Health Care Just Like Canada

On July 15th, the Cato Institute hosted a discussion about the impending health care legislation. The event featured Sally Pipes, President and CEO, Pacific Research Institute; Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute and was moderated by Michael Tanner, Senior Fellow of Cato.

Quoting in part from the event description:

Government-run health systems, such as the one in Canada, are pointed to by those on different sides of the issue as examples of what to do or not to do in health reform. What lessons do these systems hold for the United States as it attempts to overhaul its health care system? What policies should Congress steer clear of? [Ms] Pipes will recount her firsthand experience with the Canadian health care system, and both panelists will explore what lies ahead for the United States.

I listened to the podcast on a drive from Eugene to Portland and was captivated. You can access the podcast or, better, watch a video of the event by clicking on this link.

Then, write your Senators and Representative. First, tell them that they must not vote for the pending legislation. But, if they do vote it, they must include themselves in its terms.

Look, even the most liberal among you cannot possibly want what this Administration has in store for us. If we don't stop it now, we will regret it. Listen to the podcast (you can download it) or watch it on line.

"Edge of a Catastrophe"

Recently, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich delivered a major address to the Heritage Foundation. The speech has centering on what Speaker Gingrich called a failed foreign policy received wide press coverage.

His criticisms while largely directed at the Obama administration do not overlook President George W. Bush's failure to secure our borders. The Speaker believes that we live in a dangerous world and are becoming complacent to the risks and evil that surrounds us.

To some, this may sound like the rantings of an arch conservative. To others, Gingrich is sounding an alarm that we would do well to heed. President Obama's ideological bent - which to my thinking is based on a naive belief that all people are basically good - increases the danger.

That's my view. Newt's entire address to the Heritage Foundation is below. It runs about fifty minutes. Go get a cup of coffee, listen to it and decide for yourself. Just don't dismiss his message because of your ideology. . .

Twitter Twitter Tweet

I have been using Twitter for several months now. Using is the wrong word. You don't use Twitter, you Tweet on Twitter.

Many of my friends (not to mention the BBICMW) don't get Twitter. "Why," they ask, "would anyone care about what you're doing minute to minute?"

Well, they don't. Not in that detail, at least. But that type of Twittering isn't the point. You follow people and people follow you about the important and semi-important and a few trivial things going on in their lives. I follow Lance Armstrong, Newt Gingrich and several friends. People who share my interests somehow or other discover me.

So, just to the right you'll find my Tweets. The mundane and the not-so mundane. You can link to me on Twitter by clicking the link in the box.

The Speed of Debt

Some days back, I posted a link to a YouTube video illustrating the $100 million in budget cuts promised by President Obama when compared to the overal Federal budget. You can find that post here.

The same folks have come up with another video to illustrate the acceleration of the national debt. The timeline is from 1900 to the present. It doesn't include funding for the administration health care program. Watch it - and as you do, remember who has to pay for this debt.

Then contact your Senators and Congressmen.

"It had me in tears over my daughter's future"

So concluded an email I received today from our younger daughter in Seattle. The tears she was shedding were produced by a clause in the Obama health care bill that passed the House Ways and Means Committee earlier this week. The clause, only 16 pages into the 1,000+ page document reads:

Limitation On New Enrollment: Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day [of the year the legislation becomes law].

This clause falls under a heading "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage" - a much-repeated promise by the Spender-in-Chief, President Obama. Call me naive, but when I heard him repeat his assurance that Americans could keep their current private health insurance plans, I naturally assumed that did not mean that I (or our Granddaughter) would be closed off from choosing a non-government insurer in the future. Doh! Foolish me. Foolish us.

What this means is that those of us who have private individual coverage can't change. And, those who leave a company to go to work for themselves won't be able buy plans from private insurers. Just the government. Just in case you missed the point: this will kill the private insurance industry. Dead.

"But surely," you say, "all those wealthy insurance execs are just getting what the deserve - denying health care to the needy and old folks."

To which I say "Step back from the Kool-Aid."

Sure, health care needs reform - I work in the industry and it is a mess. But this is not the type of reform needed. Congress and the President are, in effect, attempting to outlaw private, voluntary markets and limiting your freedom of choice. That is blatantly unconstitutional. Let me say it again: Health care needs reforming. But prior to enacting this horrible legislation that erodes our freedoms, let's have an honest debate about alternatives and choices. Just getting the waste out of the system, for example, would save billions. A recent article in the New Yorker magazine (hardly a voice of conservatism) by Atul Gawande entitled The Cost Conundrum pointed out how some doctors "game" the system. It is rife.

Have you noticed how much this piece of legislation will cost? Over $1 trillion. And you can bet that's just the start. Just as Medicare and Medicaid were suppose to be limited in scope and financial burden, government-run health care will mushroom over the years as more and more of our elected officials add yet more entitlements. Massachusetts tried it and is failing. Just look at Canada and the U.K.; they are neither models for medically effective nor cost effective health care.

For some insights, click over to the Investor's Business Daily and peruse their series "Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure." (Oh, just in case any of you liberals discount anything that has the words "investor" or "business" in the title as a tool of fat-cat CEOs, you need to step even further back from the Kool-Aid.)

And if you think Michael Moore's movie Sicko was an honest depiction of American and Cuban health care, you are the Kool-Aid.

Of course, this particular clause may be a nice ploy by Obama and his Congressional allies. With enough pushback, they will offer a compromise by removing it - and then crow about how flexible and inclusive they were to all ideas. Rubbish.

There is a cure for this monstrosity - the same message I sent to my daughter in reply

Don't cry. Fight back.

A Chilling Effect

The folks over at Stratfor Global Intelligence produce some of the most thoughtful, well-reasoned strategy analyses around. These guys are unbiased, indpendent researchers and analysts beholding to neither political party or ideology (save for an appreciation of the freedoms we enjoy in the USA).

Today, Stratfor published an analysis on the controversy surrounding Congress and the CIA. Entitled "U.S.: Reaction to the CIA Assassination Program", the report makes for very itneresting reading. You can read the full report by clicking on the link, but here's their conclusion:

In April we discussed how some of the early actions of the Obama administration were having a chilling effect on U.S. counterterrorism programs and personnel. Expanding the minimum reporting requirements under the National Security Act will serve to turn the thermostat down several additional notches, as did Panetta’s overt
killing of the covert program. It is one thing to quietly kill a controversial program; it is quite another to repudiate the CIA in public. In addition to damaging the already low morale at the agency, Panetta has announced in a very public manner that the United States has taken one important tool entirely out of the counterterrorism toolbox: Al Qaeda no longer has to fear the possibility of clandestine American assassination teams. [Emphasis mine.]

I find myself wondering if this Administration, along with their Congressional friends and admireers in the press, really acting in the best interests of the US? Yes, I know you may find it hard to take that question seriously. But an economy in crisis; more spending piled on more spending. . .and a toothless ant-terror program. What is their objective?

More on the Climate Expense

The President's views on mending climate change found expression in H.R. 254 which was passed recently. The President and his Democratic colleagues are eager to ram this thing through (not to mention their zeal for health care "reform"). As I said before, it isn't all about saving the poor polar bears (which don't really need saving as it turns out after all) or about saving the world from us bad humans.

It's about money and power.

H.R. 254 (aka the Waxman-Markey bill) is badly flawed and dishonest. CRA International (a consulting firm that provides economic, financial, strategy, and business management advice to law firms, corporations, accounting firms, and governmental organizations) published a short paper looking at the cost estimates for the bill put forward by the EPA and Congressional Budget Office (CBO). You can read the report here (it's only four pages).

About a Quarter of a Penny

I came across this video a few days back. Kind of gives a perspective on what we're talking about when the subject turns to the Federal budget. It's short. Watch and enjoy.

Well....at least watch (as Beck says, "get me the duct tape; my head is about to explode!").

You know, I keep wondering what if, instead of a massive spending program, President O had implemented an across the board cut to personal and corporate income taxes? Where's that duct tape?

Are you angry yet?

Okay, so it's been a while since I blogged. Life is pretty good and I have been trying not to get my blood boiling despite David Letterman's crassness about Sarah Palin's daughter. Ignorant comments like that tell you more about the man than they do about the woman.

However, I am more than just a tad p.o.'d about the apparently suppressed EPA report regarding global warming. If you're not aware of it, well, I am not surprised. The popular media hasn't been particularly alert to stories that contradict this administration - or their pre-conceived notions of what constitutes liberal truth. So, to bring yourself up to speed, click on this video from Fox News via YouTube:



At first I doubted this could be true. Then, not long after, Kimberley Strassel writing in the Wall Street Journal reported:

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from “any direct communication” with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” [Emphasis added]

How does that sit with you? This administration sought "change" and promised "transparency." Right.

The left has been busy pummeling Mr Carlin ever since the story broke. The guy has been with the EPA for 35 years and is senior analyst in the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics. Doesn't sound like the career of a right-wing crank.

But, I'll tell you what you can do. Read the report. It's right here. You can even download it and save it for bedtime reading. The Executive Summary will do.

Except it won't put you to sleep. Whatever your political leanings, you should be enraged that this administration, any administration, is suppressing reasonable dialog. Particularly when the outcome of that suppression could cost you thousands of dollars and this nation trillions.

If this doesn't anger you - or, worse, you deny it or excuse it because its about Polar bears and rising oceans - what does concern you as a citizen?

A parable for our times. . .

A good friend sent the following to me:

Senator Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it.

Joe drives to Obama's house, which is located in a very nice neighborhood and where it's clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 per year.

Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the room that contains the leaky pipe under a sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama, who is
standing near the door, that it's an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes. Obama asks Joe how much it will cost.

Joe immediately says, "$9,500."

"$9,500?" Obama asks, stunned. "But you said it's an easy repair!" "

Yes, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free," explains Joe. "It's always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law, and it did pass earlier this year, so now all plumbers have to do business this way. It's known as 'Joe's Fair Plumbing Act of 2008.' Surprised you haven't heard of it, senator."

In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there's no way he's paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves. Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone out of business.

Not wanting to pay Joe's price, Obama does nothing. The leak under Obama's sink goes unrepaired for the next several days. A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there's a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return.

Joe goes back to Obama's house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says "Let's see – this will cost you about $21,000."

"A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!" Obama quickly fires back. Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase. "Well, because of the 'Joe's Fair Plumbing Act,' a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free plumbing I'm doing for the people who make less than $250,000. As a result, the rate I have to charge my wealthy paying customers rises every day.

"Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the group of people who get it for free has skyrocketed, and there's a long waiting list of those who need repairs. This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, and they're not being replaced – nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they won't make any money. I'm hurting now too – all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won't pay their fair share."

Obama tries to straighten out the plumber: "Of course you're hurting, Joe! Don't you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services, you'll be broke, and then what will you do?"

Joe immediately replies, "Run for president, apparently."

Purple Fields

Being absent from this blog for a couple of weeks doesn't mean I haven't been busy. First was the flu - non-oinking type, I think. I didn't get any blood work done; I just laid around the house for a week and moaned. Next came eye surgery; cataract in my left eye. Piece of cake. Finally some travel up to Bellingham then Anacortes, Washington.

Along the way, I've thought of a dozen topics to write about, mostly of the political persuasion. Until this Memorial Day weekend when I went for a bike ride.

Our route was a simple one - mostly on the West Side from Portland: North Plains, Mountaindale, Verboort. The usual roads that, for this Easterner, aren't so usual at all.

Crossing West Union on Jackson School Road toward North Plains, we descended through the field shown here (I drove back to take this picture). Clover all around us, embraced by green hills, warmed by the sun and caressed by a gentle breeze. And this wasn't the only purple field. Around each bend, we encountered another humbling view.

I rarely slow down on my rides; but several times on Saturday and again today, I sat up straight, breathed in deeply and thanked God for the privilege of living in this most beautiful of all places.

My friend Lindy Gravelle, an amazing composer, singer and pianist from Redmond wrote a song sometime back called "No Place Under the Sun Like Oregon." You can listen to it - and watch It - here.

Lindy, you got it so right. . .

No Mopin' in Maupin

One of my favorite places in Oregon is Maupin. This tiny burg in the Tygh Valley is a far cry from the West Side of the Cascades and Portland. It's where you go to raft the Deschutes River, let the aroma of sagebrush fill your lungs and pedal a bike through some awesome countryside.

Each year to support the Juniper Valley Volunteer Fire Department, the community comes together to sponsor a bike ride called Blazing Pedals. The inspiration behind the ride is a wonderful lady, Lynn Harris, who, along with her four sisters, are turning Maupin into a cycling destination. More about that in a minute. . .

The 2009 edition of Blazing Pedals will be held Saturday, May 30th starting anytime between 7:00 am and 9:00 am. The start is at the intersection ofn Hwy 216 and Reservation Road in Wapinitia (map link is approximate; the start is the fire station on Reservation Road at the intersection with Hwy 216). There are three routes: a flat 20-miler; some rolling climbs along a 46 mile loop and a slightly more challenging 78 mile course. Full support along the routes. Registration is $35 either that morning or pre-register at ORBike.com. You can get more information by emailing Lynn at blazingpedalsjf@yahoo.com.

Now about Maupin as a cycling destination. Lynn and her four sisters have set up 5 Sisters Cycle Training in Maupin. They've teamed up with the Imperial River Company in Maupin (by the way, the best outfit for rafting the Deschutes) and the historic Balch Hotel in Dufur. With rides and routes for novices through masters, they'll take you over some of the same roads used in the Cascade Cycling Classic. Trust me, you can't go wrong.

The Tygh Valley is one beautiful area and if you're from Portland or wherever and are looking for a change in you cycling scenery, Blazing Pedals is just that opportunity.

Sophomorgulous

Some weeks ago, I noticed that the local Blockbuster was offering Religulous - a film by comedian Bill Maher. Having seen trailers on TV for this 2008 documentary (as it is billed), I sauntered along the DVD alphabet to the R section.

There were a couple of shelves set aside for Religulous but, alas, all were rented. Two weeks later, same thing. Knowing the controversial nature of the film, I asked the clerk if it was "behind the counter" - placed there because some some inflamed Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) group was threatening to burn down the store.

"Nope," said the clerk. "Just very popular. I loved it."

Well, apparently the furor has died down as we found several copies this past weekend. Time for some serious viewing!

Without question, Religulous is a trivial piece of drivel. Maher, who was raised Catholic, conducts his ambush interviews with all the comedic zeal of an elitist; someone who, between shots, doubtlessly feels more evolved than the feckless believers whom he interviews.

Most of these people, sincere but simple in their faith, are no match for Maher's glibness. He makes it easy on himself, of course, by interviewing the kitschiest, most-embarassing fringe types. There is only one serious conversation in the whole film, an interview with Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory. Bill uses him as to counter punch Biblical literalists who profess that the universe was created no more than 5,000 years ago. No where is there either a serious theological discussion or even the slightest acknowledgement that belief in God may have done some good. To get a taste of the level of inquiry and discourse, go over to Disbelief.com - sort of a companion site to the movie.

Now, Maher's self-indulgent snit is of no consequence and might be easily excused. Yet, the comment from the Blockbuster clerk kept echoing in my head "I loved it." I wonder what he found in Religulous; affirmation of his already uniformed, sloppy, sophomoric ideas? Certainly Maher is no where near as persuasive as Christopher Hitchens ("God is not Great") or Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion"). They at least attempt to appeal to reason and logic - badly flawed and weak as they may be. How many others, like the clerk, take such matters so lightly without regard for intellectual honesty, logic or common-sense.

Maher, Hitchens and Dawkins share one thing in common. They are militant atheists not content with their own (dis)beliefs but intent on destroying Faith in others. They have a right to their views and to give voice to their views. Just be sure you inform yourself before you listen.

The End of the Past?

This morning watching BookTV on C-Span, I found myself wondering aloud whether America has any sense of history. To me, much of the popular social, economic and cultural discourse has an unhealthy emphasis on the now. We shape our views based on what we see and hear in the popular media and, importantly, what gains us acceptance and approval among our peer or social groups.

The lack of informed, historical perspective is most evident in our current political discourse. Let me put my bias up front: in separating America from Great Britain and in forming the Constitution, the Founders called on Principle and Reason to guide their deliberations and to guide the Nation's future. The Principles were grounded in theism heavily influenced by both Judaism and Christianity. As for Reason, the Founders were practical, common sense thinkers who mistrusted ideologies of all types. They owed much to their English heritage of common law.

If you're interested - and you should be - to gain an understanding of the Founders' views, there are ample opportunities. For me, perhaps the best source of books and materials on American political, intellectual, economic and social history can be found at The Liberty Fund.


This excellent organization has an extensive collection books and source materials on American History, the Founding and the American Constitution, Economics, Natural Law, European History and more. Most titles are under $30 in hardcover and under $15 in their paperback versions. Their services include the Online Library of Liberty where you can find and download tons or resources and information - or read online.

Affiliated with The Liberty Fund is the Library of Economics and Liberty. As its name suggests, the Library has a focus on economics - from theoretical to practical. At EconTalk, part of the Library, you will find a superb series of downloadable podcasts on topics ranging from finance to the media.

Perusing these sites and accessing the materials will better inform our conversation about the future of this country by providing us with a richer understanding of its past.

Bicycle Dreams

While languishing at home trying to recover from the flu (swine or non-swine, who cares; I'm miserable), I caught up on some personal email. One informed me about a video called Bicycle Dreams by independent filmmaker Stephen Auerbach.

Bicycle Dreams follows the 2005 Race Across America with a slew of cameras embedded with the riders and their support team. If you don't know about the Race Across America (RAAM), suffice it to say that it is racing 3,000 miles in ten days. The event has left Portland several times; this year, it runs from Oceanside, CA, to Annapolis, MD.

This is one of the toughest race events in the cycling world. The Bicycle Dreams trailier is below. Enjoy.

Is this your America?

Frank Rich, a columnist over at the New York Times, wrote an opinion piece this past Sunday entitled The Banality of Bush White House Evil.

Rich and the Times aren't content to see what they call torture in any reasonable context. Rich rales against “techniques” like “facial slap (insult slap)” and “insects placed in a confinement box.” He asserts that torture was used to get enemy combatants to say that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. I encourage you to click on the link and read the story. Rich's assessment is a far cry from the Stratfor assessment I posted earlier.

But if the Frank Rich piece wasn't bad enough, accompanying it was this cartoon: Lady Liberty with a whip. Apparently this is what Frank Rick and the New York Times think of the United States. For them, the symbol of liberty and freedom to the world is really an agent of torture and terror.

Why do we tolerate such hateful disrespect of our country? Of ourselves? Yes, some of the interrogation was harsh - brutal to use the word from yesterday's blog. But we're dealing with brutal people; people who cut the throats of journalists like Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal or stone women to death. Understanding that in the post 9/11 chaos, the US interrogators didn't even know what they were looking for, do you think that verbal questioning would have been enough to get information - about alleged WMDs or anything else?

Former CIA Director (and Clinton appointee) George Tenet wrote in his book: "At the Center of the Storm" about 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM):

"I believe none of the successes [in foiling terror plots] would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white collar criminal....In his initial interrogation by CIA officers, KSM was defiant. 'I'll talk to you guys,' he said, 'after I get to New York and see my lawyer.'"

In a few days, the Obama administration will release photos - some say hundreds of them - of prisoner mistreatment abuse. These photos, all highly classified, were taken as part of prosecutions of American personnel who exceeded authority and abused those in their custody. Note that sentence: photos taken to prosecute American citizens who did wrong. As they should be!

They are being released under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union - but as President, Obama can stop their release if he wanted to. Releasing them serves no reasonable purpose, especially in light of the President's insistence that the US has lost the world's respect due to harsh interrogation methods. The photos will only fuel that fire. Their release is really part of the Left's vindictiveness toward Bush and Cheney as left-leaning Democrats attempt to further their grip on the American people.

Do you think the US press and TV networks, much less the Arab world, will look at those photos as evidence that America brings to justice those who commit crimes? Hardly. That part of the story will be lost.

No. Instead, the photos will be held up by America's enemies as yet further proof that the US systematically tortures its enemies. Just like the Frank Rick piece and the Times printing that hateful cartoon. These people are despicable.

Speaking About Torture

Over at The Wall Street Journal Online's Best of the Web Today, James Taranto digs into how the popular press uses language in news articles to influence perception and thereby opinion.

In a piece called "Partial Birth Interrogation," Taranto analyzes the New York Times. He recounts the venerable (and nearly bankrupt) journal's progression from "enhanced interrogation methods" to it's current term "brutal interrogation methods." Nice, short, crisp word - good headline copy.

But, as Taranto points out:

Contrast this with the way the Times, in a 2005 article, described the practice of "partly extracting an
intact fetus from a woman's uterus and killing it by collapsing and removing the
brain from the skull so that the fetus can pass through the birth canal":

Opponents of abortion refer to the method as partial-birth abortion and denounce it as brutal and uncivilized.

The headline reads "Appeals Court Voids Ban on 'Partial Birth' Abortions." Why not follow the same practice when describing interrogations of terrorists--namely, say that "opponents denounce it as brutal" and use the opponents' terminology in scare quotes (" 'Torture' ") when brevity is essential?

It couldn't be because the Times news reporters and editors, who are supposed to be impartial, are pro-abortion and anti-interrogation, could it?

I'll let you answer the question - and you can base your answer on nothing more than their choice of words.

The Torturer's Quandry

Last week, the talking heads were full of themselves talking about President Obama's release of top secret memos from the Bush administration regarding the torturing of enemy combatants. And, in a reversal of White House Chief of Staff, Rob Emmanuel, Obama seemed to open the door for a "Truth Commission" to investigate what Bush and Cheney knew and when they knew it.

The Right was up in arms over both events, calling Obama a traitor for exposing the confidential memos. The Left was clucking "I-told-you-so" as they continue their hatred for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. May a cooler tone prevail on both sides!

In an excellent piece published by the independent intelligence research firm Stratfor, "Torture and U.S. Intelligence Failure," George Friedman sets that tone. A snippet:

Torture and the Moral Question
And this raises the moral question. The United States is a moral project: its Declaration of Independence and Constitution state that. The president takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution does not speak to the question of torture of non-citizens, but it implies an abhorrence of rights violations (at least for citizens). But the Declaration of Independence contains the phrase, “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.” This indicates that world opinion matters.

At the same time, the president is sworn to protect the Constitution. In practical terms, this means protecting the physical security of the United States “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Protecting the principles of the declaration and the Constitution are meaningless without regime preservation and defending the nation.

While this all makes for an interesting seminar in political philosophy, presidents — and others who have taken the same oath — do not have the luxury of the contemplative life. They must act on their oaths, and inaction is an action. Former U.S. President George W. Bush knew that he did not know the threat, and that in order to carry out his oath, he needed very rapidly to find out the threat. He could not know that torture would work, but he clearly did not feel that he had the right to avoid it.

Consider this example. Assume you knew that a certain individual knew the location of a nuclear device planted in an American city. The device would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, but the individual refused to divulge the information. Would anyone who had sworn the oath have the right not to torture the individual? Torture might or might not work, but either way, would it be moral to protect the individual’s rights while allowing hundreds of thousands to die? It would seem that in this case, torture is a moral imperative; the rights of the one with the information cannot transcend the life of a city.

Torture in the Real World
But here is the problem: You would not find yourself in this situation. Knowing a bomb had been planted, knowing who knew that the bomb had been planted, and needing only to apply torture to extract this information is not how the real world works. Post-9/11, the United States knew much less about the extent of the threat from al Qaeda. This hypothetical sort of torture was not the issue.
Discrete information was not needed, but situational awareness. The United States did not know what it needed to know, it did not know who was of value and who wasn’t, and it did not know how much time it had. Torture thus was not a precise solution to a specific problem: It became an intelligence-gathering technique.

The nature of the problem the United States faced forced it into indiscriminate intelligence gathering. When you don’t know what you need to know, you cast a wide net. And when torture is included in the mix, it is cast wide as well. In such a case, you know you will be following many false leads — and when you carry torture with you, you will be torturing people with little to tell you. Moreover, torture applied by anyone other than well-trained, experienced personnel (who are in exceptionally short supply) will only compound these problems, and make the practice less productive.
Defenders of torture frequently seem to believe that the person in custody is known to have valuable information, and that this information must be forced out of him. His possession of the information is proof of his guilt. The problem is that unless you have excellent intelligence to begin with, you will become engaged in developing baseline intelligence, and the person you are torturing may well know nothing at all. Torture thus becomes not only a waste of time and a violation of decency, it actually undermines good intelligence. After a while, scooping up suspects in a dragnet and trying to extract intelligence becomes a substitute for competent intelligence techniques — and can potentially blind the intelligence service. This is especially true as people will tell you what they think you want to hear to make torture stop.

Critics of torture, on the other hand, seem to assume the torture was brutality for the sake of brutality instead of a desperate attempt to get some clarity on what might well have been a catastrophic outcome. The critics also cannot know the extent to which the use of torture actually prevented follow-on attacks. They assume that to the extent that torture was useful, it was not essential; that there were other ways to find out what was needed. In the long run, they might have been correct. But neither they, nor anyone else, had the right to assume in late 2001 that there was a long run. One of the things that wasn’t known was how much time there was.

This excellent analysis can be found at the link above. And for an informative discussi0n on MSNBC, click on this YouTube link.

About that photo

A couple of people have asked about the photo that adorns the masthead of this blog. I took it in Paris at the conclusion of the 2004 Tour de France. Lance Armstrong had just won an unprecedented sixth Tour - six in a row. One of the most incredible athletics feats ever. Lance (in the yellow jersey) and his teammates were making a celebratory victory lap along the Champs d'Elysees to the roar of around a million people lining the boulevard.

The trip was a 60th birthday gift from the BBICMW and included cycling, of course! The group with whom I signed up convened just outside of Marseilles; we cycled and bussed our way around various parts of France including Provence and the Alps. Highlights included cycling up Mt Ventoux in Provence and up Alpe d'Huez the day after the famous time trial. One million people stood twelve deep along the steep switchbacks of that climb cheering, and sometimes booing, the riders as one by one they assaulted the mountain with only a clock as their competition.

By the time we arrived in Paris, the race had been decided. Lance was in yellow -the overall leader. I stood for nearly 12 hours in one spot watching that final stage unfold. Pressed up against a steel fence with throngs of people straining to see. The photo here was taken just as I leaned out to get a shot of Lance. Years later, Lance signed this photo and the one I took at that moment. The latter I gave to a friend of a friend who was battling cancer. She deserved it more than I.

The masthead photo speaks to me in several ways. I love cycling and admire Lance Armstrong and the then US Potal Service Cycling team (I believe it is George Hincapie who is holding the flag). Cycling can be a very tough sport; as Bjorn Riis, coach of the Danish cycling team CSC once said "Cycling is a damn hard sport; it takes willpower." So true. (The link is to a video of CSC at the 2004 Tour - some awesome scenes)

They symbolism of the flag and this highly organized, disciplined American team riding down the most celebrated avenue in Paris after winning the most revered event in France six years in a row is also fitting. The French love suffering - the suffering of those who try hard, almost succeed and fail. Sure, the pathos makes athletes human and accessible. And, if the athlete who suffers and also wins - especially if he or she is French - the suffering is admired even more.

But the Yanks - the US Postal Service team and later Discovery Channel - changed the sport. They came to win, not to suffer (though there was plenty of that, to be sure). They raced hard and trained even harder. And won.

Winners. Like the USA.

A right to health Insurance? Oh really?

During the primaries and the election last November, the plight of Americans without health insurance was a hot topic. I recall hearing the candidates say that between 30 to 50 million Americans lacked health insurance and that was a national disgrace. Now with the Obama administration in place, all manner of solutions are being discussed.

I find it curious that what we call health insurance differs from every other form of insurance we buy. The two forms of insurance with which most of us are most familiar are home owners and auto insurance. In both cases, we pay insurance premiums to protect ourselves from the economic consequences of catastrophic events - a fire, flood or accident with our car. And unless they happen in connection with a catastrophic event, re-roofing, new tires, a bathroom remodel or oil change aren't covered by these policies.

Yet that's exactly what we expect health insurance to do - pay not only for catastrophic events but also the routine ones. Little Billy has a cold or the flu and needs to see the doc who writes a prescription. We make an insurance claim. Routine check up. Insurance claim. Pre-natal maternity visits. Insurance claim. Backache visit. Insurance claim.

You get the point. What we call health insurance is really insulation from virtually all costs associated with health care delivery - from the cost of seeing your doc through prescriptions to having labs and x-rays done. Try making a claim on your auto insurance for the cost of replacing the bald tires you've been driving on - or the water heater that stops working at home - and see how far you'll get

"But," you protest, "health care is different. As a society, we have a moral responsibility to provide health care and we as individuals have a right to it." Really?

Apart from the Constitutional arguments that might be made to the contrary, this idea of that we have an obligation to provide and a right to get health care is very expensive and dangerous.

For example, does that right extend to people who abuse their bodies through drug or alcohol abuse? Should we taxpayers be obligated to pay for hospitalization and treatment for those who, being otherwise rational, chose to ingest harmful substances? People who drive their cars recklessly and have accidents pay higher premiums for good reason. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to health care?

"Those are extreme examples," you say. "And they are relatively minor on the scale of the health needs of the population."

Unfortunately these are not "extreme examples" at all. Seen in the context of individual responsibility, the health outcomes of individual choices are commonplace. Well more than half of all morbidity (illness) is directly traceable to choices each of us makes every day. These are life style choices - decisions about what we eat, what we drink, whether and how much we exercise and so on.

As the nearby map shows, obesity is prevalent throughout the USA. With obesity (though not always) comes higher risk factors for diabetes, hypertension and congestive heart failure. Some forms of cancer can be traced to life style choices, as well [see note at bottom]. And all those chronic diseases cost money. Lots of money.

So, do we as citizens wish to obligate ourselves and our children to pay for health care or for life style choices? Should those who make sub-optimal choices pay more - just like the chronic speeder pays more for his or her insurance? How does individual responsibility fit with ideas of obligations and rights to health care?

Tough questions. Our obligation as citizens is to answer them.

------------------------------

If you'd like a white paper on this subject written by a colleague, email me at oregonyankee@gmail.com.

Tea, MSNBC and Maddow (+ Update)

See an UPDATE at the bottom of this entry. . . .

-------------------------------------------------
I missed it - them. The Tax Day Tea Parties. A late meeting kept me in Springfield until well after 5:00p last night. Dang.

Nevertheless, the BBICMW* made it to the Beaverton rally. While we live in Portland's West Hills, she thought traffic and driving would be easier. She marched and commented to me by phone that she was happy and proud to have been part of it. By the time I arrived home, it was after 7:00p and hunger was all I had on my mind.

Over the evening's grub, I switched on MSNBC to see what Rachel Maddow had to say about Tea Day. Now, I bet you could guess that I am not a Maddow fan. She's much too smarmy for my liking. Still, I tune her in from time to time (as well as that other MSNBC embarrassment, Keith Olbermann). It's important to keep up with what the left is saying. I mean if we only listened to our own voices, we wouldn't learn anything - much less understand the rantings from the left-fortunate.

Well, there she was interviewing someone or other. Her focus was Gov Rick Perry's comments about refusing Federal R&R money (Rescue and Relief) and maybe even invoking the Tenth Amendment to take Texas out of the Union. Right on, Rick!

Of course Rachel and her interlocutor thought all this was hilarious. Well, it is kind of amusing; but Maddow, et al, view it as representational of the deranged right. Yo, Rach. . .lighten up!

What wasn't funny was her several remarks about the sexual meaning of "Tea Bag" or "Tea Bagging." The same memo must have made the rounds of MSNBC and CNN as several commentators made the same references. The undertone was "Poor right wing fools. They don't understand that the tea bags they have hanging from their bonnets are a sexual joke."

Well, I gotta admit, neither the BBICMW nor I had the faintest idea how tea bags could be sexual. Only after diligent research did the BBICMW call me at work to inform me that it is term for oral sex. Oh. Got it. Your right again, Rach; this right wing moron didn't share in the richness (or is perversion) of your imagination.

And that was about typical of the coverage Maddow (and I suspect MSNBC) gave the tea parties.

If Maddow, Olberman and MSNBC think they represent informed discourse - even informed opiniated discourse - the rest of America seems to think otherwise. Here's the viewer statistics from last night:

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,980,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,239,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,947,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,740,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,401,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,185,000
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1,777,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,499,000
COMEDY COLBERT 1,446,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,336,000
CNN KING 1,292,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,149,000
CNN COOPER 1,021,000

Kind of informative, I would think - especially to advertisers. Olbermann, Maddow and Cooper in the cellar. I keep wondering why they don't get the point. People watch what they want to watch. O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck: they don't flash subliminal messages on the screen turning us into robots. People tune in because they are each decent people, concerned about informing as much as they are about opining. Well, let me put that differently. Their opinions are generally about substance, not smarmy invectives about people they dislike. O'Reilly even goes out of his way to defend President Obama when he thinks a guest is being unfair. Maddow? Ha!

Yes, the Portland Tea Party-goer in the picture has it right. But in the case of Maddow, Olbermann and the like change the sign to read: "You can't fix stupid. . .but you CAN turn them off."

*Beautiful Blond I Call My Wife

UPDATE

I found this article at the Washington Times this morning. Quoted in full. Need I say more. . .

Liberal actress says tea parties were racist
By Amanda Carpenter on April 17, 2009

Liberal actress and political activist Janeane Garofalo, in all seriousness, said activists who attended tea parties are racists with dysfunctional brains in a recent prime-time television appearance.

"Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House," she said on MSNBC's "The Countdown" with Keith Olbermann Thursday evening. "This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that."

Olbermann did not once try to challenge her on those assertions.

The actress went on to describe the brain size of typical "right-winger, Republican or conservative or your average white power activist."

"Their synapses are misfiring. ... It is a neurological problem we are dealing with," she said. This isn't the first time she's offered this analysis, either. Ms. Garofalo said similar things about Alaskan GOP Governor Sarah Palin's brain last February in an interview with an environmental blog.

The actress went on to bash the GOP on MSNBC Thursday because it had "crystallized into the white power movement" as well as Fox News, which she said has captured the "Klan demographic."

"Who else is Fox talking to? Urban older white guys and their girlfriends who suffer from Stockholm Syndrome," she said.

Ironically, Ms. Garofalo is currently playing a role on the drama 24, which is aired by the Fox Broadcasting Company and is popular among conservative circles.

Tax Day - Tax Revolt

Tomorrow there will be Tax Day TEA Parties all over this nation. Fifty-four in Texas alone. Here in Oregon, there will be Taxed Enough Already demonstations in Astoria, Beaverton, Bend, Coos Bay, Corvallis, The Dalles, Enterpise, Eugene/Springfield, Forest Grove, Grants Pass, Klamath Falls, LaGrande, McMinnville, Medford, Newport, Oregon City, Portland, Reedsport, Rogue River, Rosesburg, Salem, and Tillamook. (Click here for more information)

That's right; they're all happening right here in the Blue State of Oregon.

Interestingly, this protest isn't as partisan as you might think. From what I have read - and I read a lot - the protests are a genuine, grass-roots protest by citizens of every political persuasion.

And, frankly, I think the protests are as much about spending as they are about our paying for that spending. The size and speed of the so-called recovery plan appearsw to have knocked some sense into the American electorate. No one is excusing President George W. Bush's record on spending - not at all. What people are protesting is the absurd belief that more spending and more taxes are the solution.

For all his sins, W didn't believe, as President O does, that goverment is the solution. In my life, I have only met one person who, with a straight face, opined that the Federal Government does a better job managing enterprises (e.g., the Post Office) and allocating resources than private enterprise. His remark, made over dinner, produced stunned silence punctuated by awkward glances.

Go, join one of the Oregon TEA Parties. No matter what you may think about Bush or Iraq or abortion or race relations or climate warming or [fill in your issue] - go. March like a 1960's era protester. Take the country back. Free enterprise and Liberty.

Sticks and Stones

The operative question to ask about President Obama's European (and Asian) tour is whether he is familiar with the old rubric sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

There was a hint, a hint mind you, that he might be when he said Sunday in Prague:

Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.

Yet as he was speaking those words on the subject of containing nuclear weapons, North Korea was testing Obama by launching its own missile. The UN, in typical fashion, debated and, in the end, took no action. Russia and China took no action. And they won't. And Europe won't either.

We are quickly drawing toward a showdown - maybe several of them. One is with North Korea. Negotiations and resolutions - words - haven't moved the Dear Leader further along the road toward international civility. Another is Hezbollah and its sponsor, Iran. Sanctions, negotiations - words - haven't worked here, either. Israel, not the US, is in the cross hairs. Indeed, one can speculate how Iran and the rest of the Muslim world may have changed its calculations when he stated that America is not, and never will be, at war with Islam (followed by a deep bow to Saudi King Abdullah). And the third is Pakistan. That country - with nuclear weapons - is on the verge of surrender to Islamist militants. And what are they (and we) to make of his declaration that the United States does not consider itself a Christian nation? True, we don't have a state religion; but the making of this nation is founded on Christian/Judeo principles overlayed by British sensibilities.

President Obama seems very confident in his oratory skills. Does he truly believe that words, however sincerely spoken and self-effacing they may be, will change the aforementioned sociopaths?

I'm betting that they're each chanting the local equivalent of sticks and stones may break my bones but Obama's words will never hurt me.

A Citizen's Responsibility

What a couple of weeks. I've started to write a blog several times only to pause as I watch President Obama's performance in Europe. I wonder if he knows that the campaign is over; he won. Yet his words, particularly making reference to the "prior administration" and suggesting that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were a direct result of American policy, were disturbing.

I began to wonder how this otherwise well educated man views America. He put America in a less than favorable light, in my opinion. Some might say he was pandering to the Europeans - people who have so longed enjoyed the fruits of American military and economic generosity that they've lost touch with the real world.

Obama, and I would submit, that most Liberals, would reject the idea of American Exceptionalism. The Wikipedia entry, to which the term is linked, refers to American Exceptionalism as

"the theory that the United Statesw occupies a special niche among developed nations in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions and unique origins."

I don't think American Exceptionalism is a theory. It is, in my view, an historical and demonstrable fact. We, this nation and its people, are not like any other nation. We are unique - historically and, yes, morally different from every other nation in the world and throughout history.

My view is not based on jingoistic nationalism. No. It is based on a reading of history - an imperfect reading, to be sure, but sufficient to inform me of the virtues and the shortcomings of the United States. And, that reading of history convinces me that those virtues far, far out weigh shortcomings such as Abu Ghraib.

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of American Exceptionalism, I invite you to click over to The Federalist Society's web site and, in particular, to a spirited conversation "Beacon of Freedom: Does America Have a Special Mission?" At the link, you will find both an audio and video of this panel discussion (right click on the respective media to download). The summary of the two hour debate reads:

This panel examines the question whether there is an American ideology of exceptionalism that is deeply rooted in 400 years of our history. Have Americans from John Winthrop to the Founding Fathers to Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan believed that we are a shining city on a hill – a beacon of liberty and democracy for the rest of the world? How has the idea of American exceptionalism changed and evolved from John Winthrop’s Biblical vision of the country as an exemplar of Protestantism to the Framers’ vision of us as an exemplar of liberty and democracy? Do we still believe in the creed affirmed by the Statue of Liberty that America is the light of the world and the natural home of all who are oppressed? Many historians have claimed that the belief that Americans are special people with a special mission in a special place is a recurrent theme in our history. In the words of President Reagan’s Farewell Address, we are “still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places are hurtling through darkness toward home.” Is the United States a country organized around an ideology of belief in freedom, democracy, social equality, and individualism and, if so, is that a good thing? Has America in fact been a revolutionary force for liberty and democracy in the world or has the shining city on the hill become, as critics on both the left and the right claim, just another fallen Sodom and Gomorrah?

Even if you're an avid Obama supporter, I encourage you to listen to or view the discussion and think carefully about its messages.

In future blogs, I will suggest other resources - books, podcasts, etc - that have informed me and may inform you about our heritage. Learning and appreciating our founding and history are responsibilities of all citizens.

A Nose for the Road

There's a lot to like about road cycling. Lots.

Lowest on the list (my list, at least) is the green or ecological benefit. Nice but riding bikes is neither going to put the oil producers out of business nor significantly curtail pollution. Sorry. Fact.

No, what I like about cycling is a lot more personal; more intimate; more visceral.

Like today. I am at our company's headquarters in Eugene. After work, and after checking into the Courtyard Marriott, I yank my Trek Madone off the roof of my car and head out for a ride - about 40 miles through Springfield and Coburg. Beautiful country - flat, fast and sensual.

Yes sensual. The scents of Spring are in the air. My nose was a-twitter at the smell of freshness and rebirth.

First, there's the lingering wetness of the soil. This is farm country where green is as much a fragrance as it is a color. Still a bit to0 chilly to warm the soil and release the full perfume locked in the earth.

Then, as I passed some quiet homes, there were the smells of dinner - fried onions, some kind of meat on a grill. . .yum, Many times I have been tempted to stop and invite myself for dinner. But those fried onions and burger - washed down with a beer - would kind of offset the calories I'm burning. Keep pedaling.

Around a corner, the air was sauteed with pine. Fresh. Clean. Dang. How Oregon.

The butcher, the baker and greed

I work for a wonderful organization - a faith-based, not-for-profit health care system with hospitals and medical clinics in the Northwest. We take our Mission - to carry on the healing Mission of Jesus Christ - quite seriously. We refer to all employees, from phsyicians and nurses to janitors and drivers - as caregivers so serious are we about what we do.

We also take Margin very seriously - the money that we earn from delivering quality medical care. We understand that unless we earn a Margin - the money we're paid by Medicare and Medicaid, by insurers and employers and, yes, sometimes by patients themselves - without that Margin there would be no Mission.

As one of the leaders on the lab side of the business, I remind our caregivers about this balance between Mission and Margin. In my presentations to them, I quote from Adam Smith's "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interest.”

That notion - that people act according to their own self interest - is heresy to many, especially those on the Left. We like to think we're enlightened; we like to couch our actions in noble terms, especially terms that we deem to benefit the poor or less fortunate. And certainly, politicians are most eager to be seen as advocates for something other than their own self-interests.

Come on. Get real. No matter how enlightened one thinks his or hers self-interest may be, we do what we do out of regard to our own interests. Our self-interest.

The un-P.C. word for self-interest is greed. And greed gets applied as a dirty word to anyone whose self-interest either seems to be in conflict with our own or becomes obvious in the marketplace of ideas. Yet it is self-interest, however badly or nobly it is dressed, that is at the heart of what all people do.

The video below reminds us of this fundamental fact about human nature. It is an interview with the late Milton Friedman (1912-2006) by, of all people, Phil Donahue (who looks totally bewildered throughout). The exchange is at the heart of Friedman's book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962) wherein he advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom.

This interview from 1979 is as relevant now as it was then. Listen closely then reflect on its truths and where our economy and nation are headed today.

Wednesday morning hangover

My head hurts. President Obama's news conference yesterday felt like drinking Scotch (single-malt, please) through a fire hose - great on the tongue but punishing on the mind.

The guy is charming, polished and convincing, no doubt about it. Just like a good Scotch. It's only after you've left the party that you realize that you've over indulged and killed a few too many brain cells. Time to sober up.

Here's a chart from the The Heritage Foundation (link takes you to the full story) showing the effects of the Obama budget. Yikes!


And those estimates are based on a health care down payment of $630 billion. You know and I know that is just the start. (Note the date range of the chart: Bush years to the left)

Oh, one last thing. this morning's New York Times published a resignation letter from Jake DeSantis, an Executive Vice President of AIG's Financial Products unit. That unit had nothing to do with AIG's collapse - zip, nada, zilch. Click on this link to read it. Then, put yourself in his shoes. Would you be as generous?

He's paid WHAT?

The Obama administration is getting ready to confiscate bonuses paid to Wall Street bad-boys and is considering oversight of executive pay at bailout companies and, dangerously, other firms.

The Pres seems to be fanning a populist nerve - perhaps as a natural outgrowth of being a community organizer. Namely, he is painting businessmen (and women) as evil and greedy. Never mind that 99% of financial execs and business people have a higher degree of integrity than most members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans). Never mind that CEOs, financial and otherwise, lead organizations that employ hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of people. Executive compensation equals greed in the liberal lexicoon.

But whoa! Taker a look at some others with multi-million dollar paychecks; here are just a few:

Tiger Woods
$22,902,706 - Salary (winnings)
$105,000,000 - Endorsements
$127,902,706 - Total Income

Phil Mickelson
$9,372,685 - Salary (winnings)
$53,000,000 - Endorsements
$62,372,685 - Total Income

Alex Rodriguez
$29,000,000 - Salary
$6,000,000 - Endorsements
$35,000,000 - Total Income

Wait a minute. . . that adds up to $159,745,370 and that's only three (3!) sports figures never mind Hollywood actors. Dang! Throw in Will Smith's reported $80 million in income last year and the $218 million paid to a dozen or more AIG execs pales.

But of course, they all have created jobs... Oh, no sorry. Perhaps Johnny Depp, who pulled down $72 mill in '08, is fueling job growth. But then again, probably not.

We don't care too much about those salaries because, as economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, Tiger, Phil and A-Rod amuse us. We don't work for them. We don't see them as threats (unless your a Red Sox fan). They may be just as greedy as your neighborhood CEO - maybe even more so; there aren't too many CEOs out there with $30 million in total yearly compensation - but we don't seem to care.

I don't care at all. A-Rod's salary is none of my business. The salaries of Wall Street CEOs - any CEO or executive - is none of my business. Or yours and certainly not the Feds. CEOs and execs are paid what their Boards of Directors, investors or others responsible stakeholder want to pay them and 99% of the time, that pay is tied to performance. Many Wall Street firms cap executive salaries and use bonuses as incentives to spur performance. We do that with our sales team: good salaries with upside, performance-based rewards.

Put a cap on Congressional salaries. Better still, tie their salaries to performance.

They'd starve.

His Katrina Moment

Frank Rich's column in the New York Times this morning quotes from a reader's letter to the Times:

President Obama may not realize it yet, but his Katrina moment has arrived. This is a defining moment for his presidency, and how he responds will determine the trajectory of his term. He needs to deal with the excesses within the financial industry with the same toughness and conviction that President Ronald Reagan brought to bear during the air traffic controllers’ strike. To date, he is sorely wanting.

The letter was written by Paulette Altmaier of Cupertino, California and I agree with Rich (whose views are normally contrary to mine): she's got it right. President Obama is fueling the public's anger but, to this point, displaying little skill at getting in front of it.

The outrage over the AIG bonuses is understandable but it isn't the real story. That story is bigger and deeper; it is about where all the bailout money has gone. We simply don't know. Lawrence Summers, Obama's Chief Economic Adviser, couldn't answer the question when asked recently. Worse, he said that the government is under no obligaiton to let American taxpayers know. Excuse me? Larry, you work for me. That sort of arrogance doesn't wash, bro.

In keeping with Ms Altmaier's letter, we also need to get tough with the people controlling the purse strings. Holding financial industry executives accountable for taxpayer money is common sense. Holding this administration and Congress accountable what they do with the money they're taking from us is also common sense. Some might say un-common sense.

In that regard, consider participating in the "Tax Day Tea Party" on April 15th. Oregonians can learn about events in their communities by clicking here.

You can read Rich's full column by clicking here.

Give the man a break!

When I was a young man, I was a Liberal. A very liberal Liberal. Way to the Left. Noam Chomsky and Herbert Marcuse were my heroes. But in time, I became disillusioned with the left, a disillusionment brought on largely by what I saw as illogic and inconsistency if not out right intellectual dishonesty. In other words, hypocrisy.

As much as I want to give the benefit of the doubt to my Liberal friends, since President Obama's triumph they have put their sanctimoniousness center stage. More than once this week, I heard the following (or something close to it):

"Look, Bush and the Republicans had eight years to screw up the economy (and everything else). Obama has been in office less than three months. Give the man a break; wait a couple of years to see what he does."

One commentator (can't recall who it was) said: "The guy just moved into the White House; give him a chance to hang up his coat!"

From where I sit, I wish President Obama would take time to hang up his coat! The tempo since his arrival in Washington has been frenetic. And that frenzy has been justified by the crisis, catastrophe and terrible condition of the economy. He, along with Nancy and Harry, have put us on a rapid course to, in his own words, reshape the foundations of our economy. Maybe the President should take time to have lunch and get in a little nap, too.

The idea that we should "give him a break" and wait until he's been in office a few months or years reflects the illogic and dishonesty that drove me to the Right. In my view, it is based on continued vindictiveness toward President Bush and most other Republicans and total enchantment with Obama. The folks over at MSNBC like Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow are still waging war against the Bush administration. (Of course, MSNBC's ratings are in the tank which suggests that not many people are paying much attention to Olberman or Maddow.)

Dislike of Bush, Cheney, et al, is understandable but the hatred is wildly over blown. The Bush administration's mis-handling of the Iraq War, despite successes in 2007 and 2008, was simply too large an opportunity for Liberals to pass over. Smelling blood and fueled by MSNBC and a pathetic print media (The Oregonian among them), the left made hatred of Bush a religion.

No one man - Bush - can be as evil as they paint him to be. And, no one man - Obama - can be as honorable as they painted him to be.

If you doubt this, compare comments about President Obama's gaffes (come on, he's made them) with comments made about President Bush or; if that's too hard, about Governor Sarah Palin. As I write this, a pundit on Fox News just opined, "Well, at least we now have a President who can spell." And also insult the handicapped. Apology accepted.

Most of us have been taught to respect the other guy's opinion. That's fine. Yet I struggle sometimes to understand those opinions; why is Obama "given a break" and Bush, Cheney, Palin, McCain, Gingrich, etc are not? And why should we wait a year - or even a month - to challenge the President when we are concerned that his policies and actions are simply wrong, no matter how well-intentioned they may be? I am not sure that respecting the other guy's point of view includes respecting irrationality.

If my days as a left-leaning youth taught me anything it was to question authority. It seems that many of those on that side have forgotten the lesson. Or, perhaps have chosen to use it very selectively.

Going Broke in Las Vegas

I am on my way back to Portland from a brief, overnight trip to Las Vegas. There, we (I was traveling with our CEO) met with executives from an Australian software company followed by dinner with them at The Venetian, one of the mega-hotels on the Las Vegas strip. The BBICMW* and I lived in Vegas in the 1960s during my Air Force days. My, how that town has grown! All built on escapism.

Our meeting and dinner were on a Tuesday; St Patrick’s Day, in fact. As we walked along the Strip to The Venetian, we encountered hundreds of people out to have a good time, many with huge flasks of green beer in hand. Entering The Venetian, the casino was going full tilt. The noise from the slots and various other devices was over powering. Yes, not all the blackjack and roulette tables were full – but it was 6:00pm, dinner time, on Tuesday.

The route to our meeting took us past the entrance to The Blue Man Group show. We were walking against the flow of a huge crowd wending its way into the theater for the dinner show. “Wait a minute,” I thought. “Why are these people here? Aren’t we in the middle of the worst recession in history?” Clearly, these people must be spending their last dollar before the taxman takes it. One last fling before the new world of the government-managed economy takes full control. Or, maybe they are all overpaid financial executives out to spend their obscene, anti-American bonus checks before Barney Frank and Chris Dodd figure out how to confiscate them.

But the people on the sidewalks, in the casino or rushing to be entertained didn’t look like bankers. Certainly none of them were wearing “I'M SPENDING MY AIG BONUS” buttons. Don’t these folks realize that we are n the midst of what everyone calls the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression; an catastrophe on an economic of the magnitude of Chernobyl on a nuclear scale ? How dare they be here having fun! Over 8% of them are supposed to be unemployed?

I am sure that the hotel and casino executives are feeling the effects of the recession. They pay close attention to the macro economy as well as things like revenue per square foot per hour. And, looking at whatever arcane indicators they use, their numbers are down. Unemployment is up and many people are hurting, to be sure. If it gets any worse, the mid-week crowd we encountered will diminish and unemployment will hit Las Vegas. Hard.

So, as we drove to McCarran Airport this morning (only to be greeted by an astonishingly large group of tired revellers departing at an ungodly 5:00am), I speculated on what the Federal Government’s bailout plan for Las Vegas will look like. After all, this city of 1,836,333 people is entirely dependent on tourists spending money. Lots of it. How much will it cost us taxpayers to save an entire city?

Then, eureka! Amid the jingle of the airport slots the answer seemed obvious. Cut taxes! That would put money into peoples’ pockets which, ker-ching, they would spend! In Las Vegas. Or on the Main Street in whatever city or town they lived in. At their local mall. Even over the Internet (until that is taxed, of course). The money they spend would mean retailers could sell more which means the people that made the stuff the retailers sell could hire more people to make the stuff that the retailers sell because there would be more people to buy the stuff they make that the retailers sell. And the retailers and people who make stuff could then all go to Vegas to gamble, have fun, see the Blue Man Group and indulge in a bit of escapism.

You get the idea. Lower taxes lead to economic recovery! Be still my free-enterprise-beating heart How simple! How sublime.

Then my flight was called and it was time to re-enter the new world of the government-managed economy from which, for now, there is no escape. Viva Las Vegas.

*Beautiful Blond I Call My Wife

Support the Troops - ?

The latest, and I am quoting the press release:

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

I didn't make this up. The story concludes

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

You bet it does.

In short, the administration wants to save $540 million by removing funding for troops injured in the line of service. Let me repeat that number again. . . $540 million. For wounded veterans. Not billion. Certainly not trillion. Million. For men and women who risked their lives. $540 million. Save money to save money - so goes the reasoning. Good thing the President didn't meet with Senator Harry Reid about the high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and LA. That costs over a billion as I recall.

Think about it. Then, with the stimulus and bailout and 8,500 earmarks in mind, click on this link and consider your options. Oh, and don't forget about that rail line.