement reform; his record is one of someone who will make changes, but is also unwilling to cause too much pain as he is compassionate in the modern political sense. I can support him more strongly than Gingrich, but he would not be my first choice.<br />
<br />
Romney: The perpetual candidate, Mitt is complex. Despite campaigning for essentially 6 years, he cannot crack even 30% support in his own party. There is little doubt that he has benefitted from the large number of candidates, dividing the opposition against him. He was quite successful in the business world before becoming a politician, however it is questionable if that experience is as useful as it might have been had he built a company from the ground up instead of gutting failing companies and selling the parts for profit. True, he has turned some companies around, but it's not as if he can sell off a third of the states to make the rest of the country more economically sound. His policies and views seem quite opportunistic and prone to change; but the image he projects is one who does so out of expediency rather than a genuine conversion to a new point of view. He is the moderate Republican equivalent of John Kerry, only without the unseembly sanctimonious attitude. He has shown an awfully thin skin when challenged or called out, whether the charges are legitimate or not. Most damning of all is the gruesome abomination known as Romneycare. If Pawlenty had used the opportunity in the early debates to press the attack on Obamneycare, he might have crippled Romney's campaign months ago. Instead, if nominated Romney will automatically cede away the ability to attack Obama's signature legislation, an incredibly unpopular and ill-conceived bundle of statutes that, unlike the economy (which Obama does own now, although quite a few of the problems predate him), could be easily and wholly hung around Obama's neck without reservation by almost any other candidate. I am not convinced that the "anyone but Obama" mandate is strong enough to rally sufficient voters to win an election, and if Romney's expected electability is a myth, he is at best a fall-back candidate instead of the proper standard-bearer.<br />
<br />
Perry: A victim of multiple gaffes and unrealistic expectations when he first entered the campaign. It is questionable if the strains of recent surgery and the wildfire outbreak in Texas distracted him and contributed to his poor early performances. However, poor they were, and he did not rally quickly. Whether this was lack of preparing, or unfamiliarity with how things changed on a national scale, is also debatable, but the reality is it hurt him severely. He also harps on quixotic issues at times, like the part-time Congress--a plan I support, but hardly a major talking point at this stage in the game. By most accounts he has strengthened his debate performances recently, though it may be too late. In terms of policies, the two big knocks against him are Gardasil and the Texas Dream Act. From my perspective, Gardasil is a non-issue, and Perry has expressed he would change his approach if he had it to do over. The Texas Dream Act on the surface seems antithetical to border security, but it reflects the reality that the federal government did not secure the border, and contributing illegal aliens are better than those who simply absorb resources. On the other hand, Perry did use significant state resources to try to limit illegal immigration, and has articulated a realistic, workable plan to protect the border instead of the symbolic but mostly ineffective physical fence. He has made calls to actually reduce the size of the government, which only Reagan had ever done before. He has proposed simplification of the tax code, slicing the budget, and has a firm grasp of the ugly nature of world affairs and the need for an active role in them. Perry's record in Texas is one of creating jobs, of fighting tough but fair with the opposition and winning support when needed, and of winning charged, tightly contested elections. He is not the perfect candidate, but Ronald Reagan is not rising from the grave to run for a third term, and Perry is the closest thing to the Gipper that we will see this election cycle. That is why I support him.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-55144014365020222112011-11-21T18:07:00.000-05:002011-11-21T18:07:55.986-05:00Debt Supercommittee Failure and the Blame Game(Note--this is a rapid reaction to Obama's press conference on November 21 regarding the lack of a budget deal from Congress. It will be shorter and less sourced than other posts typically are, and may well have revisions subsequently.)<br />
Obama's brief (about 4 minute) press conference this afternoon had only one purpose--for him to use his bully pulpit as President to get out his approved message, namely that the failure for a supercommittee solution to the mandated $1.2 trillion cuts is all the Republicans' fault.<br />
<br />
However, the truth of the matter is that both sides showed an unwillingness to sacrifice certain sacred cows, though the intransigence is greater on the left. The Republicans did include a proposal for a tax increase of as much as $300 billion dollars, which is a major concession on their part. The Democrats on the committee, to my knowledge, did not advance or approve of any idea that included a similar amount of cuts to entitlement programs.<br />
<br />
As detailed on this blog in a prior post, the current budget problem is one of spending, not revenue. Tax, tax, and tax some more, but there is not sufficient income by the top 1% (who apparently have trees that really do grow unlimited sums of money, according to the continued Democratic delusion that taxing the rich will provide a bottomless supply of cash for their programs), even if confiscated<em> in toto,</em> that can solve the deficit problem. There would have to be significant tax hikes on the middle class as well to support the current budget projections, yet alone actually decrease the debt.<br />
<br />
Make no mistake, Obama will use this as a campaign talking point next year. Congress, especially the Republicans, blocked his earnest efforts to fix this problem. This is crap, but the media will dutifully report it as gospel truth. The key is to spread the word that taxes cannot solve this problem, that an axe must be taken to the federal budget, and that Republican control of one half of Congress does not excuse the utter failures of Obama and the Democrats who control the other half of Congress, not to mention control of both branches of government in 2009-10, and succeeded only in digging a bigger financial hole.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-91686715292087789052011-10-01T04:10:00.000-04:002011-10-01T04:10:31.097-04:00High Crimes And MisdemeanorsWhile much of the talk among conservatives right now seems to resemble a circular firing squad, with picking at candidates' flaws with occasional breaks to note just how terrible the economy is, it is easy to forget what should be daily headline news--the scandals of the current administration.<br />
<br />
The most recent, and hottest topic, has been Solyndra, et al. This is certainly a scandal, as the appearance is that those who donated to Obama and the Democratic Party received preferential treatment in both having the loan applications approved and in being the first to have loans repaid when the companies filed for bankruptcy. This is not a particularly novel scandal, and favortism for donors is as old as the political system, and this actually rates comparatively low on the scandal scale for President Obama. It <em>looks</em> bad, but is more a matter of creativity in policy and law than criminal behavior.<br />
<br />
Next is the ATF clusterjob, made up of Fast and Furious and Gunwalker. On a scale of fixing a traffic ticket to selling the nuclear codes to the highest bidder, this ranks right about the same as Iran/Contra--I think. There is a lot about F&F and GW that we just don't know yet. Was tracking the guns the actual plan, and if so why did it not happen? The existence of a weapons pipeline was not serious doubted, but taken as a given. Similarly, the government already knew who the straw buyers were, so it was not an attempt to identify them. A federal agent is dead, and an as yet unknown number of Mexican civilians have also been killed, with weapons from this operation. The whole operation could be reasonably argued to be an act of war against Mexico. Reagan was not impeached for Iran/Contra, but there was some serious consideration given to the idea at the time.<br />
<br />
Finally, we come to the forgotten scandal, at least from where I stand as I have not seen any serious coverage of it in months--the conflict in Libya. Now, there is serious debate as to whether or not the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution">War Powers Resolution</a> is constitutional or not, but it unless and until it is in fact deemed unconstitutional or repealed, it is the law of the land. Obama did not keep to the letter of the law, or even the spirit of it, during combat operatoins in Libya. Obama has even possibly violated the Separation of Powers enumerated in the Constitution, which is almost certainly an impeachable offense. Short of committing treason, it is hard to imagine an action by the President that is more contrary to the Constitution and Rule of Law than claiming the powers of another branch of government for his own.<br />
<br />
Now, from a practical standpoint, filing article of impeachment against President Obama may be virtually meaningless, especially if he fails to win re-election. However, the symbolism of it is important. Whether or not he were to be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors by the Senate, the articles should be filed by the House to show remind everyone that no one, not even the president, is above the law.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-84965035998309436272011-09-06T19:08:00.000-04:002011-09-06T19:08:31.527-04:00Cut The Fat--Why Budget Cuts, Not Higher Taxes, Must Be Used To Balance The BudgetNumbers and figures<a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27547.html"> here.</a><br />
<br />
The money quote (pun intended): Finally, to put everything in perspective, think about what would need to be done to erase the federal deficit this year: After everyone making more than $200,000/year has paid taxes, the IRS would need to take <em>every single penny of disposable income they have left</em>. Such an act would raise approximately $1.53 trillion.<br />
<br />
That's right--to save the current nanny-state model, every person making $200K or more a year would have to turn over every cent of that income, <em>to keep us revenue neutral!</em> That's on top of all the taxes already collected on everyone making less than $200K/year. Putting every high-earning individual on welfare in order to support welfare is, well, insane. It makes sense in a pure communist or pure socialist society, though practically speaking those societies do not function.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
"Tax the rich!" is a common rallying call among left-wingers. Well, the hard math shows in black and white that this is not a feasible solution. Even if such an extreme tax policy as the one described above was passed, it would rapidly become unsustainable because of economic self-interest. Many people who have high income have worked fairly hard for that privilege--physicians and lawyers sacrifice years of their lives for school and training; best-selling authors, actors, artists and star athletes have unique skill sets that they have honed over years; business entreupreners have often bet everything they have to guide a fledgling business through a brutish Darwinian environment to get to the point where they are successful. Some high-paying jobs in the government/public sector seemingly do not involve the same degree of hard work, but these jobs are beyond my experience and I cannot voice anything more than a suspicion in that regard--I am certain that many people both in and out of government would disagree with that thought.<br />
<br />
The point of the previous paragraph, however, is this--no rational person would undertake the sacrifices necessary to get a high-paying job if they will be no better off for it than an unemployed high school dropout.<br />
<br />
American society rewards individuals who do more difficult jobs with higher income, in general. Teaching is more difficult than garbage collecting, brain surgery requires more training than being a medical assistant, hitting 40 home runs in Major League Baseball is a rarer skill than being able to mix concrete. I think that most anyone could agree with the assertions in the previous sentence, and anyone who is also a believer in the capitalist system, or any type of distributive justice that rewards in proportion to the difficulty of work or contribution to society as opposed to "from each according to his ablity, to each according to his need", cannot dispute the idea that it is indeed <em>fair</em> that some people make and keep more money than others.<br />
<br />
The issue is that many liberals believe that Marxism is economic justice; which is a fundamentally un-American idea. Marxism calls for equality of outcome; the founding American tradition calls for equality of opportunity (yes, yes, spare me that the Founding Fathers allowed slavery--there was the idea of equality for all <em>citizens</em> from the outset, and happily the definition of citizen has been expanded over the past 235 years). The person with a strong work ethic or specialized talent or skill will always prefer equal opportunity, because it offers them opportunity for advancement regardless of the rest of the population. In equal outcomes, one can only improve their standing if the population as a whole has a net improvement large enough to make a significant impact for everyone. Realizing that the world will never be perfect, in terms of self-interest alone anyone who wishes to advance himself should advocate for equality of opportunity; only the shiftless and the unemployable should favor equality of outcome. Those who are unemployable for existential reasons (medical conditions, for example) do deserve sympathy and a degree of largesse to allow for a comfortable life, and this is not incompatible with capitalism--but to condemn a Warren Buffet for having a more luxurious lifestyle than someone who chooses not to work or an individual paralyzed by muscular dystrophy is foolish, and to confiscate his wealth in a disproportionate manner to subsidzie others above and beyond bare essentials is unfair.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-71837186884267875362011-08-06T04:27:00.000-04:002011-08-06T04:27:01.321-04:00Harbinger Of Great Depression 2.0?Full story here: <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/downgrade_rumors/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1">http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/downgrade_rumors/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1</a><br />
<br />
Before anyone packs up all the ammo and moonshine they can carry and heads for the hills, let's take a moment to think all this through.<br />
<br />
First, yes, this is unprecedented in American history. Not during the Great Depression, not during stagflation in the 70s, not under any other recession in our history have we lost our AAA bond rating. This is not a good thing. It demonstrates the complete and utter failure of government to manage the world's largest economy, and the nearly unimaginable sums of money it generates.<br />
<br />
Second, this is a klaxon call to action to fix the problems with government spending. Nonwithstanding how banal it is to talk about the meaning of the Chinese character for crisis, this is the time for reform. Lots of people may have to eat their peas, but that's hardly the worst that could happen.<br />
<br />
Third, let's look at the Great Depression with perspective. It was an awful economy, to be sure, but the majority of Americans did not lose their homes, did not go hungry, and did go to work every day. History tells us that the current storm will likely last several years, but that prosperity will return after a time. We would all do well to remember that going forward.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-90607809812799034652011-08-04T01:36:00.001-04:002011-08-04T01:38:20.112-04:00Opinion On Program CutsThere will be cuts of some sort to federal spending later this year. With each side having sacred cows (Defense and Medicare) slated for the sacrifical altar if the double secret super-duper commission cannot come to a consensus solution for trimming the budget, it is pretty safe to assume that almost everything else will be open for discussion, if not necessarily for cuts (Social Security being the obvious candidate to remain sacrosanct).<br />
<br />
Disclaimer: I do not know the current outlays for various programs, so I will not be dealing with hard numbers.<br />
<br />
Clearly, I am willing to trim most things in order to preserve Defense, but I'm not naive enough to think that there won't be cuts there as well. I'm also a big believer in grants and loans for education, and I would not going to cut that funding either if it can be avoided. Short term, obvious targets seem like the government programs which accomplish very little for the money spent--some of the more outlandish EPA enforcement issues, many agricultural and industrial subsidies, and all the redundant bureaucracies. Is there a reason why TSA has to be a separate entity from the DOT? How much money is saved by folding one department into the other, even if no one is actually let go? I'm wagering it makes for more than a rounding error and would be a mostly painless step for those employees.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, I'm mildly upset by the change to the loan program in the debt compromise, to wit the loss of having a portion of federal loan interest being subsidized for grad students. The total amount of money available to grad students is unchanged, but the loans did just become a little more expensive in terms of repayment for those who take them. I have no idea what that program cost the federal government, but I'm betting it's a pittance compared to what needs to be slashed from total expenditures. Still, I did benefit from the program when I was in school, and I would like it to have stuck around for future students.<br />
<br />
So, long term, where should the fat be cut out? <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-are-we-in-this-debt-fix-its-the-elderly-stupid/2011/07/28/gIQA08LtfI_story.html">As this columnist rightly pointed out, start with the biggest programs around.</a> (H/t to <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/">AoS HQ</a> where I originally saw this linked, long since disappeared from the sidebar there.) Until someone grabs the third rail of politics and holds on long enough to actually change its trajectory, this problem will continue. The age for full benefits for Social Security must be raised, and the benefits themselves probably should be cut. When the program was implemented, 1 in 7 people lived long enough that they reached the age for full benefits. Today, the average man will make it at least a decade past 65, and the average woman even longer, and if anything the average lifespan will only lengthen. I'm not suggesting that we cut Grandma off at the knees; there are ways to do this reasonably.<br />
<br />
For example, preserve the current plan for everyone already retired or close to retirement, say 60 years or older. Do an across the board cut of benefits by some amount, let's say 10%, for anyone under the age of 60. Change the reitrement age for anyone currently under the age of 55, so that going forward it increases by one year every other year until the age is raised by 10 years. Finally, add in some means testing that scales based on reported income, so that the most well-off seniors do not receive as much, because frankly they don't need it.<br />
<br />
Let's say this is approved sometime next year, but will start in 2015, government inertia being what it is (and makes it a little easier for me to do the math here). Anyone born before 1955 is grandfathered in to the current age/percentage benefits calculations. Anyone born before 1960 still gets full benefits (though those benefits are 10% less than previously) at age 65. In 2025 the retirement age goes to 66, in 2027 the age goes to 67, etc. So, for example, in 2035 the retirement age becomes 71, and anyone born before 1965 can get the full benefits. By the time 2043 rolls around, the retirement age is up to 75 for full benefits. One doesn't need to be an actuary to know that such a regime would save money. I also doubt such a plan could pass in the current political environment, probably an increase in age by 1 year every third year is more realistic, as well as an increase in the age to 70 for full benefits. But it would be interesting to see the CBO game some numbers for plans like this and see how much savings it creates.<br />
<br />
Then again, with how horrible things look right now, candidates who run on platforms of gradual changes to entitlement programs and not altering the programs for those already enrolled in them may have a chance in 2012--and that's a mandate I'd like to see.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-34243302360444937352011-07-29T10:53:00.000-04:002011-07-29T10:53:01.817-04:00Debt Ceiling DebateBalanced, bipartisan, fair, smart...these are some of the words President Obama used in his press conference today. Certainly, the president has not shown through his actions that he is interested in any of these things--he gives high-minded speeches, but they are only empty words until backed by action. Historically, countries in this sort of economic stall return to growth only with significant cuts in spending, not by increasing taxes. While the House (Republicans) has advanced numerous plans that have actually been voted on and passed, the Senate (Democrats) has been running in circles for the past few weeks trying to create a single plan, and the president hasn't put a single bloody idea to paper. Now, there can be debate over which of the House plans is the best option at this time, but the Senate and Oval Office combined have given not a single plan. If Obama wants a deal so badly, simply send the marching orders to the Democrats that they should pass Cut, Cap and Balance in the Senate.<br />
<br />
As to Obama's biggest complaint with the current plans, namely that we will have the same crisis again in a few months and we must have a solution through 2013--this is even more b.s. than usual political gamesmanship. The only way we go through the same crisis again in a few months--is if he sits on his a** for those few months and doesn't use that time to come up with a long-term solution! I could continue on a screed against Obama and his failures, but frankly I'm worn out by the whole debt debate debacle at this time.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-78101042456213824852011-07-05T16:42:00.000-04:002011-07-05T16:42:33.550-04:00Why Medicare Needs To ChangeThis thread kicked off by this item and subsequent discussion <a href="http://minx.cc/?post=318413">here.</a><br />
<br />
First, let's review a couple basic realities of Medicare. It is a huge portion of the federal budget, and any attempts to seriously address the current out of control deficit and debt will involve some cuts to the program. The efficiency of the program itself is actually quite good--I've heard before that something like 2% of Medicare's budget goes to administrative costs <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/">(confirmed here)</a>, the rest goes out in paying benefits. Fraud does occur, and while it is not an isignificant amount of money, the overwhelming majority of payouts are legit.<br />
<br />
There are a number of factors that go into increasing medical costs--R&D, people are living longer because of better treatments and have more chronic conditions to treat, prescription costs (related to the outrageous sums spent on R&D to bring a new drug to market), donated medical care, and also Medicare pricing practices.<br />
<br />
The first three items are givens for the purpose of this post, and don't warrant any further discussion. The fourth item is an interesting side note I'll tackle here in a moment, and the fifth is the main focus of the post.<br />
<br />
Donated medical care is a huge sink on healthcare. Ask anyone who works in another service profession, a restauranteer is my favorite example for this: Could you run your business if 70% of the people who came in <em>never paid a dime for the products or services you rendered them?</em> This is the reality of some emergency departments in this country. Thanks to EMTALA, an unfunded mandate if ever there was one, any patient who presents to an emergency room must be evaluated and must be treated if they are unstable or in labor, regardless of ability to pay (or how stupid the complaint). Now, I don't think anyone wants to say a woman in labor should be thrown out on the street because she doesn't have her insurance card with her, or that someone dropped off on the front steps with a knife in his back and bleeding to death should be left there, but anyone who has been to the ER more than a few times knows that one person's hangnail is another person's emergency. And, you ask, just how much money is set aside by the government to compensate the hospitals and doctors who treat those who cannot pay? Why, none, of course.<br />
<br />
Now, as to Medicare pricing practices. Ever looked at a hospital bill before? Ever wonder why it costs 10 grand to open up an operating room, or how a bag of saline the size of your water bottle could cost $150? (There are reasons why it does cost significantly more than a bottle of Perrier, but the price the hospital pays for it is much less than $150.) The only people who pay that much for those services are those with hard cash and no insurance, everyone else pays a negotiated rate--and Medicare sets the bar on negotiated rates, which not only are significantly less than the line item on the bill, they are often at break-even or less than what it costs the hospital to provide said service in the first place. The actual reimbursement rate of Medicare varies considerably from item to item, surgery to surgery, and each year Medicare decreases the number of items it will reimburse for.<br />
<br />
So, Medicare tells doctors and hospitals how much they will pay them ("You billed $15,000 to remove an appendix? Here's $4,000, take it and go."); private insurance companies in turn set their rates based on Medicare. These are negotiated rates that typically fall somewhere in-between what the line item charges are and what Medicare will pay for them. So, private insurance pays better than Medicare, but still less than what is asked (maybe $6,000 in the hypothetical appendix surgery above).<br />
<br />
Where is the actual break-even point for the hospital, or physician? Obviously, it will vary, but in most cases it is greater than what Medicare reimburses. Think about that for a moment--the government, the single largest payor in the healthcare system, is not even covering the costs of providing the service, yet alone for any profits. And it's nigh impossible to expand, hire new staff, buy new equipment, or keep up with other overhead costs if there are no profits. By the way, any healthcare provider or organization that accepts any kind of insurance <em>must</em> accept Medicare, by law. The government <em>requires</em> that medicine operate at a loss when the government is paying for it--nothing like those fat-cat union contracts handed out for construction projects where everyone on the receiving end comes out ahead. As to where private insurance falls relative to the break-even point, I do not know. My gut tells me that it is probably in the black on most things but in the red on some others, though I have no hard data to support this assumption.<br />
<br />
And so we come to the last of the three legs that supports medicine, the uninsured. If Medicare doesn't even cover costs (and Medicaid, a seperate program, pays even less than Medicare) and private insurance isn't sufficient to make up the difference, then the rest will have to pay through the nose to support the system. That's why it costs the consumer $150 for a liter of saline. The third leg must bear a disproportionate cost in order to prop up medicine--or rather, to counter the undermining of the system by government.<br />
<br />
Do I have the answer for how to fix Medicare? Hell, no--if I did, I'd have written a book on it and run for Congress. But I do know that the system has to change, and that it's unrealistic and unfair to ask hospitals and doctors to just suck it up and kiss their revenue streams goodbye--because if the projected shortfall of tens of thousands of doctors in the coming years sounds bad now, wait until they can't make a decent living at it.<br />
<br />
Hat tip to <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/">Ace of Spades HQ</a>Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-85318050949571249132011-07-04T10:54:00.000-04:002011-07-04T10:54:06.353-04:00Happy Independence DaySometimes, you want to see something profound--and sometimes, you want to see something sizzling on the grill.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-7369388438451684712011-07-01T14:15:00.000-04:002011-07-01T14:15:41.614-04:00Confirmation That The Crank Is Not AloneA couple nights ago, I went to the bar with a couple coworkers after we were done for the day. The conversation quickly turned to politics, and I asked them to share their opinions on what they thought was the single most important function of government. It's worth noting that one of them self-identifies as a non-practicing Jew who considers himself a true moderate, and the other is a Mormon who considers himself a moderate conservative (no, I did not set this up in advance).<br />
<br />
After a few seconds of consideration, first one and then the other said it was to provide for national defense. There was some heated debate about how strong the defense must be--i.e. enough to protect borders versus projecting power beyond borders--but the consensus was pretty clear that defense IS the priority.<br />
<br />
I've never made a secret of the fact that I am a big fan of defense, that I believe in American exceptionalism most especially in the military, and that we should be able to project power globally. That being said, I firmly believe that if we had, say, Britain's or Germany's or even Sweden's military, scaled appropriately given our population and borders, we would still have a sufficient defense to enable the other benefits of this country, like the rights we enjoy as American citizens that are possible because we are protected from without. And let's face it, those rights are what define the United States as the country it is--freedom of religion, freedom of the press, due process, the right to bear arms, etc. But being the world's superpower is pretty freaking cool too, and I'm perfectly willing to let the government have a little bit bigger piece of my paycheck for that--as opposed to funding "art" that features profaning the Virgin Mary, or supporting radical Latino groups that want to reconquer the southwest, or ACORN.<br />
<br />
How many people would be happy with China being the world's superpower--I'm guessing about 1.2 billion or so, but they're all Chinese, and the rest of the world would become pretty darn unhappy with it pretty quickly. Lots of countries (and seemingly, lots of liberals) piss and moan about the US being a superpower, but who else would be better for the world? Some client states might like if France were king, but it wouldn't do the world as a whole much good. The U.N. is an attempt to put everyone on equal footing--how's that working out? In the end, there has to be at least one nation who is the leader if there is to be stability--we did the two nation thing for 50-odd years, and it worked, there was global stability of a kind, though it relied on MAD to balance on the knife edge, a truly mad system if ever there was one. Orwell depicted a 3 superpower perpetual Mexican standoff in <em>1984</em>, which was stable though also patently insane (and that's setting aside the domestic policies of that dystopian nightmare). No, if there is to be a better world, taking in the limits of human nature, there should be one superpower, and frankly, the US is the only nation currently with the resources and the will to be a superpower that has also consistently demonstrated that it will generally try to do the right thing.<br />
<br />
Is America perfect? Hardly. But to twist a great Chruchill quote (which he in turn quoted from an unknown source), "America is the worst possible world leader, except for all the rest..."Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-88739429845369476982011-06-29T04:52:00.001-04:002011-06-29T11:31:58.603-04:00The Crank's First PrincipleThe Crank's First Principle is thus:<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">The most important function of government is to provide for the common defense, against threats both foreign and domestic.</span></strong><br />
<br />
Not exactly revolutionary (or would that be reactionary?), but it is profound. And I don't mean profound in the casual, everyday sense of having a particularly keen insight; I mean profound in the less common usage, of being broadly and inclusively significant in that it bears on and ultimately informs nearly all of my beliefs regarding government.<br />
<br />
George Bernard Shaw claimed, "Morals are a luxury of the rich." I think Shaw missed the mark slightly--morals are more akin to a luxury of the <em>secure.</em> Riches are one, obvious form of security, but they are in turn only a form of security because we have a civil society, one in which there are rules that set limits on our actions. Ten kajillion dollars in the bank means very little if the manager can clean out the account without a real, existential threat of punishment. Hiring a legion of private bodyguards is no guarantee, even in a society of rules (witness Caligula), but in an environment with no structure, no laws, or even with laws but no means to enforce them, one's security is guaranteed only as long as it takes one of the knuckle-draggers to decide he'd rather give orders than take them.<br />
<br />
Without a commitment to providing for defense, any group of people (can it even be called a society without this precondition?) is inevitably doomed to anarchy and violence--if not from dissensions within, than certainly from forces without, because sooner or later someone will want what that group has and will resolve to take it, by any means necessary. This "society" is doomed to fall into a Hobbesian jungle scenario. This is inevitable because of human nature. It is rational to pursue what one wants and needs, and it's hard to convince a man that killing you for your food is wrong when he is starving to death and you have no way to stop him. This is simply a principle of survival, as primitive and as savage as the reptillian brain that still plays a key role in motivations despite uncounted generations for evolution to have effected a change. The suffering of a Ghandi in a hunger strike is considered noble precisely because it is such an abnegation of a root survival instinct that the average person can barely conceive of carrying out such a plan, yet alone following through on it. In a society without laws, would such a display have any meaning? It is much more likely that in the jungle Ghandi would simply be killed if he was perceived to have anything of value, or ignored if he was perceived to have nothing of value. Only laws, and the promise/threat of enforcement of those laws with punishments for transgressions, makes the concept of civil disobedience possible.<br />
<br />
So, enter the need for common defense. The defense must first necessarily protect against outsiders, for if it doesn't they will be free to violate the society and impose their own rule upon it--history is so rife with examples that it would be insulting to name specifics here. Without this security, there can be no faith in the government, and hence no faith in anything else it may do, for it is all as fragile as a sandcastle under the foot of the next beach bully to come along.<br />
<br />
Once the outsiders are (theoretically) eliminated as a threat, the protection of the insiders from each other must be the next step. Criminals are, in a very real sense, the outsiders within the society. They coexist with members of the society, to an extent, but also have put themselves above the rules of the society to gain some advantage over those who follow the rules. In more elemental terms, a criminal is someone who takes someone else's desserts for himself, contravening justice, <em>vis-a-vis</em> that everyone should get their own desserts, and neither more nor less. Without means to guarantee justice, or at least a reasonable approximation of justice, the criminals can run amok internally and render all other tasks of the government meaningless, leading inevitably to anarchy and Hobbesian savagery. Only with external threats turned aside and internal justice preserved can other, secondary functions of government hope to succeed.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266999069608532549.post-74065752724892958422011-06-28T12:48:00.000-04:002011-06-28T12:48:10.853-04:00Ground Rules For CommentsMy blog, my rules. If you don't want to follow them, make your own blog--that's the beauty of the internet.<br />
<br />
1. No hate speech directed at an individual or a group will be tolerated. There may be stories about hate speech, there may be direct quotes or paraphrasing of hate speech in the role of supporting an argument, but any post using hate speech itself as a weapon to attack will be summarily removed, no matter what other merits it may have.<br />
<br />
2. Profanity will be kept to a minimum by use of abbreviations or comicification. So, "WTF" or "F-ing" or "F***", or even "F*ck", are all acceptable alternatives; actually using the acronym for "Fornication Under Consent of the King" is not.<br />
<br />
3. Personal attacks are the weapon of the witless. Attack someone's evidence, rationale, or conclusions at will, but do not attack the speaker for who he or she is.<br />
<br />
4. No advertising. Links to related stories/blogs or blog posts are fine; links to your home business in the body of the comment are not. Any links to inappropriate sites (pornography, organizations with an agenda of hatred, etc.) will be expunged.Conservative Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com0