tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124866582024-02-07T00:56:48.782-05:00Think it through - Less is moreTocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-32736485052823790302018-06-07T13:58:00.001-04:002019-05-02T14:52:51.487-04:00An Example of Skepticism of ScienceI'm skeptical by nature. Many often call me cynical. Sometimes I come across an article, a study or something that, while supposedly a proper example of science, sends off all sorts of red flags for me. I recently came across <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/04/black-students-teachers-implicit-racial-bias-preschool-study" target="_blank">an article</a> in the Guardian that highlights a recent <a href="https://medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/zigler/publications/Preschool%20Implicit%20Bias%20Policy%20Brief_final_9_26_276766_5379_v1.pdf" target="_blank">Yale University study</a> that sought to find the biases that may lead young black students to be suspended/expelled at higher rates than whites. (And I use that phrase intentionally: "sought to find". But we'll get to that momentarily.) The article's content concerned me enough that I decided to look at this study a little more and found some interesting things.<br />
<br />
First and foremost, I don't like the "science" of starting with a preconceived conclusion and then crafting a study to find evidence to support that conclusion. While this <b>can</b> be ok in hard sciences which focus so exclusively on physical processes and quantitative outcomes, in social sciences, where qualitative or behavioral actions are what is being analyzed, it can be extremely dangerous. This is almost explicitly research confirmation bias and makes the study start off highly questionable in my view - this kind of bias can affect everything from design to interpretation. But let's move on.<br />
<br />
From the article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The teachers were told the following: ... <i>Your job is to press the enter key on the external keypad every time you see a behavior that <b><u>could become</u></b> a <b><u>potential </u></b>challenge.</i></blockquote>
Since I didn't capitalize and put flashing gifs around those words, let me emphasize, they were specifically told to signal on anything that "<b><u><i>could become</i></u></b>" a "<b><u><i>potential</i></u></b>" challenge. So the instructions are essentially telling teachers to be hypersensitive for any behavior whatsoever that <i>might possibly</i> become a <i>potential</i> challenge. Not telling them to indicate when a behavioral challenge occurs. Not to indicate the moment they believe a behavioral challenge is starting. But to point out anything whatsoever that could somehow, at some point in the future, turn toward into a <i>potential</i> challenge.<br />
<br />
How vague and open-ended is this?<br />
<br />
<i>Child picks up scissors</i> - "could possibly become a potential challenge"<br />
<i>Child starts to speak loudly</i> - "could possibly become a potential challenge"<br />
<i>Child starts swinging pencil around</i> - "could possibly become a potential challenge"<br />
<i>Child vehemently disagrees with fellow student</i> - "could possibly become a potential challenge"<br />
<i>Child stands up</i> - "could possibly become a potential challenge"<br />
<i>Child disagrees with conclusion of a Yale study</i> - "could possibly become a potential challenge" (and is possibly racist)<br />
<br />
You get the idea. Obviously the question relies on an incredibly subjective measure. I've seen certain kids (#notall) where rocking in a chair is a "tell" - a precursor - to a wild moment of explosive energy - where the kids suddenly has a compulsion to get out of their chair and vent some of their energy - sometimes (though rarely) with damaging or harmful results to themselves and others.<br />
<br />
Let's also keep in mind that it's probably fair to assume that most teachers are going to wish to err on the side of caution when it comes to such instructions. Better to appear overly cautious than to appear to disregard or miss the signs leading up to a problem.<br />
<br />
Then after quoting what teachers were instructed to do, the Guardian moves the goalposts in the very following line:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
While the teachers were asked to detect “challenging behavior”, no such behavior existed in any of the videos.</blockquote>
Wait, wait, wait. They were NOT told to detect challenging behavior. They were asked to indicate any "behavior that <b>could become </b>a <b>potential </b>challenging behavior." So a teacher that has seen and dealt with the rocking-in-their-chair situations in the past, and is then told to look for "<i>potential</i> challenging behavior" may signal on a rocking child that, in this case, never leads to challenging behavior.<br />
<br />
To me, if you want to understand why black students are being suspended, THEN LOOK AT THE SUSPENSION CASES!! I think going to the source of the information would be relevant here. Are the suspensions dubious? Are they credible? Isn't that pertinent here?<br />
<br />
Look at that data and determine if the cases justified suspension or not. If they did NOT, then you can certainly make the case that perhaps there was discrimination at play. But to give people prompts which are overly vague and then deduce from their hypersensitivity that they must be racist is not impartial science.Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-28609364309462805232016-01-06T15:50:00.000-05:002016-01-06T15:59:32.626-05:00Looking at Oregon in a different skin - Race has nothing to do with itI'm not going to go into the details of the situation in Oregon. Anyone reading this is likely already familiar with it. For those that may not, <a href="http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/" target="_blank">here are</a> a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI9IlziWphY" target="_blank">couple sources</a> on <a href="http://www.copblock.org/150936/fbi-moves-in-on-oregon-militia-occupation-what-they-arent-telling-you/" target="_blank">the subject</a>.<br />
<br />
My general stance on the situation is that I sympathize and support the Hammond family where I feel it's a pretty clear case of govt abuse of power. However, I am on the fence regarding the protesters/militia. I like that they are supporting the Hammonds and agree with their general animosity of govt overreach. It also feels like the militia protest was largely a publicity stunt to raise awareness of the treatment of the Hammond family. If so, then I'd call it a success (notwithstanding the horrendous misreporting of the situation). However, due to the weapons involved and almost invitation for direct <i>physical</i> conflict, it goes beyond the standard peaceful "sit-in" type of awareness protest or even civil disobedience. I guess my views will become more clarified as we see what they do, what govt does, and how each reacts to the other.<br />
<br />
In a broader scope, however, I've seen many who appear antagonistic to this group of protesters and the Hammonds largely due to their race and politics. I've heard people decrying how the reaction and the types of support would be completely different if it was black people or Muslims who had taken over this glorified campgrounds.<br />
<br />
So I started thinking ...<br />
<br />
Say there was a [Muslim] family - the [Mohammeds]. They have been harassed by govt for years. They get pulled over constantly. The city continues to try to force them to sell their house. They have their taxes audited every year. Prohibited from buying guns. They are placed on and off of the no-fly list. All without any evidence of any real wrongdoing. Then, say the patriarch gets distracted and hits a mailbox with his car. A few years later, his son swerves and runs over a post-office box. They are arrested, charged with "terrorism" (destruction of govt property) and found guilty. Suddenly a large group of [Muslims] comes and sets up in a public parking lot next to the family's home and occupy a pay-for-parking booth. This group is armed and is protesting for the release of the [Mohammed] men and to raise awareness of the govt abuse and harassment of this family. They claim they will resist any attempts to remove them.<br />
<br />
While I know this is not an exact parallel to the situation in Oregon, it's fairly close. In such a situation, I, as a libertarian, would feel pretty much exactly the same way about this hypothetical as I do the actual situation. I would sympathize and support the family. I would be on the fence with regard to the protesters.<br />
<br />
Now, replace [Muslim] with [black] and [Mohammeds] with [Jacksons] - and I'd again have the same view.<br />
<br />
This, at least for me, has absolutely nothing to do with race. I don't care whether the family and the protesters involved are white, brown, black, or any other race. The issue is the abuse of govt power and bringing the attention to govt harassment.Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-45015395739112597942015-11-14T11:36:00.001-05:002015-11-14T11:36:19.124-05:00Racism from Missouri Student VP?Many people have posted about the Missouri Student VP who <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/10/missouri_student_vp_im_tired_of_hearing_people_use_first_amendment_rights_to_create_hostile_atmosphere.html" target="_blank">stated</a> that she is "tired of hearing that first amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment." See video below.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: right;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Kk__puruZDM/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Kk__puruZDM?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Now while most people are rightly pointing out the dangerous concept of villainizing first amendment freedoms, there was actually another quote of hers that stood out to me.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Too often we go time and time again without having professors, mental health staff, different staff members <b><i><u>who look like us</u></i></b> sitting on our campus. <i>(emphasis mine)</i></blockquote>
So my question is, how is that not racist?<br />
<br />
In a situation in which the entire conflict arose from supposed lack of racial sensitivity on the part of university administrators, is this kind of statement not incredibly hypocritical? This indicates that these students are not comfortable with faculty and staff of other races, but instead want ones that match their own race. I cannot think of another term for that mentality besides racism.<br />
<br />
For contrast, imagine George Wallace on the schoolhouse steps in 1963 saying something like:<br />
<i><br /></i>
"<i>We need our children to be able to go to school and have faculty, staff and administrators that look like them."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Such a statement would have, rightly, been condemned as one of the most racist sentiments by a public official since Reconstruction. Yet from a young woman representing an entire population of, supposedly, very racially sensitive young people, such a statement is (I guess) considered perfectly acceptable.<br />
<br />
I recognize that people may be more comfortable relating or interacting with people that have similar backgrounds and cultures. But I thought the whole point of diversity was to break such enclavism and promote greater racial understanding by encouraging inter-racial interactions. As such, her concept seems to fly in the face of the diversity movement itself.<br />
<br />
Now I'll admit I'm not fully knowledgeable on the ins-and-outs of racial matters. So I'm open to any explanations of how her sentiment is NOT basically racist and anti-diversity.Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-37268114029421976462015-09-10T10:53:00.000-04:002015-09-10T10:59:50.672-04:00A Christian's Argument for Separation of Church and State<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">When I was younger, I criticized the concept of the separation of church and state. I recited the same arguments most of you have heard - that it was about the <i>establishment </i>of religion, not simply the practice thereof in public; that how it's being used now isn't at all how it was intended when it was stated, etc.</span><br />
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
However, over the last several years I have watched the behavior in our country and I have now become and advocate for separation of church and state - as a Christian. It's created tension with family members when I have mentioned my changing views on the separation of church and state. I hope this article will help explain why I believe that we all, even faithful Christians, should urge that there be a complete separation between religion and the use of the state.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
My view is NOT because I believe that Christianity should be kept to oneself - quiet and personal - only discussed in private, etc. I have gone on mission trips, I have volunteered and helped people in my community, I have handed out pamphlets, all while openly talking about beliefs and relationship with God. The primary reason I now support separation of church and state is because whenever you use the state to advertise, celebrate, encourage, proselytize, or even merely recognize your religious views, it opens the doors for others - that may believe *drastically* differently than you - to do the same. When Christians argue that the first amendment protects freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion, they need to be aware that they are making the argument that other religions be allowed to place their own religious articles and practices into the public sphere.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So when people say we should not have taken prayer or the Bible out of public (state) schools, I warn that others would use the same concept to push their own religious views upon our children - and whereas Christians may not wish to indoctrinate children, others surely will. </div>
<div>
<br />
Now one may claim that the US is a predominantly Christian nation, so it should only be natural that Christian items, art, practices, etc be present in public society. However, Christians need to recognize the difference between the "public sphere" and the state. Have Christian images, art and posters in merely a publicly viewable area is different than having such items in the state courthouse. Having a group prayer in a parking lot is different than such praying taking place in a public (state) classroom. A group singing hymns as they walk house to house is different than singing them in the legislature. The "public sphere" is very much different than the state.</div>
</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br />
It needs to be remembered that the state is a tool of coercion and indoctrination. It uses force, violence, bribes and propaganda to create the behavior that it seeks. These are not the approaches that Christians take, so we should want to prohibit as many others from using the state to pursue their means as possible. Instead, when Christians advocate for increased presence of Christianity in state activities or locations, it only justifies those of very different views to attempt to assert the same.<br />
<br />
As an example, note the story of Satanists trying to make Florida public schools distribute a <a href="http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/31/satanic-coloring-book-submitted-fla-schools-distribution" target="_blank">Satanic children's coloring book</a>. This is <a href="http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Satanic-Temple-Approved-for-Florida-Capitol-Holiday-Display-284777371.html" target="_blank">not an isolated occurrence</a>. People have begun to use the state to assert their desired preferences for society for years. And it shows no signs of stopping. I believe it naive for Christians to think they will be the only ones to assert such religious presence.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
Legally, it is hypocritical of any Christian to attempt to get the Bible in public schools while denying the ability for Satanists to push for their own materials be made present. I say this not because I believe Christianity and Satanism are equivalent religio-philosophical beliefs. But in the eyes of the state, they both have equivalent claims to representation - purely from a legal perspective. Any Christian that wins the right to have daily group prayer in public (state) schools, or to have the Ten Commandments displayed in the public courthouse, has just created the precedent by which a Satanist may push to have a daily Satantic chant/ritual performed or to have Satanic statues placed in state buildings. Don't believe me? It is <a href="http://www.rt.com/usa/314775-arkansas-capitol-satanic-temple/" target="_blank">already happening</a>.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-31559764269497614012014-06-03T13:05:00.000-04:002015-10-12T22:28:40.516-04:00Climate Change ChecklistClimate change, or more specifically catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), seems to continue to pop its head up from time to time. Labels of "alarmists" and "deniers" are thrown around. Now I am a hardcore advocate of liberty and freedom. I will start any conversation that advocates the necessity of massive govt intervention with skepticism. This is not an anti-science position, this is a pro-freedom position. Now, I may be able to be convinced, but to do so there are a series of things that must be demonstrated as fact to my satisfaction in order for me to even consider supporting the types of "solutions" currently being proposed.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Process Improvements</u></b><br />
<br />
First, some changes need to be made regarding some process/method issues:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Full audit of surface temperature stations and remediation</li>
<ol>
<li>Inspections of over 80% of surface stations in the US <a href="http://www.surfacestations.org/" target="_blank">show</a> that over 70% have a likelihood of over 2ºC of error. That's in the US - how does the rest of the world look?</li>
<li>The adjustment process that supposedly "cleans" this data is not sufficient.</li>
<li>We spend billions of dollars a year on climate research. We can spend a couple million to refactor the vast majority of these stations.</li>
</ol>
<li>Both raw and adjusted temperature data (with adjustment process) must be available, transparent, and open.</li>
<ol>
<li>It invites skepticism when the advocates of global warming take raw numbers, adjust them in various ways, release only the end adjustments and leave it at that. </li>
</ol>
<li>Scientific studies, papers, models, etc that are published must be reproducible and methods must be made available to the public. </li>
<ol>
<li>If we are to have faith in the scientific process on a topic that many advocate for significant changes to our economic system, data, methods, algorithms, etc cannot continue to remain secret and proprietary.</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<div>
I'm not saying these affect every study or all data but they are prevalent enough to invite skepticism.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Facts Needed</u></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, some actual facts that I need demonstrated to me clearly:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>The Earth is continually getting warmer</li>
<ol>
<li>There is currently some question of this due to a plateau over the last 15-17 years.</li>
</ol>
<li>This warming is NOT simply the continuation of warming that has been happening for the last 400+ years.</li>
<li>The primary driver of the new warming is CO2</li>
<ol>
<li>Since all the proposed solutions are focused on CO2, then that HAS to be the predominant driver.</li>
</ol>
<li>The primary driver of the new warming is HUMAN ADDED CO2</li>
<ol>
<li>Since all the proposed solutions are focused on reducing HUMAN added CO2, then it must be shown that HUMAN caused CO2 is the predominant factor and driver of heat gain.</li>
<li>Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that man has NO impact on the climate. Clearly we do. The critical question is whether the anthropogenic CO2 is the PRIMARY driver of climate change.</li>
</ol>
<li>The result of continued warming will be significantly net negative</li>
<ol>
<li>Since most proposed solutions advocate significant economic costs, we must be positive that the result from warming will be not just somewhat inconvenient, but significantly bad. </li>
<li>While a lot of research has gone into the negative consequences of continued warming, I've not seen much of any research into what positives may take place. I am extremely hesitant to believe that there would not be new farming land or expanded migratory patterns in a slightly warmer climate - yet the amount of research into such positives and how they balance out against negatives seems limited.</li>
<li>In addition, a lot of the "negatives" seem ... a little strained. For every story of rising sea levels, there are others that simply allude to the greater proclivity of athlete's foot, jock itch and poison ivy. </li>
</ol>
<li>The planet and people cannot adapt to the changes </li>
<ol>
<li>I'm hesitant to support massive global economic intervention if it turns out that the changes will take place gradually over hundreds of years. Consider where we were 100 years ago with limited air conditioning, refrigeration, health care, construction practices, access to travel and communication, etc. Now if we are not going to see more than a 1-2ºC increase or most of the significant warming consequences for 100-200 years, then I'm not convinced that we cannot adapt to these changes as they come. </li>
</ol>
<li>A free market approach is not viable (i.e. Only potentially viable option is massive govt intervention)</li>
<ol>
<li>Before we start pushing for coercive govt intervention, I need to be convinced that the free market cannot satisfactorily adjust and mitigate the causes and problems from this process. As the potential consequences become apparent, the money to be made from mitigating them becomes significant.</li>
<li>And I don't accept the explanation that says "We need govt because ... externalities [or tragedy of the commons]." and simply stop. The concept and definition of externalities is insufficient to dismiss the viability of a non-coercive approach to mitigation.</li>
<li>What if someone finds a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere? What if someone genetically develops a tree that extracts/stores 20 times the standard amount of CO2? </li>
</ol>
<li>Massive govt intervention will stop warming</li>
<ol>
<li>It also needs to be demonstrated that the proposed solutions would actually work. Most of the studies I've seen on the various proposals show virtually no difference in temperature increase over the next 100 years. That's not acceptable.</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<div>
This last point is key. If the scientific community fixes the process issues I described above and the first 7 facts on this list are demonstrated to me, then I would be convinced that consequences will be dire unless govt intervenes. But if govt is going to intervene, then it better do whatever is necessary to actually effect change. I do not want a significant new tax or a complicated emission trading scheme that places a significant burden on the economy, yet only reduces the rate of warming by 3%. I don't want to advocate for the implementation of a system that will undoubtedly encourage corruption and manipulation if the end result in 100 years is warming only 0.1ºC less severe than had we done nothing. If we believe the consequences are going to be dire if we fail to act, then we need to act in a way that will effect significant change. If the only option is that we all go back to an agrarian society or most of the population will die, then I don't want that reality sugar coated. I don't want to be advocating for some approach that may significantly curb economic growth and prosperity for 100 years but won't actually mitigate the consequences of the warming.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Why skepticism?</u></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some people ask why we can be skeptical in the face of overwhelming evidence. Well firstly, as I said, I am a hardcore advocate for liberty, so I am going to be hesitant of any call for govt coercion to be expanded. So whereas those that believe that we need to limit growth or think consumerism is bad or that corporations just plain make too much money, who may already advocate for govt intervention for other causes, may need little convincing to get on board with an approach that even may only possibly avoid some calamitous outcome. I and those like me will likely need much, much more convincing because you are asking us to support a policy that directly contradicts our principles.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not going to go into the science debate between the standard CAGW theory and the contrarian views. It would create a huge back and forth dialogue that already exists out there. I will only point out two things: Firstly, there are scientists who perform research that either disproves, questions, or challenges the standard CAGW theory. Some of their research is significant, some of it less so. But the dismissal and "paid by the oil companies" type demonization discredits the opposition to these contrarians. And secondly, the predictive models on CAGW are consistently revealing themselves to be inaccurate - sometimes minorly, sometimes wildly. But the point that skeptics make is not that we know everything about the climate and have proven global warming wrong, but that humanity doesn't know as much about the climate as it thinks it does and the inaccurate models demonstrate that. So before we start putting draconian economic restrictions in place, perhaps we should take off the alarmist hat and gather more data.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
In addition, part of the reason that many people are skeptical of CAGW is that it seems very politically driven. Scientists and advocates have been calling on govt to massively intervene in the economy for 60 years for various reasons. Hole in the ozone, rainforests, global cooling, energy crisis, etc. Plus, there is a significant overlap between those that advocate economic intervention for the purpose of social justice or anti-capitalism/anti-consumerism and those that advocate economic intervention in the name of dealing with global warming. It often looks more like a power grab for those in power and a desire to restrain capitalism by others than it does an honest attempt to mitigate a potential problem. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also, massive amounts of money are being offered, and as such an entire market has been created, to study the negative consequences of global warming. So we are neither surprised nor convinced that virtually every study finds some bad thing that can be connected, however tangentially, to potentially higher temperatures. Plus, when scientists that question or challenge even some of the most extreme of the global warming claims are shunned, fired or <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html" target="_blank">forced to resign</a> from their positions, it creates the impression not of an open arena of debate, but of a closed, self-reinforcing echo chamber. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpTRJBCG5Gd-VEAVh819LbCFmOBB0g073K7i3iZnFDnBa6RFhZCVluQeFaw4n4pG-ozma6weHYT-6Ik4Ig0IoDCmn4ZYjuMgCIuzWvQH3mv40_pgf44XDnROUGC7T_i_Ncwzod/s1600/Capture.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpTRJBCG5Gd-VEAVh819LbCFmOBB0g073K7i3iZnFDnBa6RFhZCVluQeFaw4n4pG-ozma6weHYT-6Ik4Ig0IoDCmn4ZYjuMgCIuzWvQH3mv40_pgf44XDnROUGC7T_i_Ncwzod/s1600/Capture.PNG" /></a>Lastly, the advocacy to deal with CAGW often invites skepticism itself. It seems contradictory at times: We have extremely hot/dry summer - it's global warming. We have extremely cold/snowy winters - that's just episodic/localized weather. A study shows that global warming causes avalanches to increase in one place, but another study shows them to decrease in another. Renaming "global warming" to "climate change" seems strained so that it includes even events that don't have anything to do with warmer temperatures. Plus, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/30/olympics-tokyo-environment-idUSLU38985020090930" target="_blank">some of it</a> is ... well, "alarmist". Countdowns, timers, and counters like the one on the right all come across as over-the-top. I remember reading about how the Green Bay Packers football team, who has a notoriously cold/snowy field through the winter, were going to lose their home-field advantage if global warming continued, and so we must push Congress to act. When advocates stretch to find <a href="http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/177346/news/nation/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work" target="_blank">some connection</a> (or even just some <a href="http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/177346/news/nation/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work" target="_blank"><i>potential </i>connection</a>) to global warming, it starts to seem desperate and lacking credulity. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Summary and Final Question</u></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So when you put it altogether, you have many advocates of liberty whose default position is skepticism toward calls to support policies that directly contradicts their views. Then, when making the case, there are some scientific processes that have some issues and facts that aren't sufficiently demonstrated. There are also contrarian scientists that challenge or flat-out reject the standard CAGW and issues with models that have struggled with accuracy. Plus you have what seems like a lot of politically driven advocacy and money that may influence scientific work. In addition, you have what appears to be a closed-shop mentality that discourages dissent. And finally, you have a lot of advocacy that seems contradictory or overblown and based on extremely tenuous connections to changes in the weather. No single element may be sufficient to create the skepticism that many feel, but altogether these types of issues cause a lot of the science and advocacy to actually create more skepticism than they allay.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Finally, taking the opposing position, let me also ask you: What is the falsifiability of CAGW? If we see 20 years with continually escalating CO2 levels but no appreciable warming increases, would that, if not prove CAGW wrong, demonstrate that there's something wrong in the models, feedback weights, variables, calculations and in general our understanding of how climate works?</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's really where I feel most skeptics are: Something's not right here and I can't get behind draconian economic measures until it is.</div>
Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-5756075162393058722014-04-17T10:21:00.007-04:002022-11-18T20:05:58.068-05:00Taxation in Spoonerville[Scene: Man and Woman walking down the street together when they are met by a group of Thugs]<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: Excuse me sir, but it appears that you haven't paid your taxes.<br />
<br /><b>
Man</b>: I'm sorry, you're mistaken. I actually have paid my taxes.<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: [nodding to Thug #2] Our Treasurer here has no record of you having paid.<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #2</b>: [taking out a notebook and flipping through it] What's your name?<br />
<br /><b>
Man</b>: [cautiously laughing] Mark.<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #2</b>: [Before Mark has finished saying his name] Nope, no record.[quickly closes notebook]<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: So you see, you need to pay your taxes. Cash only I'm afraid.<br />
<br /><b>
Mark</b>: [irritated] Ok, that's enough. [moves to escort wife around Thugs]<br />
<br />
[Thug #3, a large man, steps in front of the couple, blocking their way]<br />
<br /><b>
Thug
#1</b>: I'm sorry, we cannot let you leave until you have paid your taxes.
That money is needed. Stan here [gestures at Thug #4] was recently laid
off and so needs his unemployment insurance. And Joe's [gestures at Thug
#5] kid needs some medicine for his ... condition. And with the recession
and everything, we must provide the local economy with much needed
stimulus [gestures toward a pub/bar behind them]. Plus, the services that we provide to residents such as yourselves do cost money.<br />
<br /><b>
Mark</b>: What services?<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: Well good sir, we have provided you with protection from criminals and, should you or your property catch fire, we would also help extinguish it. Plus, should you become hurt, we would provide you with medical aid and transportation to the nearest hospital. Oh, and Joe here is also in charge of garbage collection in our wonderful community. Since we have made these services available to you, it's only fair that you pay the tax.<br />
<br /><b>
Woman</b>: This is ridiculous! This isn't a tax, it's stealing!!<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: Not at all ma'am. We represent the government of Spoonerville.<br />
<br /><b>
Mark</b>: What? This is Chicago.<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: Well, I'll admit that our jurisdiction is a tiny little spit, but it's as legitimately elected as any other.<br />
<br /><b>Mark</b>: Hmpf. Hardly. I've never even heard of it, let alone voted for it.<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: Because you chose not to vote doesn't mean you're not subject to the laws of its government.<br />
But because we never wish to appear unfair, I move that we hold a special election. All in favor?<br />
<br />
All Thugs: Aye!<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: Opposed?<br />
<br />
[Shot of couple standing there confused]<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: The motion carries, a special election shall commence at once.<br />
<br /><b>Mark</b>: Now wait a minute...<br />
<br /><b>
Thug
#1</b>: [ignoring Mark] Now, those in favor of continuing the charter of
Spoonerville and the authority of its current government, say Aye.<br />
<br />
All Thugs: Aye!<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: Those opposed?<br />
<br /><b>
Mark</b>: [quickly catching on] Nay!<br />
<br /><b>
Woman</b>: No, not at all!!<br />
<br /><b>
Thug
#1</b>: [smiling] The aye's have it. The government of Spoonerville is once
again received it's authority through the consent of the people.<br />
<br /><b>
Woman</b>: But that's not fair! This is immoral!<br />
<br /><b>
Thug
#1</b>: [getting angry] DON'T YOU DARE question the sanctity of democracy
in our fair hamlet! In fairness to YOU, we held a special election - in
which you participated VOLUNTARILY I might add - and in which you lost
fair and square, 5 to 2. You can't turn around and complain about
fairness and morality just because you don't like the results and don't want to pay your fair
share!<br />
<br /><b>Mark</b>: [trying to calm things and find a way out] Ok, ok. Calm down. How much is the tax?<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: Well, we here in Spoonerville operate under a flat tax system. It'll be one hundred dollars.<br />
<br /><b>
Woman</b>: One hundred dollars!<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: [Smiling] Each.<br />
<br /><b>Mark</b>: And if we refuse.<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #3</b>: [Pulls out a gun] We have to deal with those that break the law.<br />
<br /><b>
Woman</b>: [starting to cry] Please ... Just let us go.<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: I'm sorry ma'am. We cannot simply ignore the law. There'd be anarchy.<br />
Besides,
if you don't like the laws of Spoonerville, you can always just leave
.... once you have paid your taxes and we say you may leave.<br />
<br /><b>Mark</b>: I don't have two hundred dollars with me.<br />
<br /><b>
Thug
#1</b>: Well, don't let it be said that we aren't flexible and willing to
adjust to the needs of taxpayers. To cover the difference, we will
graciously accept your watch and the jewelry that the young lady has on.
It's the least we can do.<br />
<br />
[With Thug #4 holding the gun, the couple start to hand over their jewelry]<br />
<br /><b>
Thug #1</b>: We appreciate you voluntarily paying your taxes.<br />
<br /><b>
Woman</b>: [incredulously] Voluntarily!?<br />
<br /><b>
Thug
#1</b>: Yes, voluntarily. Nobody has laid a hand on you physically or even
touched you. And we so appreciate your voluntary participation. It
avoids things becoming ... unfortunate.<br />
<br /><b>Mark</b>: Can we go now?<br />
<br /><b>
Thug
#1</b>: Absolutely. After all, this is a free country and you are free to
travel as you wish. We hope you have enjoyed your visit to Spoonerville.
Please come again.<br />
<br />
[Couple walks past the thugs and down the street swiftly]<br />
<br />
END<br />
<div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.quotemaster.org/images/a5/a5babbd6779e4c99bee6a7f1c74c16b4.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="385" data-original-width="800" height="308" src="https://www.quotemaster.org/images/a5/a5babbd6779e4c99bee6a7f1c74c16b4.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-47242063285750986902013-08-02T20:00:00.000-04:002014-04-17T16:03:23.818-04:00Eliminate "Gov-co"Why doesn't McDonald's charge $40 for a cheeseburger? After all it'd more profitable. Why does Wal-Mart or the Dollar General or 5andDimes or Goodwill even exist if name-brand stores can charge as high as "the wealthy" can pay? Most people seem to inherently understand the cause-and-effect of prices and competition in the retail market. But is that only because we see it everyday in our current lives?<br />
<br />
Consider an alternative history where during the Great Depression, advocates for the poor pressured the govt to pass a bill that created "Gov-co" retail stores. Gov-co stores are a nation-wide chain that provide cheap, generic food and goods for the poor at massively discounted prices (subsidized by taxes). Adjusted for inflation, they had prices like $1 for a new pair of tennis shoes or a button up shirt or $10 for new car tires or $20 for a new dishwasher because the rest of the cost of the goods is subsidized with taxes. At such discounted prices, no private company can compete and so not only have Gov-co stores became a national chain in virtually every town, but now the only alternative to those Gov-co stores are high-end, brand name stores selling high-end goods that cost top dollar and are only affordable to the middle class and above. At this point, very few really remember what it was like before Gov-co existed. People only recognize that only "the rich" can afford the brand name goods. But that only reinforces the need for a Gov-co to provide affordable goods for the poor.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, people have recognized that while the prices of Gov-co goods have remained stable (only raising with inflation), the quality of the goods has not. In addition, the quality and price of goods in the south is slightly different than the price and quality in the northeast as well as differences between urban, suburban and rural communities. Meanwhile, brand name goods continue to improve and increase in quality, though prices still cannot compete with Gov-co.<br />
<br />
People are decrying the further and further separation between what the poor can afford vs what the rich can afford. In fact, they point out that the rich are able to afford goods that make them more productive and able to make more money compared to the poor. Something must be done. Many advocate to increase tax spending on Gov-co products to help increase the quality while keeping the prices low. Others advocate setting mandated regulations - maybe even establishing a federal agency to oversee and inspect manufacturers to ensure sufficient and consistent quality products. Tweaks to the system are constantly introduced, customer feedback mechanisms, product quality control tests are standardized, but nothing appears to really be improving the situation. (Not to strain the analogy, but imagine if IN ADDITION to everything else, if you did choose to shop at Gov-co instead of the brand name stores, you could only shop at your local Gov-co nearest your home.)<br />
<br />
In such a situation, if someone advocated simply and completely eliminating Gov-co and allowing the free market to work in the retail space, I think few would dispute that there would be large numbers of people pointing at those high-end stores that cater to the more well-off and decry "What about the poor?" and lament that the poor would go hungry and naked because they couldn't afford to buy from those high-end stores. They'd claim that those private stores would just continue to charge high prices because people have to have food and clothing and stuff, right? The suggestion to completely eliminate Gov-co would be treated as nonsense - of being harsh, unsympathetic, and cruel. Accusations would abound that advocates are only concerned for the rich or are "in the pocket of big business".<br />
<br />
But in reality, we know that without a Gov-co, we actually have a vibrant retail market with an enormous segment dedicated specifically to low-income consumers. Stores like mentioned above: Wal-Mart, Dollar General, 5andDimes, Goodwill, etc. all directly aim to serve low-income consumers. Critics of eliminating Gov-co overlook that the poor are a market in and of themselves and that many companies would move into that market to serve them - providing cheaper goods for lower prices and that competition in that market would help improve quality while keeping prices low.<br />
<br />
Now this understanding that free market competition DOES encourage businesses to keep prices low and to increase the quality to attract customers is pretty common. We seem to inherently understand this about retail goods because we see it in action everyday. But many seem to have a problem with the idea that the same effects and incentives apply to education as to retail goods - I would argue, because we're only familiar with the current setup where only "the rich" can afford private schools.<br />
<br />
Those who suggest simply eliminating public education are dismissed as naive. They are told, often even by other advocates of limited-govt, that without public education, the poor wouldn't be able to afford to send their children to school, only continuing the generational poverty and further widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Perhaps another look at the nature of competition in a free market, only in a different market, may help them see that we <b>cannot</b> simply assume that the current structure of "only the rich can afford private education" would continue if we eliminated public education. In fact, based on looking at other markets like retail, there is significant evidence to conclude that education providers would likely actively focus and pursue low-income customers.<br />
<br />
Eliminating public education and allowing free market competition into the market for education couldn't be a whole lot worse than modern public education in many places, and it has the potential to be much, much better.Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-63849609838266970932013-06-19T13:14:00.005-04:002016-11-11T13:17:40.537-05:00Conversation with a Conservative: A compromise between a Conservative and a Libertarian on ImmigrationI had a conversation about immigration with a ardent die-hard conservative Republican recently. I feel the discussion was valuable. I got a better sense of their concerns on the issue and it's more than just "foreigners are bad" or "they took our jobs" or "terrorists!!" like many seem to caricature them to be and in addition to educating them on the libertarian perspective, got their thoughts on that perspective.<br />
<br />
For background, my <i>ideal</i> immigration policy is no policy - open borders, no govt required registration. Nobody is directly being harmed by people simply crossing a political line in the dirt. However, there are challenges to that view right now due to the policies of our current govt. For example, we currently face a threat from terrorism that our foreign policy exacerbates and invites. If you also have a non-interventionist foreign policy, I believe your risk from the threat of terrorism is significantly less and thus the need (or perceived need) to comb over every person that gets in an airplane or visits from another country is drastically reduced.<br />
<br />
At the same time, however, I am a strong pragmatist and feel that libertarians are not going to get anywhere close to a free society by just declaring the govt is immoral and demanding that everyone stop using it. So I am often more willing to compromise on issues than I feel many libertarians are.<br />
<br />
After a nearly 2 hour discussion with my conservative friend, we were able to reach an agreed-upon compromise for immigration reform:<br />
<br />
<b>Application process is a background check</b><br />
A single, simple form to apply for immigration. This form should only require the basic information to identify the person and will be used to perform a background check. The only purpose of the entire application process is to determine if you are a threat to others - i.e. if you have a violent criminal history, ties to terrorists, etc. If you do not, you're free to enter the country at your earliest convenience. No multi-month/year long process of various approvals for different types of immigration.<br />
<br />
This should change the legal immigration process from taking months or even years to a couple weeks. By making the process significantly more simple as well as shorter, I feel it will make legal immigration much more attractive compared to the risk and disadvantages of illegal immigration. In addition, with a drastically smaller number of illegal immigrants I think illegal immigration itself will be easier to deal with and certainly less of a problem.<br />
<br />
<b>A one-time fee</b><br />
Applying for legal immigration will require a flat fee that simply pays for the cost of performing the paperwork and background check - no more, no less.<br />
<br />
<b>No fines or back taxes</b><br />
There's little value beyond retribution in trying to excise fines or figure and collect back taxes on illegal immigrants already here. Besides, it would likely cost more in trying to audit and calculate those taxes on individuals who likely earned little income and have no record of it than the tax itself would amount to.<br />
<br />
<b>No English fluency/literacy requirements or tests</b><br />
This is simply unnecessary. Plus, allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows of illegality would likely lead to them being more likely to assimilate and learn the dominant national language.<br />
<br />
<b>No expiration on legal immigration</b><br />
There's nothing immoral and nobody is directly harmed by someone remaining here after govt has told them that they have stayed here long enough. If they are not a direct physical threat to anyone, there's no reason to put a time limit on their stay here.<br />
<br />
<b>Eliminate the dozen+ types of immigration statuses</b><br />
A single status, either legal or not. Whether you're coming here for a single business meeting, a week long trip, a summer tour, or to live here for years doesn't matter. As long as you are not a threat to anyone, govt shouldn't care.<br />
<br />
<b>Secure the border</b><br />
If you're going to have any immigration policy and any restrictions or controls on those who come in, it makes little sense if people can bypass and disregard the law and the process anyway. Frankly, however, I believe that the rest of the policies in this compromise would drastically reduce the demand for illegal immigration and thus reduce the need to aggressively patrol and defend the border as we do currently. I'm not sure how effective any attempt at securing the border would be or the costs involved, but I'm fine with enacting it as part of a bill.<br />
<br />
<b>No Federal Welfare</b><br />
One of the concerns of many conservatives are those unskilled immigrants that come here and directly latch onto the govt dole. As a compromise between no restrictions whatsoever and no welfare whatsoever, we agreed that legal immigrants should be able to take advantage of as many state and local govt assistance programs as they are eligible for, but they should not be eligible for federal govt welfare programs. This is a basic decentralization/"laboratories of democracy" position (I hold the same pragmatic position on all welfare programs). Get the national govt out of it and let the states and localities decide how and to what extent to provide assistance to people - in this case immigrants.<br />
<br />
<b>Eligible for citizenship after a period</b><br />
An immigrant can apply for naturalized citizenship after 10 years from the point they were approved for legal immigrant status. Time period is debatable, 10 years was just what we came up with, but some period of time from the point they received approval should be required before they can apply for full citizenship.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
I just barely touched on these items to convey the basic premise. But it seemed like a good compromise that deals with both the concerns of conservatives while making the system and process more simple and open.<br />
<br />
So what do you think? What does this overlook? What problems (besides political) might this create?Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-65101702644844598112012-08-28T14:32:00.000-04:002012-08-28T14:37:54.542-04:00What would your 5 Point Plan be?<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">We (appear to) sit at the precipice of a large economic chasm. Something needs to be done and that something cannot be tweaking at the margins.</span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Obama seems to suggest more of the same. But Mitt Romney has come out with his <a href="http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/15/romney-economy-plan/" target="_blank">5 point plan</a> (note his 5 points are buried in a single paragraph halfway down that article). I personally do not feel it focuses on the right things nor is bold enough.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">We all obviously have dozens of policy differences with our conservative/liberal counterparts and I recognize that many reject the entire edifice of govt and others advocate a complete govt takeover. But from a pragmatic viewpoint, if you were limited to just 5 specific issues to address with the knowledge that we may hit a huge economic crisis during the administration of the winner of this election, which 5 would you advocate to voters, which 5 do you believe are most important to accomplish to avoid an economic collapse and set things on track for improvement?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Here are my 5:</span></div>
<ul style="list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: outside; margin: 10px 2em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><strong>Monetary Policy</strong> - I believe we cannot continue with our current monetary policy and it must be decoupled from the current monopoly cartel. The most politically viable, in my opinion, as well as probably the smoothest transition would be to legalize competing currencies in concurrence with a full audit of the Federal Reserve. I only hope it would be sufficiently effective in time.</span></div>
</li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><strong>Foreign Non-Interventionism</strong> - I believe that we waste enormous resources, life, and liberty with our current approach. All while inciting the type of animosity that requires more "security", more resources, more loss of life and liberty to deal with. This cycle must stop.</span></div>
<ul style="list-style: disc outside; margin: 10px 2em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">While this may not have the direct economic impact of some of the other issues, I believe it is critically important to a free society.</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><strong>Corporate Protectionism</strong> - There is a great deal of agreement, on both sides of the aisle, that corporations do not need the level of govt protection, guarantees, promises and bailouts. Without govt to "socialize losses", corporations would have to be more conscious of risk.</span></div>
</li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><strong>Taxation</strong> - Taxation in general is not only overly complex, but, in my opinion, the worst part is how unseen it is. So many hidden "sin" taxes, excise taxes, fee taxes, etc. The income tax (as hidden as it is since it's taken out before you ever get the money) is still one of the most visible and certainly most talked about. Taxes need to be simplified and reduced.</span></div>
<ul style="list-style: disc outside; margin: 10px 2em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Govt spending is the other side of this coin, and while I obviously believe we need massive curtailments to spending, I think that putting a check against profligate abuse of our monetary policy may actually help in this regard (plus ending foreign interventionism and corporate protectionism will reduce spending a fair amount).</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><strong>Regulatory Reform</strong> - Regulations hamper virtually every industry now. What's worse is that the vast majority of these regulations are written by unelected bureaucrats. While I obviously think a free market (without govt bailouts/guarantees/protections) is the ideal, I think the most politically viable would be something like <a href="https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/write-the-laws/" target="_blank">Write the Bills Act</a>. Requiring all regulations be written and voted on by Congress itself would, I think, go a long way to reduce regulatory red tape (or at the very least, to put a speed limit on its growth).</span></div>
<ul style="list-style: disc outside; margin: 10px 2em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Whenever one considers reducing regulations, concerns about protecting consumers arises. So part of regulatory reform should also look at strengthening private property protections for individuals.</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Honorable Mentions:</span><br />
<ul style="list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: outside; margin: 10px 2em; padding: 0px;">
<ul style="list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: outside; margin: 10px 2em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Ending Drug War - While I feel this is important for a free society, it didn't make my list because I am not educated about the economic impact of doing this.</span></li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Ending Patents - This I cannot determine exactly how impactful this would be to the economy. While I think it is important, again, I cannot justify adding it to my top 5 without more knowledge of the impact.</span></li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Ending minimum wage - Encouraging additional hiring as well as providing additional work experience for many low skilled workers.</span></li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/" target="_blank">One Subject at a Time Act</a> - just necessary for a responsible representative govt.</span></li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Entitlement reform - Though this seems to be more of a mid/long term problem, I feel that putting this on a path to better sustainability could go a long way toward improving market confidence, currency stability and credit prospect.</span></li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">[others I'm sure I forgot]</span></li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">So what would your 5 be?</span></div>
</ul>
Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-78962898702982680082012-05-25T14:55:00.000-04:002012-05-25T14:55:02.051-04:00Obama the fiscal miser<br />
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This image has been circulating the net as "proof" of Obama not being a big spender. </span></div>
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: right;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/05/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/05/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Obama is downright stingy</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></span></div>
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Looking at <a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1903_2013USp_13s1li011mcn_F0t_US_Government_Spending_As_Percent_Of_GDP">actual spending numbers</a> (as % of GDP) seems to actually support their case:<br /><br />2009 - 42.63<br />2010 - 40.75<br />2011 - 40.09<br />2012 - 40.27 (projected)<br />2013 - 39.22 (projected)<br /><br />Even looks like a downward trend until you take them in greater context:<br /><br />2004 - 34.86<br />2005 - 34.83 (-0.03)<br />2006 - 35.12 (+0.29)<br />2007 - 35.09 (-0.03)<br />2008 - 37.14 (+<b><u>2.05</u></b>)<br />2009 - 42.63 (+<b><u>5.49</u></b>)<br />2010 - 40.75 (-1.88)<br />2011 - 40.09 (-0.66)<br />2012 - 40.27 (+0.18) (projected)<br />2013 - 39.22 (-1.05) (projected)<br /><br />When you look at it in <a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2013USp_13s1li011mcn_F0t_US_Government_Spending_As_Percent_Of_GDP">graph form</a> you can see the misleading nature of this. Yes, they skyrocketed spending in 2008-2009 (Bush and Obama were both involved in that). But then, Obama basically maintains that high level of spending. Add in a slight reduction from the 2009 peak and, statistically, it appears that Obama is downright stingy.<br /><br />It's interesting that when global warming skeptics were pointing at the % temp change over the last decade to 15 years by starting with 1998, the warming advocates were chastising them for "playing statistics" because 1998 was a spiked record high year. Now that people do basically the same thing with spending growth by starting with that spiked record year of 2009, it's lauded as "proof" of Obama being a responsible steward of taxpayer money.<br /><br />Even if you look at <a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2013USb_13s1li011mcn_F0t_US_Government_Spending">absolute spending</a> you can see where the spike of 2008-2009 and then the slight reduction after that would statistically make the spending growth seem small even though spending itself matches the 2000-2007 trend almost perfectly. </span></div>
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">BONUS: An even <a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1950_2013USb_13s1li011mcn_F0t_US_Government_Spending">scarier trendline</a>. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-69750247615532972522012-04-12T16:29:00.000-04:002012-04-12T16:29:39.283-04:00Ron Paul Next Steps<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">With Santorum having dropped out, many are concluding that Romney has virtually won the nomination. Ron Paul, however, is not dropping out and will continue to try to push his delegate strategy. However, in my opinion, with the vacuum of good news about the primary, </span><span style="background-color: white;">I'd like to see Paul do something bold to get the attention of people and let them know that not only is this thing not over, but he is a viable (and better) alternative to Romney.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"></span></span></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">One idea that I think could have a significant impact would be for him to release a few very topical speeches. These don't have to be in public (though they could be), but if he wants, he could do so from his office ala Tom Woods style. But I'd like to see him give written/prepared speeches, not just off the cuff talking, about the following topics:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><u><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Foreign Policy/National Security</span></b></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">For too long I believe Republicans have misunderstood Ron Paul's foreign policy/national security positions. This speech is well overdue, but I would like him to give a good 30-45 min speech where he lays out:</span></span></div>
<ol style="list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: outside; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">the history of various US entanglements in the middle east (1953 Iran -> 1979 hostages; Reagan placing troops in Lebanon -> Beirut barracks bombing; funding/supplying Iraq against Iran -> Iraq invasion of Kuwait/Saddam using chemical weapons against Kurds; funding/supplying Afghanistan </span>mujahideen against USSR -> bin Laden/al Qaeda;<span style="background-color: white;"> standing military troops in Saudi Arabia and troops, sanctions, and occupation in Iraq after first gulf war -> bin Laden's fatwah/9-11) and how they CREATED much of the terrorist threat we now face. Referencing quotes from bin Laden and other terrorists to reinforce that it was about our presence and interventions.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">the research of <a class=" imgScanned" href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295953-4" rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none;">Dr. Robert Pape</a> about the demographics and rationale for suicide terrorism.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">the fiscal situation and how we simply cannot, regardless of how it may make many feel safer, continue to police the world and intervene in every dangerous situation.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">the Constitutional approach and how he would execute a war should it somehow happen.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">how important Dr. Paul views the safety of the country and state, clearly, how he would handle enemies and protect the country from threats and attacks that may arise.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">how Ron Paul has the overwhelming support of the military, despite his clearly stated views that many Republicans seem to think are anti-military.</span></span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: inherit;">Ron Paul better candidate than Romney to oust Obama</span></u></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The conventional wisdom is that Romney is the best to take on Obama and that Ron Paul simply "cannot win". However, I believe that Ron Paul should challenge that notion with a speech where he talks about various polls that show that he has enormous support from independents and the young. Show how the desire for the true liberty he espouses exists across the political spectrum and how he gets thousands to show up for his speeches from, for example, both in UC Berkeley as well as at Texas A&M. Show that he actually matches up head-to-head against Obama very well - and actually steals many of Obama's disillusioned voters (though that would not support Romney). Show that Romney struggles against Obama when you consider 3rd party candidates (like the Libertarian Party) that would likely support Ron Paul. Show how Ron Paul has the overwhelming support of our military.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Demonstrating that Ron Paul is not only viable, but actually the best option against Obama would be significant.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><u><span style="font-family: inherit;">Philosophy vs Practicality</span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This speech could come later, perhaps after the convention. I believe that Ron Paul creates a lot of confusion for himself because he's one of the few politicians with philosophical principles behind his policy views and is willing to voice them. So people get confused between his policy recommendations and his philosophical stances. So I think it would be helpful for him to give a speech where he clarifies, for example, that while he is philosophically opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, he wouldn't just end it overnight. Instead he would simply advocate to legalize competition in currency. Similarly with other situations he may have philosophical views against LOTS of federal interventions, but he's not going to push to simply end them overnight. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">For those fearing that he would let corporations simply do whatever they want because he wants to reduce a lot of the regulations, clarify that the FIRST thing to do is to let these corporations know that there will be no more bailouts, no more govt assistance, no more subsidies, no more protectionism, no more tax loopholes. Corporations aren't going to simply get a free ride under a Paul presidency, but in fact, be sink or swim on their own. Once they realize they must deal with risk without govt to bail them out, they may behave in a more risk-averse manner. <i>Then </i>you can begin to remove regulations that were intended to protect the taxpayers from having to bail them out.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In addition, he would push to strengthen the position of the individual against corporations by strengthening private property rights and make it more feasible for an individual property owner to stop a company that is, for example, polluting that individual's property.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: inherit;">Utilizing his supporters</span></u></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">What could be great about these videos is that he can do them with just him speaking and publish them. Then his supporters can take those speeches, slice/splice and edit them to include images/photographs, charts, graphs, clips from documentaries, etc. Kind of cloudsource the videography and you can end up with various videos that sell the same message like the "What if..." videos. Plus, having videos like this out there would give his supporters something to show people that claim he would make us less safe.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I think releasing a few of these type of videos would be a great new weapon to use to counter the standard attacks and criticisms that people who (sometimes intentionally) misunderstand his positions have against him and something new to win over those anti-Romney Republicans</span><span style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">.</span></span></div>Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-7906106162912918392012-02-07T23:14:00.001-05:002012-02-08T11:19:23.829-05:00Why I don't think Gingrich is a true, limited govt conservative<div>
Newt Gingrich is toward the top of the pack again. I believe this is because Romney is really looking too moderate for many conservatives to swallow, so they are looking for someone that is a true conservative. They are willing to overlook his past indiscretions because they feel that Newt is not only a real conservative, but that his debating skills make him a perfect match against Obama (the real goal of many Republicans: Anyone, anything but Obama).<br />
<br />
The problem is that his record and many of his statements in the past don't reflect a true, limited govt conservative. Though I don't blame conservatives for being misled, Gingrich knows exactly what conservatism is and how to sell it. So with this upswing in support for Newt, I wanted to put together my thoughts on him at the moment and why I think conservatives need to be real careful about what they think they will get in Newt.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=12486658" name="more"></a><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Newt Gingrich is a very well educated man. He has an extensive knowledge of history and uses (and sometimes abuses) that history to make compelling points for conservatism. However, is he a true conservative? The core philosophy of conservatism is limited govt that gets out of the way and allows the free market to work. Federalism, allowing the individual states to deal with the vast majority of problems, is a primary tenant of conservatism - so much so that it is enshrined in the Constitution in the 9th and 10th amendments.<br />
<br />
So when Gingrich proposes methods to deal with problems, most domestic solutions should involve placing authority and autonomy in the hands of the states to deal with these problems right? After all, that's what he did with welfare in the 90's wasn't it?<br />
<br />
Yet there are a lot of people that do not support Gingrich. Many conservative groups <a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14039" target="_blank">claim</a> he isn't truly conservative. Even famous conservatives like Glenn Beck <a href="http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/24/what-is-the-real-enemy-conservatives-need-to-fight-against-in-the-next-election/" target="_blank">recognize</a> that Newt Gingrich has some very progressive/liberal views and philosophy to him.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">“My problem with Newt Gingrich is he is a progressive, and I will say exactly the same thing that I say about Barack Obama. Barack Obama is a liar. And I believe Newt Gingrich is a liar,” Glenn said.</span></blockquote>
So what is it that makes people think that Gingrich could be a wolf in sheep's clothing?<br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Philosophy</span></u></b><br />
Firstly, before getting into specific policy, what is Newt's philosophy? Can we get an idea of that? Well, based on many of the things he says about limited govt and the free market, one might think that he's a standard, true conservative. However, let's look at some of the things that Newt has said that seem to expose a different view of society.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/MVQo2RW1yoA?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe>Many people have heard Glenn Beck go on about how bad Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century were. One whom he most criticizes is President <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson" target="_blank">Woodrow Wilson</a>. Wilson was an ardent Progressive and imperialist.
<br />
Domestically, his views were very much based on the idea that govt should be involved in trying to shape society into an ideal vision. He profoundly changed the nature of our govt from having a balanced Executive and Legislative branches to having a significantly dominant Executive branch. He pushed through the Constitutional amendment for a national income tax. He helped create the Federal Reserve under the auspice that it would help "stabilize" the economy. He pushed for significantly expanded role of govt in controlling, regulating and restricting business. His primary economic advisor and Supreme Court appointee, Louis D. Brandeis, was strongly anti-business. Internationally, while he paid lip service to national self-determination in his campaign, his actions were very imperialistic and reflected nation-building. He believed that the US was special and that we have a responsibility to try to shape other countries, sometimes through force if necessary, to match our values. With the worthy notion of democracy as his goal, he intervened and, in several instances, occupied other nations.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/T76lD4zV1bo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe>Basically, President Wilson should be one of the least favorite Presidents in history to conservatives. So what does Gingrich think of him? Watch the video.<br />
Gingrich calls himself a Wilsonian?! As far as understanding his political philosophy, that should give one a great deal of concern about his true conservatism.<br />
<br />
Notice also that he praises the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms" target="_blank">Four Freedoms</a>. Those were conveyed by Franklin Roosevelt - the authoritarian Democrat President whose policies and thug-like tactics helped draw out the Great Depression for over a decade - that represent what he felt were the essential freedoms which every human should have. The Four Freedoms are:<br />
<ol>
<li>Freedom of speech</li>
<li>Freedom of religion</li>
<li>Freedom from want</li>
<li>Freedom from fear</li>
</ol>
Note the difference in the preposition there ('of' and 'from'). These mark the difference between <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights" target="_blank">negative and positive rights</a>. A negative right is a protection against the actions of others to hinder you from something - that is, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder. A positive right is a guarantee of something that must be provided by someone else - that is, a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder. The US Constitution is full of negative rights which prohibit the govt from infringing upon. Meanwhile, many liberals/democrats advocate positive rights: you have a <i>right</i> to an education, a <i>right</i> to health insurance, a <i>right</i> to own a home/car, many are even pushing internet access as a <i>right</i>. Note that these positive rights require, should you not be able to attain them yourself, that someone else provide you with these things.<br />
<br />
The last two freedoms on that list are positive rights. Rights, usually, to be provided by govt. Conservatives should know the dangers of positive rights and especially with the notion that having <i>things</i> constitutes a "freedom". Yet here is Gingrich heralding these freedoms as being the goal of good govt. Strike two in understanding his political philosophy.<br />
<br />
What about President Franklin Roosevelt? Anyone who has studied the <a href="http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258" target="_blank">Great Depression and the New Deal</a> understand that FDR is pretty much as far on the opposite end of the political spectrum from a true conservative as one can get without entering Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union. So it would surprise many to hear Gingrich's fondness for FDR:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Steve Gunderson today gave me a copy of the "Portable Abraham Lincoln." He suggested there is much for me to learn about our party, <b>but I would also say that it does not hurt to have a copy of the portable F.D.R.</b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That I think the greatest Democratic President of the 20th century, <b>and in my judgement the greatest President of the 20th century</b>, said it right in March 4th, 1933 ... "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If you truly believe in representative self-government, you can never study Franklin Delano Roosevelt too much. <b>He did bring us out of the Depression.</b> He did lead the Allied movement in World War II. In many ways he created the modern world. He was clearly, I think, as a political leader <b>the greatest figure of the twentieth century</b>. And I think his concept that we have nothing to fear but fear itself, that we'll take an experiment, and if it fails, we'll do another one - and if you go back and read the New Deal, they tried again and again. They didn't always get it right, and we would have voted against much of it, <b>but the truth is, we would have voted for much of it.</b></blockquote>
This is almost disqualifying in and of itself. For me, this is strike three. Is there more?<br />
<br />
Other progressive politicians from the late 19th and early 20th centuries include President <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt" target="_blank">Theodore Roosevelt</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette,_Sr." target="_blank">Robert La Follette</a>. These two were both vocal and publicly declared "Progressives". They were also both ardent reformers who both sought to use govt as a means to pursue "equality". They, like many liberals today, generally saw big corporations as inherently bad and used govt to restrict and/or break them up. They supported the creation of regulatory agencies to police businesses and sided with unions over employers. Conservatives should be disturbed by most of their policies. So what does Gingrich think of them? Watch the video.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qi314LJ6uwM?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Perhaps he was just talking about reform <i>against corruption</i>. But La Follette and Roosevelt aren't exactly squeaky clean. To give you an idea of Roosevelt's approach, perhaps his best known line was "Speak softly and carry <i>a big stick</i>". Meanwhile La Follette, as Governor of Wisconsin, who had the authority to nominate a state Senator (which at that time were basically approved by the state legislature as Supreme Court judges are today), nominated himself, left the Senate seat vacant until he had basically finished his term as Governor, then resigned the Governorship and assumed the position as US Senator. This is starting to be more than just a few isolated anomalies, moments where he simply misspoke, or quotes taken out of context. This is looking like a pattern.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/hJQsLFhuyOY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe>In 1964, the Republican party was in a similar situation to today. The party was somewhat split between a conservative faction and a moderate/liberal faction. When the Republican primaries came, the conservatives were represented by Barry Goldwater, the moderate-liberals were represented by Nelson Rockefeller. A conservative Constitutionalist should have supported Barry Goldwater. But who did Gingrich support? Watch the video.<br />
Gingrich was supporting the Romney of 45 years ago.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Alvin Tofller is a futurist. Big ideas about the future. He wrote a book called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Third-Wave-Alvin-Toffler/dp/0553246984" target="_blank">The Third Wave</a> that describes the shift of the United States into an information society. While that may seem nonpolitical, his view of what that future will look like is very non-conservative. He believes that the US Constitution and the idea of national sovereignty must be done away with in order for a global society to emerge. Toffler has said:<br />
The system of government you fashioned, including the principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented---a democracy for the 21st century. ... [The Constitution has] served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/FlFxh2JychU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Gingrich has not only mentioned Toffler multiple times in multiple settings, has not only put The Third Wave on the Republicans "Required Reading" list, has not only been life long friends of the Tofflers, but actually <b>wrote the forward</b> and helped promote Toffler's book. And lest you think that perhaps there are merely friends but that they differ significantly on political philosophy, Gingrich has said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution… either we are going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we are going to have to rethink our process of making decisions</blockquote>
Another conservative complaint about Gingrich is that he was a paid lobbyist for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac" target="_blank">Freddie Mac</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae" target="_blank">Fannie Mae</a>; the two <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-sponsored_enterprise" target="_blank">Govt Sponsored Enterprises</a> (GSE) that played a major role in the housing bubble that led to the 2008 economic crisis. GSEs are a public/private chimera. They are part govt, part corporation. One might think they are a great thing: a profit motive that encourages thrift, efficiency, and speed while still retaining the transparency and responsibility of govt. But unfortunately the reverse is true: corporate greed with the lack of responsibility and accountability of govt. When one looks at some of the things he said about these entities even up into 2008 just before things went bad, he again doesn't sound very conservative. The following quotes came from an interview in 2008:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development,</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And then there are areas in which a public purpose would be best achieved by using market-based models. I think GSEs provide one of those models. <b>I like the GSE model</b> because<b> </b>it provides a more efficient, market-based alternative to taxpayer-funded government programs. <b>It marries private enterprise to a public purpose</b>. We obviously don't want to use GSEs for everything, but<b> there are times when private enterprise alone is not sufficient to achieve <u>a public purpose</u></b>.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We should be looking at whether and <b>how the GSE model could help us address the problem of financing health care</b>. I think a GSE for space exploration ought to be seriously considered – <b>I'm convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today.</b> </blockquote>
This type of talk could have easily (and frequently has) come out of the mouth of a Democrat. It pays lip service to the free market/private sector, but also touts that govt should be involved in some (undefined) things. As conservatives know, most of the time the degree of that govt involvement goes a lot further than is implied initially. In that same interview, he also said, "But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism." We've already talked about Teddy Roosevelt, but Alexander Hamilton was one of the first progressives (or at the very least, one of the first big govt conservatives). Advocating for a strong central govt, he fought against the limited govt Antifederalists on issues like national debt, a central bank, and a strong national govt to "help" business and industry grow.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Gingrich has too many blatant and inexcusable quotes that belie a significant progressive, big govt philosophy behind his politics. It almost makes one wonder if he isn't using the rhetoric of conservatism to get elected while truly being a progressive liberal.
One is an exception, two is an anomaly, three is a trend, 6 or 7 (I've lost count and haven't mentioned everything) goes beyond a mere pattern and reflects the reality of his philosophy.<br />
<br />
<u><b><span style="font-size: large;">Actions</span></b></u><br />
But what about his deeds? Surely his actions while Speaker and before make up for a somewhat progressive, big govt philosophy. Let's take a look at just a few of them.<br />
<br />
<i>Balanced Budgets</i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
This one bothers me because I researched it back when Clinton democrats were taking credit for balanced budgets in the late 90s. Now, in debates, interviews and speeches, Newt is the one proclaiming that <b>he</b> pushed through <b><u>4 consecutive balanced budgets</u></b> as Speaker. Well, let's look at that. He was Speaker from Jan '95 - Jan '99. So his budgets would have been 1996-1999. What do the facts say? If you look at the <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf" target="_blank">Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) data</a>, it would seem to show a half truth: 2 of the 4 years appear to be balanced.<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNA9pg-qrAG0273IpL1UK_YwcxGmejBMAOzGlngdKl41PQMauybh69JQh9HWJwTpDsDe5xHhZ9dGawSs6yEDTGXkP9uWUMAd11dxzwSwgDS8i7t1xntbIIJ3s0VEzYFakb_Ouf/s1600/Capture.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="89" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNA9pg-qrAG0273IpL1UK_YwcxGmejBMAOzGlngdKl41PQMauybh69JQh9HWJwTpDsDe5xHhZ9dGawSs6yEDTGXkP9uWUMAd11dxzwSwgDS8i7t1xntbIIJ3s0VEzYFakb_Ouf/s320/Capture.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Click on image to view larger</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Still, 2 years is pretty good right? We hadn't had a balanced budget for decades prior to that. So this should still be a positive for Gingrich right?<br />
<br />
Well, maybe.<br />
<br />
Govt does a great deal to try to fake and obfuscate reality. Politicians will try all sorts of contortions to get you to believe they did X when they really did Y. The real problem with unbalanced budget - that is deficits - is the accumulated debt it creates. So what does the debt tell us? Looking at the <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm" target="_blank">Treasury dept data</a>, something confusing appears.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmuFQh6w5-_90V56DxLYEP_o6d-SYGUunlHaQTSK2OArxPk1M9ifH9OQNV9bJhaQDo6o_eGu689ogtDkPXZfcB0xC2o3FzsZp_1CFN8SNumGJNJt3a1n1GShW3oPrJ-sGUU_-W/s1600/Capture.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="99" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmuFQh6w5-_90V56DxLYEP_o6d-SYGUunlHaQTSK2OArxPk1M9ifH9OQNV9bJhaQDo6o_eGu689ogtDkPXZfcB0xC2o3FzsZp_1CFN8SNumGJNJt3a1n1GShW3oPrJ-sGUU_-W/s320/Capture.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Click on image to view larger</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
For <b>all 4</b> budgetary years he lead, the debt <b>grew!</b> Confused? Don't be. Look in that first chart. See how it shows debt <i>held by the public</i> and that it went down? Notice that's a different number than we see in the Treasury data? That's because the CBO data isn't <a href="http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16" target="_blank">the whole story</a>. The truth is, govt debt is made up of several parts. Debt held by the public is just one part. Another part is intragovernmental debt (debt that one part of govt owes to another part of govt). If we look at that, we see that it grew significantly during those 4 years. So basically, govt added debt from one account, to pay down another account and claim they had a surplus. It's like paying off one credit card with another credit card and claiming you reduced your debt.<br />
<br />
Beyond that, let's keep in mind that the mid 1990s were an explosive time for the economy. Technology and computers were drastically expanding into professional and consumer markets. We were in the heyday of the dotCom bubble. Newt himself talks about how the CBO projected how the budget couldn't be balanced in 10 years and the Republicans were uncertain if they could do so in 7 years. So how did it supposedly happen in 2 years? Explosive economic growth that led to higher than anticipated revenue for the govt. Look at that first CBO data again. Notice that not one budget got smaller? Gingrich, who talks about cutting spending in every speech, interview and debate, somehow convinced conservatives that through strength and determination (and implicitly through making tough budget cut decisions), he balanced the budget, not once, not twice, but 4 consecutive times. But the fact is, <b>every single budget that the Gingrich house passed was larger than the last.</b> In fact, in 2000, looking back at the effectiveness of the Contract with America, Forbes magazine said, "The combined budgets of the 95 major programs that Newt’s Contract with America promised to eliminate, have <b>increased </b>by 13%... over the years. [Since then] the Republican controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton’s requests."<br />
<br />
The truth is, the economy exploded due to technology commoditization that had little to do with Gingrich. The increased revenue allowed the Republicans the luxury of being able to avoid making any tough budget cut choices and still claim they had balanced the budget. And it makes me uncertain about how he would handle a situation like today where tough decisions do need to be made, because the economy is certainly not exploding now. To me, Newt's claim of any balanced budgets, let alone 4 consecutive, is, disingenuous and misleading at best, and does very little to reassure me of his conservative pedigree - in fact, it makes me feel he's just another politician willing to say anything, even lie, to get elected.<br />
<br />
<i>Other Actions</i><br />
In the interest of time and patience, I'm going to just fly threw many of these.<br />
<br />
Part of Ronald Reagan's campaign in 1979 was to end the recently created Department of Education. This unconstitutional incursion of the federal govt into education was a significant assumption of power by the federal govt. This creation of Jimmy Carter has been the constant target of conservatives and its failures and waste has been well documented. Nevertheless, Gingrich <a href="http://www.unelected.org/socialist-of-the-week-newt-gingrich" target="_blank">voted with President Carter </a> (there are several other nuggets about Newt in that link) in 1979 for the establishment of the Federal Department of Education.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine" target="_blank">Fairness Doctrine</a> was an FCC policy that required that broadcasters to present "balanced" views of "controversial" topics. I quote those words because what constituted "balanced" and "controversial" were significantly vague and up to interpretation - by the FCC. Most broadcasters simply avoided controversial topics altogether rather than face the risk of being accused of not being "balanced". Thus the rule had a smothering effect on speech and the exchange of ideas and contradictory or controversial viewpoints. However, in 1987, the FCC officially eliminated the rule. Reacting to this, Congress, led by Democrats in the House tried to reinstitute the rule. Surprisingly, numerous Republicans not only voted for the bill, but cosponsored it. Among those Republicans that <a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/29/newt-gingrich-co-sponsored-the-1987-pro-fairness-doctrine-bill/" target="_blank">supported reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine</a> was Newt Gingrich.<br />
<br />
In 1994 Gingrich led the Republicans to their first majority in Congress in 40 years. He accomplished this through a strong advocacy for limited govt conservatism. However, before he even took the gavel as Speaker, Gingrich worked with President Clinton to push (through a lame duck Congress with a Democrat majority) the creation of the World Trade Organization. The WTO defines the rules and regulations of international trade and while conservatives feel it assumes too much of what should be US sovereignty, it has <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/Corp/abolishwto.cfm" target="_blank">critics</a> that transcend just conservatives. It is primarily encouraged by those who advocate globalization and centralized regulation/control. If you think the WTO is not a significant thing, consider what Gingrich himself said during the debates about it in 1994:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I agree ... this is very close to Maastrict [the European Union treaty by which the EU member nations have surrendered considerable sovereignty], and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.</blockquote>
The fact that Gingrich, after just having won majority by advocating strong conservatism, turned around and voted for this reduction of national sovereignty is telling.<br />
<br />
The death penalty is a controversial issue. Even Republicans, typically strict in their application of justice, are split on whether the death penalty moral, whether it is a good method to discourage crime, and whether the application of the penalty is just. Republicans, largely composed of Christians, typically hold life to be sacred and even the sinner, the thief and the murderer as worthy of God's forgiveness. Nevertheless, Gingrich advocated <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/27/us/gingrich-suggests-tough-drug-measure.html" target="_blank">the death penalty</a> for mere possession of more than 2oz of marijuana when entering the country as a federal crime. While this position may not be non-conservative persay, it does reflect a greater vision of the power of the federal govt.<br />
<br />
I've talked about how Gingrich comes across as having the same philosophical view of the role of govt as liberals: a tool to shape society as they see fit. The difference between liberal progressives and Gingrich is not that they view the role of govt differently, but simply that their vision for what society should look like and what means govt uses to get there, is different. Another huge complaint of conservatives about Obama was his stimulus bill he passed when he first came into office. As the stimulus was passed, Gingrich came out and railed against it, but NOT because he was philosophically opposed to the idea of the stimulus, but because he didn't like where Obama had allocated the money. In this video, Gingrich praises Obama for his<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/MJaImGbEclI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Health care spending by the govt, and the overall costs of health care in the United States has become a major issue in the last several years. During the push to pass a health care reform bill later known as Obamacare, the ire of conservatives was raised by the various unconstitutional intrusions into individual or states rights. Conservatives rightfully saw that part of the increased cost of health care was due to govt getting involved in medicine and health insurance in the decades prior. Gingrich has been at the forefront of much in the way of health care reform. In fact, he founded the Center for Health <b>Transformation</b> (note again the use of "Transformation"). His views and approaches to problems like heath care is not based in traditional or conservative free market principles; it's not about simply getting govt out of the way of the market, but is instead about systemic <i>transformation</i> of the market into something he approves of.
<br />
<br />
One of the major complaints of conservatives about Obamacare was the prospect of the individual mandate. This mandate was a requirement that all individuals must purchase health insurance. True conservatives saw this as a massive incursion into freedom on the part of the federal govt that runs counter to the restrictions of the Constitution. Gingrich, however, sees this as necessary and proper for govt to do and he's said so on multiple occasions.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/QSXJLZx5mpY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/rcSjLvWLcxE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/nVMMAsbPubY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
And there are dozens of more quotes (see '<a href="http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/01/newt-if-you-dont-know-me-by-now-mo-will.html" target="_blank">Gingrich in his own words</a>') of him supporting an individual mandate. If Gingrich supports the individual mandate, why exactly does he want to repeal Obamacare? And what exactly does he want to replace it with? More generally, what does it say about Gingrich's view of the role and limits of the federal govt if he thinks that an individual mandate was not only a good idea, but Constitutionally sound?<br />
<br />
Most are already familiar with Gingrich's work regarding global warming. His <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154" target="_blank">commercial with Nancy Pelosi</a> earned him lots of criticism. Though he regretted it and said it was the dumbest mistake he's ever made, I've never heard whether he considered it a mistake because he doesn't really agree with the policies or because it was a dumb political move? It seems more likely to be the latter since he agrees with the consensus science and at one point <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/07/newt-gingrich/gingrich-claims-he-never-favored-cap-and-trade/" target="_blank">supported a version of cap and trade</a>. He now supports a more free market approach to dealing with global warming, but he actually challenged <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7844874520095835803" target="_blank">John Kerry to a debate about global warming</a>. Conservatives were salivating at the prospect of having the intelligent and sharp Gingrich against the stumbling Kerry. Gingrich then shocked conservatives by, at the very beginning of the debate, conceding the point about global warming, the human cause, the disaster to come, and said he only wanted to debate possible ways to deal with it.<br />
<br />
In 2008, the economic crisis hit. Politicians were scared to death that some of the policies they supported and advocated may have helped cause the problem. They were running around trying to figure out who else they could blame and how they could stop the bleeding. The consensus began to fall on TARP. This bailout of banks and other financial entities that had bad mortgages, debt and other securities was deemed "necessary" to keep the system, if not the entire global economy, from complete collapse. Only those true conservatives that recognize the power of the free market and understand that facing the consequences of bad decisions is a necessary part of mitigating risk in an economy, stood opposed to it. Even our "conservative" President George W. Bush fell for it and after he supported it, claimed, "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." Was Gingrich one of those few believers in the free market? No, in 2008, he said, "I said this morning if I had been in the Congress, I would have hated it, it makes me very angry, but I would have voted yes."<br />
<br />
I'm losing motivation to continue to dredge through the list of items on Gingrich. I haven't even mentioned his longstanding membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, his support of liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava over the truly conservative Doug Hoffman, quotes like "The American challenge in leading the world is <b>compounded by our Constitution</b>…Either we are going to have to re-think our Constitution or we are going to have to re‑think our process of making decisions.” There are literally dozens of statements, positions, votes, and memberships that Gingrich has undertaken that demonstrate a very un-conservative philosophy and approach to him.<br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">What others have said</span></u></b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/0qDjeNHoe3Y?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
The conservative group The John Birch Society put together this <b>half hour long </b>video about Newt Gingrich and just how far removed from traditional conservatism - conservatism of small, limited govt - he is.<br />
<br />
Murray Rothbard was a libertarian economist/historian/writer who pointed out whenever politicians and govt were in contradiction with freedom. While a libertarian and a conservative will not always agree on the proper role of govt, Rothbard <a href="http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard280.html" target="_blank">wrote a scathing article</a> about Gingrich, castigating him for many of his actions that were most definitely not advocating limited govt.
<br />
<br />
The Phony Right Wing (<a href="http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/the-phony-right-wing-who-is-selling-us-down-the-river-part-1-newt-gingrich/" target="_blank">Part 1</a>, <a href="http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/the-phony-right-wing-part-2-newt-gingrich-the-third-wave/" target="_blank">Part 2</a> (Newt, Toffler, Third Wave))<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2661574/posts" target="_blank">The Free Republic</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/01/newt-if-you-dont-know-me-by-now-mo-will.html" target="_blank">Gingrich in his own words</a> demonstrates through quotes and videos of Gingrich, his view of govt not as an impartial referee, but as being a tool to shape society.<br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Parting thought experiment</span></u></b><br />
Let me leave you with this last thought experiment.<br />
<br />
Those of you that still want to vote for Gingrich because you still fervently feel that he's the best hope for saving the US; those that feel that he will set us on the right path; those that think he will implement creative solutions that will right the ship of state after the actions of Obama, on what do you base that? Are you basing that on his conservative positions or his conservative rhetoric?<br />
<br />
Gingrich talks about profound change and big ideas, but most of his campaigning is about rhetoric and generalities. For example, he talks about overhauling regulatory agencies from being about "No, because..." to a more productive, results oriented approach of "Yes, if..."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If we can get people to say, “Yes, you could do that if” instead of “No, that will not work because” it changes the psychological dynamic of the argument. If you present a new idea and someone says “No”, you instinctively lose energy. Now you’ve got to win an argument over the “No” before you can get to the argument over the “Because” before you even get to start talking positively. However, if someone says “Yes” you automatically gain energy and immediately start thinking of creative ideas to answer the questions posed by the complexity of new ideas.</blockquote>
This is all well and good, but this type of rhetoric is not specifics. This doesn't get to the meat of what exactly he would change and how. For those of you that still wish to support Gingrich because of his (often creative) conservative proposals to fix things, let me ask you:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>What is his plan for the EPA and environmental issues?</li>
<li>What are his recommendations for NASA and the future of govt involvement in space exploration?</li>
<li>What is his approach for handling campaign finance?</li>
<li>What would he change about the FCC and broadcasting, communications and the internet?</li>
<li>Would he modify the SEC regulations on financial businesses? How?</li>
<li>What would he change about the Federal Department of Education?</li>
<li>What would he do about the housing crisis?</li>
<li>Does he plan to modify the FDA at all?</li>
<li>He's mentioned that he would repeal Obamacare. What would he do about healthcare instead?</li>
<li>What would he do about college tuition costs and federal student aid for higher education?</li>
<li>What is his plan for dealing with global warming?</li>
<li>What is his view of Govt Sponsored Enterprises now?</li>
<li>What specifically would he do with respect to international trade?</li>
<li>How would he modify tariffs? </li>
<li>What would he do regarding immigration?</li>
</ul>
<div>
If you can answer all of these questions without looking up the answers, then impressive. I still think you should be cautious in trusting that he would do what he says he would do. But you do have a strong knowledge of his policies and therefore if you still feel his positions are conservative and still wish to vote for him, then go ahead.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If, however, you struggle to answer most of those, this is not surprising. Gingrich talks in general conservative principles, but often skips the details of the specific policies. Let me ask you: is it possible that Gingrich's rhetoric of conservatism is blinding you to really investigating his proposals in detail? Could his general description of conservatism be making you neglect to truly interrogate his policies? Or even worse, is it possible that he be running on conservative rhetoric and promises, but, in reality, has a philosophy of the role of govt that most conservatives would disagree with?</div>
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Summary</span></u></b><br />
Newt Gingrich's campaign has been self-described as being about "big ideas, big solutions, and a big vision for America". These ideas generally seem to involve govt incentivizing or penalizing some behavior. While his ideas are usually more clever than a straightforward prohibition, mandate or tax credit/penalty, it is still the same underlying theme.<br />
<br />
<b>Newt Gingrich sees the role of govt as a tool to shape society. The only real difference between him and the democrats is not <i>whether </i>he would use govt, but simply <i>how </i>he would use it.</b>
<br />
<br />
To me, it is ironic that Newt criticizes Paul Ryan's Social Security recommendations as "right wing social engineering" when Newt himself prescribes that exact type of engineering with many of his policies like, for example, his policies to deal with global warming. So to me, supporting Newt is a HUGE risk. He speaks well about conservative principles, but he has a lot of underlying philosophy that appears to be progressive and very unconservative. Conservatives constantly find themselves in trouble because they elect Republican candidates who talk about conservative principles, but then get into office and actually end up expanding govt. Would it be the same with Newt? I fear it might. Or might his approach to governing be a "pragmatic" one, in which you have to sacrifice principles in order to get things done? Whatever your own answers, I hope I have at least convinced you that he is not necessarily the strong, consistent conservative that he is often portrayed as.</div>Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-30855458961200629152012-01-31T23:44:00.000-05:002012-04-04T14:15:45.373-04:00Few thoughts on Election Reform<br />
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
</div>
<br />
The last several elections have focused on "change". The people are unhappy with their leaders. Congress currently has about a 10% approval rating. Many have concentrated on trying to get better candidates elected into office. The hope being that these politicians will reform the system and make it better. However, the fact that <a href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/120126NBCWSJfinal.pdf" target="_blank">polls</a> show (page 19) that about 1/5th of voters would support a candidate, even if that candidate was not a Democrat or Republican, demonstrates that there is a significant percentage of Americans that are unhappy with both of the two major parties. According to <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx" target="_blank">other polls</a>, a full 40% of voters do not view themselves as members of either major party. If nearly half of voters do not associate with one of the two major parties, why are there no 3rd parties rising to prominence? Many believe this problem comes from the nature of the way we vote.<br />
<br />
I think the US needs to have a discussion about reforming our elections in order to provide a more representative govt and avoid having half of the population feeling disaffected by the two parties (not to mention those that don't even vote due to feeling that their vote doesn't matter). So in this article I talk about some of those approaches.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b><u>The Problems</u></b><br />
Most of the elections held in the United States are of the type called, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting" target="_blank">First Past The Post</a> (FPTP). This is basically the system where each voter gets one vote and the candidate with the most votes at the end is the winner. There are numerous problems with this method of voting, one specifically being that it tends to mathematically trend to just 2 parties due in part to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect" target="_blank">spoiler effect</a>. Another problem that FPTP has is that it makes it easy to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering" target="_blank">gerrymander</a>. Gerrymandering is where the voters are divided into specific voting areas that tend to provide "safe" voting regions. There's a <a href="http://gerrymanderingmovie.com/" target="_blank">documentary </a>about gerrymandering as well as <a href="http://www.redistrictinggame.org/" target="_blank">a game</a> one can play to see just how it's done.<br />
<br />
Watch the following videos to see a simplified view of the problems we have in the United States:<br />
<br />
Problems with First Past the Post:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/s7tWHJfhiyo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Problems with Gerrymandering:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Mky11UJb9AY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2DfpjIuXo" target="_blank">Bonus video on Gerrymandering</a><br />
<br />
<i>Presidential Election - Electoral College</i><br />
One of the most contentious elections is for President of the United States. This multi-year campaign ends in an election that many, even politically savvy, are still uncertain how it works. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)" target="_blank">electoral college</a> is a system that was supposed to protect against a basic popularity contest. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw" target="_blank">This video</a> describes the basic concept and the video that follows shows the problems it has:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/7wC42HgLA4k?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
So you can see that FPTP, the Electoral College and Gerrymandering can create some very unrepresentative results. In addition, the Electoral College encourages Presidential candidates to focus their efforts and attention in just a few swing states while ignoring the rest of the country. So what is the solution? How do we balance the ability to allow multiple divergent views with limited positions while still representing the population itself as closely as possible without overburdening the voters?<br />
<br />
In looking at various options, the first thing to understand is that there are different types of elections: single seat and multiple seat. Single seat is where you are voting for a single person to fill a single position - for example, Governor or President. Multiple seat is where you are voting to select multiple people to fill multiple positions - for example, US Senators or City council. In the US, the majority of multiple seat elections are broken up into several single seat votes - for example, you will vote twice for US Senator (US Senator #1 and US Senator #2).<br />
<br />
What's interesting is that different <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system" target="_blank">voting systems</a> work best for different types of elections. Let's focus on three types, two for multiple seat and one for single seat.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Multiple Seat - Mixed-Member Proportional</u></b><br />
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation" target="_blank">Mixed-Member Proportional</a> (MMP) system is a voting system that can be used for multiple seat elections. This is a system that could be used to replace the way in which we select, for example, the representatives for Congress. The way this works is to double the number of seats available and to grant 2 votes for each voter. The first vote is for a specific person that they wish to be their representative. These seats are granted via a FPTP method and has the same spoiler effect type of strategic voting. However, the second vote allows the voter to specify the political party that they most closely align themselves with. This has no spoiler effect and allows voters to vote for strategically for a specific candidate while still allowing them to voice their specific beliefs by voting for a party that best represents their own views without feeling that their vote is wasted.<br />
<br />
Watch this video for a description and example of MMP:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/QT0I-sdoSXU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
There are certainly some drawbacks to this method. For example, this makes political parties an official part of the election process. In addition, simply voting for a party and having the party specify the candidate to fill the position allows for a lot of potential abuse and could still leave voters disaffected and not truly represented. However, these are still generally better options than the simple FPTP approach often used in the US currently.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Multiple Seat - Single Transferable Vote</u></b><br />
Another option for a multiple seat voting method is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote" target="_blank">Single Transferable Vote</a> (STV). This approach allows people to rank their preferences. So if there are 6 people running for a particular position (e.g. Senator), then you can rank your top preference with 1, your second preference with 2, and so on, or until none of the rest of the candidates seem appealing/tolerable to you. So if you want your first preference a great deal, you'd put a 1. If you'd be ok if your 2nd choice won, you'd give them a 2. But if the rest of the candidates make your skin crawl, you can simply stop right there and not rank any of the rest of them.<br />
<br />
At that point all the votes are counted and the rest of the process is a somewhat cumbersome process (God bless computers) of transferring surpluses and votes for the weakest candidates to other candidates. I'll avoid a full description and allow you to watch this example created to explain the system to voters in British Columbia, Canada when they were considering various election reforms like the ones in this article:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://1.gvt0.com/vi/y-4_yuK-K-k/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y-4_yuK-K-k&fs=1&source=uds" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y-4_yuK-K-k&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
<br />
One of the biggest complaints about this method is that it is difficult for people to understand how to vote and that it is more complicated for people to understand how it counts the votes. Honestly, ranking preference should be pretty straightforward - though people who have voted in plurality FPTP style elections all their lives may be a little confused at first, but I think that the benefits of such a system outweigh some short-term confusion - especially if we know it may occur and can overemphasize help and assistance for voters.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Single Seat - Instant Run Off (aka Alternative Vote; aka Ranked Choice)</u></b><br />
What about the Electoral College and the election of the US President? Many people are calling for eliminating the electoral college and moving to a straight popular vote. However, that would leave us with the same problems of FPTP again. What might be a better approach is what's called the <span style="background-color: white;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting" target="_blank">Instant Run Off vote</a></span> (aka Alternative vote; aka Ranked Choice voting). In this approach, similar to the Single Transferable vote, instead of picking a single option, people get to rank their preferences (or not if you absolutely don't like someone). This eliminates the spoiler effect that FPTP creates and makes third parties more viable.<br />
<br />
Once everyone votes, their first preference is counted. The person in last place at this point is eliminated and his votes are allocated to the next (2nd) preference. Again the person in last place at this point is eliminated and his votes are allocated to the next preference. Etc. This continues until there are only 2 candidates left and the one with the most votes at that point is the winner.<br />
<br />
Here's a video that demonstrates how it works (note that when eliminating the last place person, this video, for simplicity, assumes that all of that candidate's votes all go to one other candidate - in reality, this is not necessarily the case):<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/3Y3jE3B8HsE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
I believe that this approach would greatly enhance US Presidential elections. Too often, even currently during the Republican primaries, the more "electable" candidate is chosen specifically to beat the "other guy". Too many people are voting against the other guy than for the candidate that most closely represents their views. FPTP is drifting us away from representative govt.<br />
<br />
<i>Primaries</i><br />
Just a quick note: It might seem that going with an Instant Run-Off type of vote would eliminate the primary process. This isn't necessarily true. In fact, they could still go through the same vetting process to inform us about the candidates. They could still hold a series of FPTP primaries/caucuses to determine the winner or they could hold various straw polls and have an Instant Run-Off vote of their own in, say, July, or they could reform the entire process into something else. But they could still have a process by which a winner is determined. It may simply be that this winner is the "official" party representative and be able to use party money for their campaign. However, having an "official" party candidate should not eliminate any other candidates in that party from running or force them to run outside of their party.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Fixing Gerrymandering - Shortest Split-line</u></b><br />
We mentioned the power that parties have if they control the drawing of voting district lines. But is there a better way to create districts without granting the power to some group? One method is to allow computers to follow a simple algorithm called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Shortest_splitline_algorithm" target="_blank">Shortest Split-line</a>. This simply takes an area, determines how many districts are needed, then using an algorithm, divides the area into as close to even districts as possible. <a href="http://rangevoting.org/" target="_blank">This site</a>, as far as I can tell, is where the idea comes from and has several <a href="http://www.rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html" target="_blank">examples</a> of how it could work. This video demonstrates a simple example:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/kUS9uvYyn3A?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
This has the benefit of eliminating the politicization of redistricting as well as utilizing a simple, low-cost computer program to divide districts into areas that actually make sense. However, it generally ignores geographic features and may actually split a neighborhood, if not an individual house, into two different districts. One proposal was to allow <a href="http://www.rangevoting.org/census-zigzag.gif" target="_blank">zig-zags</a> down the splitline along census tracts. Either way, it would seem that such a method would provide for a more representative type of districting vs allowing politicians to carve out their preferred voters.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Voting Itself</u></b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ucp.totfarm.com/pics/pic_12111273114616.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://ucp.totfarm.com/pics/pic_12111273114616.jpg" width="198" /></a></div>
One thing we cannot overlook is the voting itself. Obviously there are dozens of different ways to present the options to voters. Ballot design is a much debated topic. As long as it's an open discussion, open to multiple viewpoints, I think that can be handled amicably. However, it doesn't matter how the vote is presented and what method of casting and counting votes is handled if the actual collection of votes is tainted. Skepticism and accusations have surrounded many of the electronic voting systems. People are especially leery as just a few companies really dominate this market. What's worse is that these machines have been <b>demonstrated </b>to be able to be tampered with. See this video that shows how one can tip the scales toward a desired outcome.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/pUs-DoeqI5U?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Examples such as this demand that we need an open, secure, and verifiable method of vote recording that also has a paper trail. I have been a fan of <a href="http://www.blackboxvoting.org/" target="_blank">BlackBoxVoting</a> who offers voting analysis and designs voting systems to be exactly what I described: open and verifiable yet secure and protected.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Summary</u></b><br />
A lot of focus in the last couple elections have focused on electing the "right" politicians into office in order to "fix the system." However, without changing our method of voting for these politicians, we will never see the change that we hope. There are multiple problems with the FPTP voting method used in most US elections. These problems have, in part, led to our current situation with nearly half of all voters claiming to not belong to one of the two major parties. There are alternatives out there that would allow voters more flexibility and a greater voice in expressing their views and being better represented. However, until we begin to increase the urgency and the demand to alter our method of voting, we will continue to see the same politicians, the same promises, the same 2 parties, and the same problems.<br />
<br />Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-72185343406870755522012-01-25T22:51:00.000-05:002012-01-25T22:51:00.456-05:00Foreign Policy vs National Security - Being Clear on BothNational security is a high priority on most people's list. Not all agree on how best to provide it, but most agree it's important - especially Republicans.<br />
<br />
When Republicans are faced with a candidate (example, Romney) that they think has decent economic policies, tolerable fiscal policies, adequate social policies, and good security policies vs a guy (RP) that has good economic policies, great fiscal policies, tolerable social policies but HORRIBLE SCARY BAD security policies, it makes the first guy seem preferable.<br />
<br />
This is why I keep saying, Ron Paul's campaign and supporters HAVE GOT to figure out how to get both his foreign policy and more importantly his national security policies accurately described to Republicans.<br />
<br />
To me, foreign policy and national security are two different policies. There is a lot of overlap, but they are distinct. Most people understand his foreign policy, even if they disagree and believe that it would put us more at risk. I believe that Ron Paul's campaign and supporters need to do a better job of making the case for non-interventionism.<br />
<br />
However, even more urgently, most Republicans do NOT understand Ron Paul's national security policies - that is, what would Ron Paul do in the event of a credible threat against the US? What would he do if intelligence learns of an eminent attack against the US? He has not made these points clear to Republicans and he needs to do a better job of it if he wishes to win the nomination.Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-66230661669644164452012-01-21T23:43:00.000-05:002012-05-10T13:21:11.083-04:00Pro-[Choice/Life] isn't Anti-Freedom<br />
I frequently see people on both sides of the abortion debate that point to the other side and accuse the other position of being "anti-freedom" or "incompatible with freedom". Problem is, as I see it, neither side can make that claim.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that at some point, the right of the child to live overrides the right of the mother to choose to kill it. Most reasonable people will concede that this point is some time before it's actually born. Thus we are really just debating what that point should be.<br />
<br />
For people like Ron Paul, his view is that the freedom to live is more important than the freedom to choose what to do with your own body. That's his view, but he recognizes that not all share it. In addition to that, he has said that Constitutionally, he would not allow a federal level mandate one way or another.<br />
<br />
Personally, I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer politically that will satisfy everyone.
<br />
<br />
This is because, more generically, the problem is that abortion creates a paradox for individualism because you have two people occupying the same space at the same time and the exercise of rights by one is an infringement on the rights of the other.<br />
<br />
In either case, you are infringing on someone's rights. Either you protect the right of the baby to live and infringe on the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body, or you choose to protect the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body and infringe on the right of the child to live.<br />
So, agree or disagree with him about the point at which he feels we should recognize and protect a life, but it's not anti-liberty or anti-freedom.<br />
<br />
In fact, Paul's actual policy prescription is a good compromise. Instead of a federal, top-down mandate that states that abortions are either all legal or all illegal, he allows the people of each state to decide. This will create a diverse environment that allows different views to be respected.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/DR-qLB-XMhU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
For example, while some states ban abortions, and some states permit even late-term abortions, perhaps a few other states would pass a law that legalizes abortion up to the 8th month, but that all abortions after the first 10 weeks must be done painlessly such as with lethal injection or an anesthetic that puts the baby to sleep first. This should satisfy most all pro-choice individuals since their ability to get an abortion isn't infringed. This could satisfy many pro-life individuals since the baby itself would not suffer or feel any pain. Reasonable compromise? I don't know.<br />
<br />
Through this method of allowing multiple, different approaches that Paul is advocating, I think a more acceptable common ground can be reached.Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-50471029032859806722012-01-19T14:50:00.000-05:002012-01-20T11:14:29.776-05:00RP Supporters: How to handle a Talk Show InterviewSay that a Ron Paul supporter calls into and gets on a radio show. If the caller isn't already upset/angry, then often the host asks some loaded questions, interrupts when the caller tries to set the record straight, and at that point the caller starts to get flustered. Once a Ron Paul supporter, who is generally calling to try to set the media's misinformation straight, gets flustered by that very media, things go downhill and in the end, Dr Paul's supporters, (and by association, as is the intention, the good Dr himself), end up looking "crazy" and irrational.<br />
<br />
So how can you carry yourself well and help the good Dr Paul instead of hurt him? Here's a few thoughts.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Do</span></u></b><br />
Reiterate his record of consistency and his knowledge of and adherence to the Constitution. There is no other Republican candidate that has the record of consistency when it comes to conservative positions. Unlike his opponents, he's never voted for an unbalanced budget, he's never voted for a salary raise, he's never voted for bailouts, he's never voted for subsidies, he's never voted for corporate tax loopholes, he <b>returns </b>money to the treasury each year, he doesn't take part in the Congressional pension plan, he's willing to take the median income if elected President. In a general election against Obama, which do you think will appeal to the OWS type crowd more? Some Republican who's policies are close to George W Bush, or someone that not only stands up against unconstitutional Democrat policies, but also stands up against unconstitutional Republican policies?<br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Do Not</span></u></b><br />
<b>Do NOT bring up lack of media attention or media bias!</b> If they do, fine, you can agree and say "Yes, I think Paul is getting the short end of the stick compared to the other candidates. But even with the lack of coverage, let alone any positive, isn't it interesting that he still has so many supporters (and growing)?"<br />
Don't let the discussion devolve into a discussion of the media treatment of Paul. Get them back on track by reminding them that this election has GOT to be about restoring American and about ideas, policies and record, not about the media, not about supporters and (as we learned in the last election) not about personality and/or eloquence.<br />
<br />
Don't try to use the lack of negative ads toward Paul as a positive. It just invites the "because he's not worth it", "because he's not a threat", "because he's not really electable". Whether the host actually believes it or not, they'll say that's why they aren't attacking Paul. It's a rabbit hole not worth going down.<br />
<br />
Be careful focusing on his youth support. If you do, emphasize how great it is that the idea of federalism, states rights, reigning in the federal reserve, and of <i>real </i>cuts to the federal budget and bureaucracy are so popular with the young. However, I say be careful because it can lead to the accusation that it's because youth (unwise and inexperienced) are generally liberal, "So what does that say about your candidate if they're all voting for him?" If it tries to go down that road, ask "Are you saying that a strict Constitutionalist is appealing to liberals? Shouldn't we be <b>excited </b>by that?" If the really press, you can point out that of Republicans, Ron Paul wins the majority of <40 while the majority that vote for Gingrich and Romney are >60. Then ask the question, "What does that say about the future of the Republican party that it is seemingly dismissing and alienating everyone under 35 while focusing on an ever aging demographic?"<br />
<br />
Use caution when focusing on any one issue. Try to keep it generic. Make the case that out of all the candidates, his positions are by far the most Constitutional, limited govt, conservative and unlike the rest of the candidates he has a record that what he says isn't just<br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">On the Issues</span></u></b><br />
<i><u>Electability</u></i><br />
To me, this is huge. Attack the other's electability. Point out the <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1220925.pdf" target="_blank">PPP poll</a> that compared Romney to Obama head to head. While alone Romney barely beat Obama, but when 3rd party candidates were included (a much more realistic impression of what the general election will be like), Romney loses virtually every combination - and significantly. He just loses more (way more) to right leaning candidates than Obama loses to left leaning candidates.<br />
You can use personal experience here: There are too many libertarians, too many true, Constitutional conservatives and too many Independents, that as bad as Obama is, will **refuse** to vote for another big govt faux-conservative. Only with Ron Paul do you gain both Constitutionalists as well as Independents (and even some Democrats) that are tired of the status quo.<br />
I'd recommend you really drill this point home: The belief that Romney has the best shot at beating Obama is NOT accurate when you look at what the general election will <i>really </i>looks like. And if he tries to slide and point at Gingrich, ask if he really thinks Gingrich appeals to Independents and Democrats more than Romney.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Foreign Policy</u></i><br />
This is a double edge sword. We have to challenge the assumptions and misunderstandings about his foreign policy, but it tends to be the only thing focused on and people miss the rest of his views (i.e. Fox debate where not a single economic/domestic question was asked of Paul).<br />
First, ask the host if they've read Liberty Defined and if not, recommend that they read at least the sections on foreign policy. Second, ask them if they're really interested in understanding Paul's views on foreign policy. If they says yes, then tell them that they should have Bruce Fein (Paul's foreign policy advisor) on the show to really get that view. If they rebut that Paul himself can come on whenever he wants, you can ask, "Now wait a minute, you wanted to hear from all the advisors and influences on Obama to understand his worldview before he was elected, but when it comes to Paul's foreign policy, you ONLY want to hear from him?"<br />
<br />
<i>Non-interventionism vs Isolationism</i><br />
The host may be clear on the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. Unless he uses the term isolationism or isolationist, I'd avoid it. If they do use it, ask him if they think Canada is "isolationist"?<br />
<br />
<i>Interventionism/Aggression is NOT real defense</i><br />
Remind the host of Reagan's policy of peace through strength <b><u>at home</u></b>. Remind them that Paul himself made the point that China doesn't have a single military base outside of its own land, but nobody in their right might would attack China. Reiterate that Paul doesn't want to reduce ACTUAL defense, he wants to <b>increase</b> it. He would take money out of the wars and use it to expand and update our Navy and Air Force. He would take money out of manning military bases around the world and use it to develop a better missile defense shield.<br />
Dr Paul simply recognizes that our overseas aggression, invasions, interventions, military presence, and foreign aid, not only costs us more than we can afford, but it also <u style="font-weight: bold;">ENCOURAGES</u> the animosity, hatred and desire for violence that pose the very threat we are attempting to eliminate. It's almost exactly like bashing our head up against the wall because we got a headache, then wondering why our headache only seems to be getting worse.<br />
<br />
<i>Quotes of Religious Motivation</i><br />
They may start referencing things that various clerics and leaders (like Ahmadinejad) have said like wanting to kill all infidels, wanting to setup a global caliphate, institute Sharia law around the globe, etc. If so, be sure to point out that it is important to note the difference between those that are recruiters and rationalizers (that is, those who focus on fomenting hatred, justifying murder and even death for the cause), vs those that are the actual attackers. Robert Pape, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, did <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=173128&jid=PSR&volumeId=97&issueId=03&aid=173126" target="_blank">a study</a> that looked at suicide terrorists and found that over 95% of the time, the goal of the attack was political and generally due to some type of perceived oppression. The attackers are NOT simply attacking to get their 72 virgins. Then ask, if the US removed itself from the equation, just how successful do you think those recruiters (even with religious advocacy) would be in getting those political terrorists to attack us for some promises in the afterlife?<br />
<br />
<i>Iran</i><br />
If the "He doesn't care if Iran has nuclear weapons" accusation comes up, just clarify Ron Paul's position: Would he be concerned if Iran got a nuclear weapon while we continue our current policy of intervention, occupation, sanctions, surrounding, pressuring, posturing, assassinations, etc? Yes. Would he be concerned if Iran got a nuclear weapon while we are following his non-interventionist policy? No.<br />
<br />
<i>Blames America</i><br />
If the host accuses Ron Paul of blaming America for 9/11, simply say something lik<span style="font-family: inherit;">e: "<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">Absolutely not. There is a difference between America, as in 'We the people' and the actions of our govt. </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">WE</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"> the people did not cause 9/11. But the actions of the US govt over the last 50-60 years did - and on our behalf. </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">WE</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"> the people didn't overthrow a democratically elected leader and replace him with a puppet dictator that brutally oppressed his people, but the US govt did. </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">WE</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"> the people didn't supply Saddam Hussein with weapons and encourage him to attack Iran in the 80s, but the US govt did. </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">WE</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"> the people didn't give billions of dollars to dictators that oppressed their people, but the US govt did. [More detail about what the US govt has done and emphasize the difference between </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">WE</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"> the people and the US govt] These aren't the acts of everyday Americans, as the accusation implies, but the acts of govt."</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Osama bin Laden</i><br />
If the "He wouldn't have gone after Osama bin Laden" comes up, state something like this: "Paul stated that he's glad that the guy is no longer able to spread his hate or plan his deadly attacks. However, Dr Paul is brave enough to raise the serious concern about the <i><b>method</b></i> in which it was done. We cannot become the liberals. We cannot become a party that believes that the ends justify the means. Democrats believe that as long as the poor are being helped, it justifies disregarding private property and individual rights and ignore the consequences. We cannot become a party that believe that as long as we're killing terrorists, it justifies disregarding national sovereignty and international law and ignore the consequences. Paul is<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>WW2</i><br />
Some hosts fall back to claim that if Ron Paul had his way, we wouldn't have fought Hitler. If somehow this comes up, summarize (what I believe to be) Paul's views on WW2 like this: 1) We turned an attack by the Japanese into a reason to go to war against Europe. 2) Under Ron Paul's policy, <a href="http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2011/12/06/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor/" target="_blank">it's possible</a> that we <a href="http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-why-did-japan-attack-us-401" target="_blank">could have avoided</a> the attack on Pearl Harbor.<br />
<br />
<i>What <b>WOULD </b>Paul do?</i><br />
Point out that if Congress gave Ron Paul a declaration of war, he would execute it. But his approach would be "all in" - no nation building, no billions of dollars trying to occupy a nation for 10+ years. He would go in, completely eliminate the threat, then come home (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKse3W0Yt_k" target="_blank">reference</a>). When you look at it, his approach would be more of a deterrent to attack than one in which our actions (like now) engender more hatred and animosity.<br />
<br />
<i>Israel</i><br />
Firstly, remind them that we are electing the President of the US, not Israel. The POTUS is responsible for protecting the US. It would be a bad policy for the US President to try to protect Israel if it required billions of dollars, thousands of US lives, and increased animosity and threat to do so. Consider the possibility that, at least currently, trying to protect Israel may be in direct conflict with protecting the US.<br />
In addition, point out that many Israelis believe that they would be better off if the US ended foreign aid because while they would lose a couple billion, their enemies (that we give <b>12</b> times as much aid to) would lose even more. Plus Netanyahu has said that Israel can take care of herself and we don't need to play big brother: protecting and prohibiting Israel. Ask him to have Netanyahu on his show to ask him about Ron Paul's policy and how he thinks it would affect Israel.<br />
<br />
<i><u>Newsletters</u></i><br />
If this comes up, dismiss it as having been answered. He didn't write them and wasn't aware of them. Admit that it was poor editorial oversight. Admit that it might be a sign that he is too trusting and or that he doesn't pay close enough attention to what is being done in his name, sure. But the idea that he is a racist is rejected by everything else he's ever done, said and written as well as by the many close minority friends he has.<br />
<br />
Which is more likely, that Ron Paul lent his name to a newsletter with which he was only partially involved and that those managing it wrote things "in his name" that didn't reflect Ron Paul's actual views? Or that out of 30+ years of public life, 12+ terms of congressional campaigns, 3 presidential campaigns, thousands of speeches and interviews, hundreds of articles (actually written by Paul), ten full books, and his long congressional authorship/sponsorship/voting record, that these half dozen quotes from a newsletter he was only partially involved in, reveal the TRUE nature of racism he keeps a secret and is just waiting to spring on everyone?<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><i>Civil Rights Act</i></u><br />
Some hosts may challenge Paul's views on the Civil Rights Act. All you need to say is remind people that he is vehemently against racism and racist policies. Point out that his disagreement with a single element of the CRA was simply its infringement of private property rights. Remind them, they can disagree with Paul on the private property rights issue, and they can have that discussion with him, but do not attribute that disagreement to racism.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><u>Realism</u></i><br />
<b>Only</b> if the host says something about "We can't make it happen all at once." or "We've got to be realistic about what we can accomplish." Firstly, start with the view that when negotiating a compromise, which starting point would you rather start from, Ron Paul's or Mitt Romney's?<br />
Also convey to the host and the listeners that Paul is reasonable about how drastic changes can cause problems too. For example, use the Federal Reserve. Of course he philosophically wants to end the Fed (he wrote a book titled that), but he recognizes the severe dislocation and negative consequences this would cause. So he instead simply wants to end legal tender laws and make legalize alternative currencies (in addition to an audit and making the Fed more transparent). He's not an ideologue that will just push through his endgame policy goals, damn the consequences.<br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Summary</span></u></b><br />
<br />
<i><u>Patience and Concession</u></i><br />
Above all, be patient (don't interrupt), no name calling (e.g. "neocon", "Zionist") and be willing to concede things. Nothing will make you seem more like an irrational zealot than trying to interrupt to challenge every assertion about Dr Paul. And be willing to concede on Paul's weaknesses - especially that he himself has admitted that his biggest weakness/regret is that he is not good at concisely communicating his views. But you can follow that up with "But I don't know about you, I'd rather have someone with the wisdom and patience to study a topic and come up with the right, freedom-oriented policy (which, often, is to have the bravery to do nothing) vs someone that can give a smooth, good-sounding response to a question or challenge. How well has eloquence worked out for us the last 3 years?"<br />
<br />
<br />
Realize that if we get the opportunity to defend Dr Paul, we have to do so in a rational manner (perhaps even more so than other candidate's supporters). When we don't, when we get angry, when we get upset, when we lose our patience and interrupt, when we get frustrated and start laying accusations, we <u style="font-weight: bold;">HURT</u> Dr Paul's case in the mind of some on the fence voter who is listening in. Don't let us, a strong weapon for him, to become a liability.<br />
<br />
Related: <a href="http://tocano.blogspot.com/2011/10/proposed-ron-paul-soundbites-for.html" target="_blank">Some proposed soundbites for Ron Paul</a>. A bit of overlap with this article, but good to reference for concise rebuttals.<br />
<br />Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-87234342006344992152012-01-13T10:57:00.003-05:002012-01-13T10:57:47.826-05:00Might conservatives see foreign policy how liberals see the economy?<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">Conservatives (and libertarians) recognize that liberals have an incomplete, inaccurate view of a market economy. They see risk and thus want govt to mitigate that risk, but they don't look far enough to see cause and effect. We recognize that when govt intervenes in the market, negative unintended consequences occur and that when govt intercedes to fix a problem, it often creates more problems that are often worse than the original. We understand, as counterintuitive as it might seem, that by neither having govt regulating every risk nor bailing out and aiding specific companies, the market can actually be a <em>more</em> safe and productive entity.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So I have to ask, is it possible, just possible, that conservatives might suffer from the same incomplete, inaccurate view when it comes to foreign policy? Could it perhaps be that conservatives don't clearly see the cause and effect? Is it so impossible that conservatives are the ones overlooking the negative unintended consequences created by govt intervention in the affairs of foreign countries? Is it unreasonable to think that when govt intercedes in countries around the world to solve problems, that new problems are created (often worse than the original) caused by our very intercession? Just consider, could it be, as Ron Paul declares, that as </span>counterintuitive<span style="font-family: inherit;"> as it might seem to some, that by removing our military presence and interventions (both public and covert) from around the world, that we could actually be</span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"> </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">more</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">safe?</span></div>Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-6314857718671520522012-01-12T00:27:00.000-05:002012-01-25T23:25:53.122-05:00Challenging the assertion that only Romney can beat Obama and that Ron Paul is "unelectable"<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>See Update at bottom.</b></span><br />
<br />
This one frustrates the hell out of me. I hate the label of "unelectable" or the consensus that "only Romney can beat Obama". Just ruffles my feathers.<br />
<br />
However, recently, PPP released <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1220925.pdf" target="_blank">a poll</a> that pitted Romney against Obama that intrigued me. What was interesting about it was that in this one, unlike other's I've seen, they included 3rd party candidates (which is a more realistic representation of what the general election will look like). The results were fascinating.<br />
<br />
Initially, in a plain head-to-head, Romney (47%) actually beats Obama (45%) whereas Paul (41%) loses to Obama (46%).<br />
<br />
However, once you introduce the 3rd party candidates, everything blows up. Romney loses <b>significant</b> portions of voters to 3rd party candidates - and <b>much </b>more than Obama and Romney loses in virtually every scenario. Paul and Trump actually take nearly 20% of the vote and the lionshare of that comes out of Romney's numbers. More analysis <a href="http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/" target="_blank">here</a> with more numbers, but I encourage you to take a look at the poll itself.<br />
<br />
Now, those of us that are supporting Ron Paul recognize why this is. Many of us would rather remain consistent to our principles and vote for the person that best represents us over Romney, even if that means that the dreaded Democrat [scary voice] were to win. However, if Ron Paul won the nomination, not only would most of the right/Republicans support him (especially if their primary desire is just to beat Obama), but so would his ardent base of libertarians, as well as many Independents and a large number of democrats. Plus, it is possible (or even very likely, depending on the source) that if Ron Paul were to get the nomination, that the likely Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson would bow out and endorse Paul.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, because of the realities of 3rd party candidates, Ron Paul has a better chance of beating Barack Obama than Mitt Romney.<br />
<br />
So, what I would like to do is to commission another, similar poll to be done. This time, let's see the effect of 3rd party candidates when Ron Paul is the Republican candidate. If this poll were to come back and show that Ron Paul loses fewer voters to 3rd party candidates than Romney, it could go a long way to demonstrate Ron Paul's electability. And not just that, but showing that it would be <b>better </b>than Romney's.<br />
<br />
Imagine what that could do to the race and how it might shift some voters over - especially when, according to exit polls, nearly half of Romney's supporters are voting for him because of his electability and ability to "beat Obama".<br />
<br />
So either <a href="http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?317-Campaign-Suggestion-Box" target="_blank">encourage </a>the Ron Paul campaign to commission such a poll, or <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/national-texas-florida-question-suggestions.html" target="_blank">recommend</a> it to the PPP (or other pollsters) themselves.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Update 1/25</b>: On Jan 17th, Public Policy Polling released <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_0117925.pdf" target="_blank">another poll</a> that shows that even when including Gary Johnson as Libertarian candidate, Romney loses significantly to Obama (7pts).</span><br />
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-86073132343000941542012-01-09T09:53:00.000-05:002012-01-09T09:53:26.766-05:00How Ron Paul should respond to accusations about his record<br />
In the debates over the weekend, Rick Santorum <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-paul-santorum-record-debate-20120108,0,7996570.story" target="_blank">accused </a>Ron Paul of being "on the margins". Santorum implies that Paul would be an ineffectual President stating (paraphrased) "Out of over 600 bills, you've only had 4 come up for a vote and only 1 that has passed."<br />
<br />
I guess in Santorum's worldview, since the same Congress that has continually concentrated control in Washington over the decades doesn't want to hear measures that would relinquish that power, Paul isn't doing things right. Here's how I'd love to hear Ron Paul respond:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Wait a minute, are you saying that because we have a Congress that has passed such bills as the National Defense Authorization Act, the bailouts and stimulus, and Obamacare, a Congress that will stuff multiple unrelated measures into a single bill that gets both sides something they want and a plausible excuse to give their base as to why they voted for it, a Congress that will use trickery, loopholes, and bribes to pass unpopular bills (and then congratulates themselves on legislative creativity), a Congress that frequently does not read the bills they are voting on, a Congress that throws taxpayers money around at endeavors like a bridge to nowhere (that my opponent here voted for), ethanol subsidies, and Solyndra, a Congress that continues to raise the debt ceiling while it has not had a balanced budget in virtually my entire tenure and hasn't passed a budget at all in the last 3 years, a Congress that cozies up to special interests and lobbyists and who often outsources the writing of complex bills to corporate insiders, a Congress with an <b>8%</b> approval rating, because *that* Congress refuses to even debate my bills, are you saying that reflects negatively on <b><i>me</i></b>?</blockquote>
<br />
[optional]<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I'm more concerned with finding common areas of agreement and forming coalitions for freedom. I've been accused by my opponents of working with Democrats and leftists like Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich - and this is true. But because I can agree with Frank on the need to get the federal govt out of trying to restrict medical marijuana doesn't mean I agree with him on his banking regulations. Because I can find common ground with Sanders regarding the Federal Reserve, doesn't mean I agree with him on his economic views. Because I can work with Kucinich to try to change our interventionist foreign policy doesn't mean I agree with his views on govt funded health care. Working with people with whom you disagree 95% of the time to get things in that 5% accomplished doesn't make you a sellout, it's how you build coalitions to fight a battle for liberty without losing your principles.</blockquote>
<br />
[/optional]<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
No, this accusation reveals the mentality of Washington insiders: that "getting things done" is more important than what is actually done. That has to stop. </blockquote>Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-47159983721763745842011-12-15T21:01:00.000-05:002011-12-22T21:43:01.189-05:00Another Look at this Ron Paul Racism thing<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ron Paul's rise in the polls brings with it increased scrutiny. One of the few "sideshow" issues (there aren't many) that the media is trying to raise is regarding supposedly racist newsletters that he supposedly wrote.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Let's look at those claims a little more in detail. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If you are think this country is on the wrong track and that freedom is under assault, please ensure that you are making an informed decision instead of relying on "edited reality". Please read on as well as the links referenced to get a better understanding of this <i>controversy</i>.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><b><u><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Context</span></u></b><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">First it is important to realize that the analysis of this has been going on for nearly 20 years. This is not some new revelation. He has dealt with this "controversy" and explicitly answered questions about it dozens and dozens of times. He has said that he didn't write it, didn't proof every article and thus wasn't aware of these statements when they were published (often ghostwritten in his name). However, Ron </span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">did </i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">take "moral responsibility" for these statements as they were published in a newsletter carrying his name. While some could take this as an honorable position reflecting a man of integrity, many have instead chosen to interpret this as admission that</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i> he wrote</i></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> the statements in these newsletters (thus the reason some will claim that he admitted to writing them, only to change his mind later).</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Make no mistake, this is political. There are those that are pushing this less with the actual belief that Ron Paul is a racist than with the goal of running him out of the race. Research it, don't succumb to smears. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><u>The Newsletter Comments</u></b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Several </span><a href="http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/#axzz1hEARXE8M" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">others</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> have done a much more </span><a href="http://regulatetheregulators.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-defense-of-ron-paul-newsletters-faq.html" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">thorough job</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> of analyzing the individual comments themselves that I will be able to and demonstrate that, in context, many of these comments are not nearly as incendiary as they appear when selectively cropped and taken out of context. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For example, one of the supposedly racist quotes goes: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">However, when you put the sentence fragment into full context:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It is explicitly saying that, while unfair, the result of the riots in LA will cause the racists views of many to increase. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Another example:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">But again, when viewed in full context, </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What it calls <i>sensible </i>is explicitly stated and is not only not controversial, but is also not surprising to advocates of liberty</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. In addition, this wasn't an offhand remark demonstrating the author's bias against blacks or implying that virtually all blacks are stupid. This was making an observation about the results of opinion polls and political views. Finally, the last sentence is an extremely non-racist remark. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As before, when you see the full context, this comment isn't racist, but is actually the opposite!</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If you truly are concerned that Ron Paul is a racist and want to understand the context for many of the comments, please read the analysis in the links above for yourself. If you think they are trying to twist reality and make excuses, that's fine. I think it would be a disservice to stretch the truth to cover any politician, Ron Paul included. But above all, don't fall prey to those that wish to scare you away from a candidate based on a few carefully cropped quotes. Find out for yourself.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>However, let me be clear. There are still a few offhanded comments that I personally still believe are unacceptable and should rightly be repudiated and condemned<i> as Ron has done</i>. The explanation for some of them is only to clarify how few of the truly unacceptable comments there are.</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Ron Paul's Answer</u></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">When this issue first came up in the mid 1990s, and he was made aware of it, Ron Paul claimed moral responsibility for what was said in the newsletters under his name, tried to explain some of the comments, and repudiated others and overall tried to apologize for what ultimately <b>was</b> his responsibility since it went out under his name. However, his advisers told him he should avoid the appearance of "passing the buck" and so advised him to <b><i>not</i></b> indicate that someone else wrote them - thus leading to the impression that he was admitting to being the author. In 2001, he finally stated that, in fact, he did not write them and that he was pretty far removed from dealing with the actual editing/proofing of the individual articles and wasn't even aware of them until much, much later. Since then, he has claimed consistently that he was not the author, that, in fact, he was unaware of them at the time and that he ardently repudiates the very ideas implied by such comments. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><u>Ron Paul's [Actual] Words</u></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Let's look at some of the words that Ron Paul has used regarding race and racism.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ron Paul on Racists:</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;">- Ron Paul</span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">, Government and Racism, April 16, 2007</span></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In addition to that, Ron Paul has consistently <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY" target="_blank">spoken</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw" target="_blank">negatively</a> about racism and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtwgojDyoHk" target="_blank">grouping minorities together</a> many times, both in interviews, articles and in many of his books. And many people are drawn to him expressly because of his views of racism as ugly.</span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><u><b>Other "Evidence"</b></u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Beyond these few quotes, there is virtually nothing in his entire career of public service that reflects a racist mindset. However, there are a few stances that Paul has taken that are used to make that accusation. Most of these have been <a href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/12/20/we-shall-overcome/" target="_blank">addressed </a>or discussed in some manner.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><u><b><br /></b></u></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>The Civil Rights Act</i></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">One "evidence" of Ron Paul's supposed racism is that he has said that he would <i>not </i>have voted for the Civil Rights act o</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">f 1964. When the statement is left at that, it seems pretty damning. After all, who other than a racist would be against the Civil Rights Act? Well, Ron once </span><a href="http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/" style="background-color: white;" target="_blank">gave his reasoning</a> on<b> the House floor</b><span style="background-color: white;">.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The crux:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">You can disagree with him. You can disagree with his view that ending Jim Crow laws (remember that these laws were govt laws that <b style="font-style: italic;">required </b>that businesses be segregated) would have economically harmed racist businesses and would have eventually ended segregation without the federal intervention and infringement of private property rights. However, do not fall for the simplistic narrative that his position is due to racism.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">After all, why would a man (a politician at that) get up in front of Congress and national television and condemn a nearly universally popular law that would surely bring accusations of racism, if it was for something other than a political principle?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>White Supremacists Contributions</i></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In his 2008 campaign, Ron Paul got campaign contributions from a white supremacist. When Ron Paul decided to keep the money and not reject the donation, more cries of racism erupted. Ron Paul's campaign said that they had no problem using a racists money to further the cause of freedom (and that it was that much less money for a racist to spend). In addition, they reiterated the point that Paul's positions on issues are based on principle, not on the wishes of contributors - especially not a racist and especially not for a mere $500. In addition, be aware that the donor himself recognized that <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/#.TvOCytTOyVM" target="_blank">Ron Paul is not a racist</a>, but said that in the name of freedom, his policies was why he was supporting Ron Paul.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Again, we're talking about a grand total of $500. Why would a politician keep that <i>gargantuan</i> amount of money if he knew the political insinuation it would create?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><u>What others say</u></b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Many have come to the aid of Ron Paul. Life long associates, many of whom are black. <a href="http://www.tsowell.com/" target="_blank">Thomas Sowell</a> and <a href="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/" target="_blank">Walter Williams</a> (both black) are both ardent supporters of Ron Paul. In fact, Ron Paul has stated that he would consider Walter Williams as a vice presidential candidate.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In addition, other <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U" target="_blank">black leader</a>s have come out and rejected the idea that Ron Paul is a racist.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><u>Other points</u></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Some other points that have been made </span><br />
<div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<ol>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">During the 2008 campaign, when asked for potential Vice Presidential running mates, he indicated Walter Williams, a black man, </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">as a strong possibility</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. In addition, Mr Williams claims Paul as a close friend and claimed that he’s one of 3 people the founders would even talk to.</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Nelson Lender, the director of the NAACP in Austin, Texas said last campaign that he’s known Ron Paul personally for 20 years and is sure he’s not a racist.</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The foundation of the economic and libertarian beliefs that Ron Paul advocates come partially from the work of two Jews, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard who he has .</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">One of the strongest characteristics of Ron’s politics is his consistency - regardless of popularity. However, of the few issues he's changes his position on is the death penalty. Why? Because it is disproportionately used on blacks and minorities.
</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<br />
<b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Occam's razor</u></b><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Another thing consider, which do you think is more likely?</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">that Ron Paul lent his name to a newsletter with which he was only partially involved and that those managing it wrote things "in his name" that didn't reflect Ron Paul's actual views?</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Or that out of 30+ years of public life, 12+ terms of congressional campaigns, 3 presidential campaigns, thousands of speeches and interviews, hundreds of articles (actually written by Paul), a half dozen full books, and his long congressional authorship/sponsorship/voting record, that these half dozen quotes from a newsletter he was only partially involved in, reveal the TRUE nature of racism he keeps a secret and is just waiting to spring on everyone?</span></li>
</ul>
<b style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Conclusion</u></b><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ron Paul has a history of anti-racist comments and writings. He has numerous close black friends and colleagues. He has publicly expressed his admiration for several black figures from history. The only evidence of his racism are a handful of comments in some newsletters with which he had questionable involvement (and many of these comments, when considered in context are not as incendiary as they are implied).</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Beyond all this, it prompts the question, what exactly do those who accuse him of racism fear that he would do if he were elected President? Unless they believe that his consistency is all a ruse and he will, once in power, completely change his positions and start implementing policies in opposition of his stated views, there's not much they can accuse him of trying to implement that he himself doesn't openly advocate.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Add to that the policies he advocates that would run counter to a racist such as pardoning non-violent drug offenders (</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">of which</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">the vastly disproportionate number are black), ending the drug war, and reducing govt spending on war and bailouts.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ron Paul is a very principled man whose views and policies, while often extremely unpopular, are nevertheless focused on the Constitution and liberty and freedom for all, regardless of race. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><u>Other links on this:</u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/12/20/we-shall-overcome/" target="_blank">Justin Raimondo</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-ron-paul-newsletters/" target="_blank">Thomas Woods</a></span><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: #eeeeee;">
<b style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i style="background-color: #eeeeee;">Update</i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times,'Times New Roman',serif;">This is starting to be repeated in several places. References to a 1995 CSPAN interview where Ron said:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: Times,'Times New Roman',serif;">But alo</span><span style="font-family: Times,'Times New Roman',serif;">ng with that, I also put out a political type of business investment newsletter that sort of covered all these areas. And it covered a lot about what was going on in Washington, and financial events, and especially some of the monetary events. Since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject, that this newsletter dealt with it. This had to do with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and</span><span style="font-family: Times,'Times New Roman',serif;"> of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: Times,'Times New Roman',serif;">Followed by some type of accusation along the lines of: <i>For some guy who's claims to not have known what was in these newsletters, he sure seemed to be familiar with them then.</i> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: Times,'Times New Roman',serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: Times,'Times New Roman',serif;">Come on now. This is supposed to be some kind of repudiation of Paul's declaration that he didn't know about the articles? Listen, I can tell you the basic concepts covered in the Fly Fishing Newsletter (analysis of different types of lures on types of fish, types of knots, reels, and casts for various locations, various fishing spots at different times of the year, as well as various types of apparel) and <b>I've never even read it</b>! "For a guy who's never read the newsletter, I seem to have a pretty good idea of what is in those newsletters." </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: Times,'Times New Roman',serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: Times,'Times New Roman',serif;">Simply because you know the topics and concepts, heck, even if you've read many or even most of the articles it publishes <b>doesn't mean you've proofed every article</b>.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: Times,'Times New Roman',serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: Times,'Times New Roman',serif;">I hope this isn't supposed to be journalism.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div>Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-10903785704463560702011-12-07T15:43:00.000-05:002011-12-22T21:38:45.902-05:00Again, be clear Dr. Paul<br />
I just got to watch last night's debate. I heard Baier's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbGL3F8r4c&t=8m30s" target="_blank">question</a>.<br />
<br />
Grrr.... I HATE how unclear Dr. Paul is on this.<br />
<br />
Just say:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Firstly, non-interventionism isn't a leftist policy. Non-interventionism - that is, freely trading with countries and avoiding entangling alliances - is a policy consistent with our founders. Let's not fall into the trap of making this a left vs right issue.<br />
<br />
Secondly, if you are asking if I would be worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we maintain our current foreign policy of intervention, preemptive attack, nation building, and occupation, then yes, I would be very worried.<br />
<br />
If you are asking if I would be worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we followed my foreign policy, then no, I would not be worried. If we aren't threatening them, if we aren't setting a no fly zone, if we aren't flying drones over their airspace, if we don't have 50 military bases virtually surrounding their country, if we aren't interfering with their communications, if we aren't threatening them with attack ourselves, then no, I don't think a nuclear Iran would be a direct threat to the United States.<br />
<br />
Because history doesn't happen in a vacuum. You have to see that there is a greater context for what we're dealing with than just since 9/11. And there's more to my foreign policy than just "if Iran gets a nuke, do we attack or not?". </blockquote>Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-49260376031573479422011-11-15T15:34:00.001-05:002011-11-15T15:52:52.831-05:00Dr. Paul, Please Be ClearWhen you are asked "Do you think the US invited/caused 9/11?", please be clear:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 18px;">Absolutely not. </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">WE</em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"> the people did not cause 9/11. But the actions of the US govt over the last 50-60 years did - and on our behalf. </span></blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"><br /></span><br />
When you are ask<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">ed "<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">You have no problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon?</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">Aren't you basically advocating sticking your head in the sand and hoping terrorism goes away?", please be clear:</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"><br /></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">If you are asking if I'm worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon <b>if we maintain our current foreign policy of intervention, preemptive attack, nation building, and occupation</b>, then yes, I am very worried. </span></span>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">If you are asking if I </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">would be </b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">if we followed my foreign policy</b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">, then no, I would not be worried. </span></span></div>
</blockquote>
For extended answers to these and more proposed responses, see my <a href="http://tocano.blogspot.com/2011/10/proposed-ron-paul-soundbites-for.html" target="_blank">previous post</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-89113567175181676512011-11-15T12:42:00.001-05:002011-11-15T13:58:23.377-05:003 Simple Steps to talking to Conservatives about Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policyOne of the biggest hindrances to conservatives supporting Ron Paul is his foreign policy. Some of the most vocal like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc say that he's right on almost everything, except foreign policy. Here's how I've started talking to conservative friends and family about his foreign policy and have convinced most to agree with Ron Paul.<br />
<br />
<b><u>1) The purpose of terrorism</u></b><br />
<br />
Ask them why the terrorists attack us. If they say our freedom and prosperity, ask them why they aren't attacking Australia, or Japan, or Sweden? Why is the US the "Great Satan"? Then point out that if you look at the 1998 fatwa, bin Laden's letter right after 9/11, his letter in 2002 or 2006, or the statements of various other terrorists and the core justification behind all of the attacks was our continued military presence, intervention and sanctions on countries in the middle east.<br />
<br />
Then ask them, if we were to implement RP's foreign policy - a foreign policy NOT of isolationism, but of non-interventionism; if we were to end the active combat around the world; if we were to return our troops home from over 700 bases in over 135 countries; if we were to stop just giving money to foreign countries, countries that are often ran by authoritarian dictators; if we were to focus our defense spending on strengthening measures of ACTUAL defense; if we were to ensure a strong international intelligence network; if we are open, friendly and freely trade with all countries; if we were to do all of that, (besides saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year), why would they attack us? What would be the purpose? What would they be trying to get us to STOP doing by threatening attack?<br />
<br />
If they reply that they believe that without provokation or justification, Muslims will simply attack us, minding our own business, for no other reason than to get their virgins or similar, then point out that they are confusing a rationalization for a justification. Ask them if they've ever asked an Islamic terrorist why they would attack us, and then state that their view is nothing but a ridiculous and ignorant caricature - even of Islamic extremists.<br />
<br />
<b><u>2) Support for Israel</u></b><br />
<br />
"We cannot abandon Israel to be destroyed." is another common theme (usually among Christians). Yet, Israel has taken care of itself numerous times and dealt with various threats itself, often <b>against</b> US recommendations. Ask them exactly how taking a non-interventionist policy would hurt Israel.<br />
<br />
Hurt Intelligence? It is generally admitted that Israel's intelligence network in the middle east is superior to the US.<br />
<br />
Hurt Budget? On average, we give Israel $2.5 billion a year (<a href="http://wrmea.org/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html" target="_blank">Source</a>), over 90% of which are military grants.<br />
<br />
Hurt Military/Weapons? Israel is one of the most well trained military groups in the world. Our money doesn't make or break that. Nor is there any reason to believe that Israel would not be able to produce/purchase their weaponry or would be left "defenseless" if we left.<br />
<br />
However, there may actually be an upside for Israel. One of the things that comes with that money to Israel is leverage. The US uses that money as a way to apply pressure on Israel to try to control/influence how it responds to threats. Thus the US, who does not face the same threats as Israel, tries to tell Israel how it must deal with certain situations and threats. This isn't right. Israel should be free to decide how to deal with its threats without US coercion. We remove that money, we remove the restriction on how Israel defends itself.<br />
<br />
I would argue that a non-interventionist foreign policy would be better for both sides.<br />
<br />
<b><u>3) World's Police </u></b><br />
<br />
Another potential rebuttal is that the US is the only country that can keep the threats of the world at bay. If the US isn't the world's police, who would be?<br />
<br />
Firstly, ask them why there needs to be one? Countries can join together voluntarily and address a threat the presents itself without trying to constantly have our boot on the neck of every country in the world.<br />
<br />
Secondly, that job brings with it enormous animosity and a <b>monumental </b>expense. Our habit of trying to intervene and control all international events in our favor has helped <b>cause </b>the animosity and resentment that we're dealing with now. And with the current economic and govt spending, we simply cannot afford to be that police force anymore. In addition, we put our young men and women at risk and in harms way, to be injured or even killed, <i>not </i>necessarily to fight a clear and immediate danger to the US, but to squash potential resentment and backlash.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, read and find articles to present them evidence on blowback. Here's a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJZzephC82k" target="_blank">good example</a> to start with.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Summary</u></b><br />
<br />
Basically, our current foreign policy of preemptive military assault, regime change, and nation building does NOT make us safer. It creates an environment where MORE animosity grows and additional terrorists are cultivated.<br />
<br />
What would make us safer would be to remove the very complaints that terrorists have against us, that cost us enormous amounts of money and lives anyway, to spend more effort on intelligence and actual "defense" instead of offense, and to be a free and open trading partner with all nations. Where trade flows free, there is peace. Where trade is blocked, war will follow."<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>TL;DR</u></b><br />
<br />
Talking to conservatives about Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy:<br />
<br />
1) Point out that the terrorists attack us because of our intervention and military presence.<br />
<br />
2) Point out that US support for Israel doesn't make or break the country and removing the monetary aid may, in fact, give Israel more freedom and flexibility in how it deals with threats.<br />
<br />
3) Being the world's police is enormously expensive in both money and, more importantly, in lives. But beyond that, it doesn't work. Trying to militarily control the world CREATES animosity and generates terrorism.<br />
<br />
<b><u>UPDATE</u></b>:<br />
Let me also say, Don't give up! With the people I talked to, it was always multiple conversations. I generally just said the same things in response to their same complaints. They seemed to wear a little with each one. And note that <b>NONE</b> of them changed their minds while talking to me. It was only weeks later after having heard these points and going back to their normal lives that they ended up changing their mind.Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-81502103199387804082011-10-15T14:43:00.000-04:002011-11-20T12:52:14.662-05:00Proposed Ron Paul "Soundbites" for Debates<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">I'm a huge Ron Paul fan. I don't agree with 100% of his policies, but the vast majority. I love that he's not <em>suave</em> and speaks simply. However, he seems to have trouble making his points in short time frames. Perhaps it's due to the complexity of the issue, perhaps it's due to the large amount of information he could call on to answer the question, perhaps it's due to the divergence from "mainstream" political thought, thus requires more explanation, but he has trouble getting his message into "soundbites" - that is, one or two paragraphs.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">After watching him in debates and feeling like his answers were correct, but just didn't pack the concise punch they could, I took a stab at writing what I would love for him to say in future debates based on what I know of his positions.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">TL;DR: I'd love to see Ron Paul answer some of these questions like this:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white; font-weight: bold;">With the rampant drug problem in this country, how can you say you want to legalize [some drug]?</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">Let me be clear, I am not "<em>pro</em>-marijuana" or even "<em>pro</em>-heroin" or "<em>pro</em>-cocaine". I think drug use can be a harmful and dangerous thing. However, I am for ending the FEDERAL prohibition on narcotics. I believe in the Constitution and in the 10th amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution about drugs and I believe that those things that are not specifically mandated to the federal govt, fall to the states. In 1919, those that believed that liquor should be banned recognized that they needed a Constitutional amendment to do so. And they needed another amendment to repeal it. Drug prohibition is no different in the need for an amendment to have a federal ban. However, there is none, so it must fall to the states. If all 50 states want to prohibit cocaine, heroin and marijuana, then fine, but not at the federal level, not without an amendment. And personally, I would not support such an amendment.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white; font-weight: bold;">Being a strong Christian, how can you support same-sex marriage when Christianity states homosexuality as a sin?</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">Similar to drug prohibition, this once again is an issue of federal overreach. Marriage and its recognition is not mentioned in the Constitution as a power the federal govt has authority to oversee, regulate or restrict. Thus, that responsibility should, by the Constitution, fall to the states. I can be against an act, think it's sinful, and still not believe that it's the federal govt's job to prohibit it. Beyond that, marriage to the federal govt amounts to little more than legal declaration of shared rights (e.g. medical information sharing). Is there really a Christian reason to prohibit two people of the same sex from having the federal govt recognize them as having shared rights any more than one man being granted power of attorney for another man?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white; font-weight: bold;">By removing national standards by eliminating the dept of education and advocating non-scientific positions like denying global warming and saying creationism is legitimate, as well as ending scientific funding, aren't you putting future generations at risk of falling behind the rest of the world educationally and competitively?</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">Firstly, the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal govt to dictate educational policies. The Dept of Education has only been a cabinet level agency since 1980. Are you honestly going to tell me that due to their involvement, education in this country has gotten significantly <strong style="font-weight: bold;">better</strong> since then? No, I believe that the US became the foremost scientific and educational country in the world BEFORE govt began funding research in every scientific field imaginable and BEFORE govt began managing education for the entire nation. Govt funding and control does expand these areas but it <strong style="font-weight: bold;">corrupts</strong> the systems, it doesn't really improve them. Plus,</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">Secondly, my positions on both global warming and creationism vs evolution is that we don't know. We have very good ideas and some evidence that supports a theory, but I believe that the science isn't definitive yet. Listen, I'm not anti-science - I'm a doctor of medicine for pete's sake. I've looked at the science for these theories and while we should continue to research and investigate these ideas, I am not convinced that they are definitive enough to be teaching in classrooms as fact and setting restrictive economy-wide policies by - doubly so when considering that the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal govt to dictate such policies.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white; font-weight: bold;">With your focus on privacy, freedom and personal rights, why do you want to restrict a woman's privacy and freedom and ban abortion?</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">It's not about restricting her freedom or invading her privacy. However, as a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies, many of which were not full term, I recognize that what is inside a woman's womb is a life. In addition, the law recognizes it as a life since as a doctor, I was legally liable for that life and that life has inheritance rights. And as such I am a firm advocate for the protection of rights and the right to life is a critical one. Also note that my position is that I don't believe the federal govt has the Constitutional authority to be the "Abortion Police" - to either legalize or ban the practice. If a state wants to ban abortions or allow them, the Constitution doesn't grant the federal govt the authority to overrule that. At the core, I believe that protecting life is the first and most crucial step in protecting liberty.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white; font-weight: bold;">Your policy calls for closing all military bases in foreign countries. Do you also want to shut down military bases in the US?</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">Well, I'm not sure that's necessary. How about we take it one step at a time and implement my foreign policy first and evaluate things at that point? I will emphasize is that what I want to do is cut the military, not defense. I think a strong defense and intelligence network is essential to a strong country. However, our military is overgrown and expansive. The military has become a tool of aggression instead of defense. I believe that our intervention in the affairs of other countries and the entangling alliances we get involved with cause us to be LESS safe. [If you agree that govt intervention in the economy causes problems, can't you see that govt intervention in the affairs of foreign countries causes problems? (this line can be added or removed based on who the audience is)] We are now in a position, we have SO many enemies, thanks to over 50 years of intervention around the world, where we feel we have to keep our boot on the necks of every country out there for fear they will try to get back at us. That's not only dangerous and not sustainable, it's not moral.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white; font-weight: bold;">Are you suggesting that we invited 9/11?</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">Absolutely not. <em>WE</em> the people did not cause 9/11. But the actions of the US govt over the last 50-60 years did - and on our behalf. <em>WE</em> the people didn't overthrow a democratically elected leader and replace him with a puppet dictator that brutally oppressed his people, but the US govt did. <em>WE</em> the people didn't supply Saddam Hussein with weapons and encourage him to attack Iran in the 80s, but the US govt did. <em>WE</em> the people didn't give billions of dollars to dictators that oppressed their people, but the US govt did. [More detail about what the US govt has done and emphasize the difference between <em>WE</em> the people and the US govt] These aren't the acts of everyday Americans, as the question implies, but the acts of govt.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;"><strong style="font-weight: bold;">You have no problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon?</strong> <strong style="font-weight: bold;">Aren't you basically advocating sticking your head in the sand and hoping terrorism goes away?</strong></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">Our founders warned us to avoid entangling alliances and to avoid meddling in the affairs of foreign countries for fear of exactly the type of backlash we are seeing now. Look at the 1998 fatwa, bin Laden's letter right after 9/11, his letter in 2002 or 2006, or the statements of various other terrorists and the core justification behind all of the attacks was our continued military presence, intervention and sanctions on countries in the middle east. If we were to implement my foreign policy - a foreign policy NOT of isolationism, but of non-interventionism; if we were to end the active combat around the world; if we were to return our troops home from over 700 bases in over 135 countries; if we were to stop just <em>giving</em> money to foreign countries, countries that are often ran by authoritarian dictators; if we were to focus our defense spending on strengthening measures of ACTUAL defense; if we were to ensure a strong international intelligence network; if we are open, friendly and freely trade with all countries; if we were to do all of that, (besides saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year), why would they attack us? What would be the purpose? What would they be trying to get us to STOP doing by threatening attack?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">And the idea that, without provocation or justification, Muslims will simply attack us, minding our own business, for no other reason than to get their virgins or similar is nothing but a ridiculous and ignorant caricature - even of Islamic extremists.</span></div>Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12486658.post-22427923633685089032011-09-21T20:46:00.000-04:002011-11-15T12:46:41.817-05:00Math doesn't lie... Right?<div style="background-color: transparent; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span id="internal-source-marker_0.28418231825344265" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If a bucket has 2 apples in it, and you add 2 more apples, how many apples are now in the bucket? </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">4 right? </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2 + 2 = 4</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">"Math doesn't lie." Right?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That's true, "Math doesn't lie." But math CAN be wrong. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What if I told you the correct answer is 6?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Would you cry foul and declare your original answer to be true? Would you show me mathematical theorems and proofs that demonstrate that 2 + 2 DOES in fact equal 4? </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As I said, "Math doesn't lie.", but math CAN be wrong when it tries to represent the real world. Or, let me rephrase - we are wrong when we assume that the world described by the math, identically represents the world in which we live. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In our scenario, that math didn't lie. In fact, the math wasn't wrong. But we were wrong when we assumed that the math accurately represented the world. What the math failed to take into consideration was that John also added 2 apples to your bucket. Thus, there are now 6 apples in your bucket. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>"That's not fair! You never mentioned anything about anyone else." </i></span></div><div style="background-color: transparent; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br />
</span></div><div style="background-color: transparent; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That's true, but when we create math to model the world, we aren't TOLD all the characters and variables and the exact scale and nature of their effects. We have to derive them ourselves. Sometimes, in simple systems, we can deduce all of them and the math does accurately reflect that system. However, the more complex the system, the more variables, the more interactions, the more complex the math, the more difficult it is to discover all affected and affecting variables, and the easier it is to miss (or misunderstand) something. Thus, when we create mathematical models to represent extremely complex systems, the potential for overlooking variables (or even simply under or over estimating their effects) is not only possible, it's likely.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the world described by the math, John doesn't exist. Nobody other than you exists. Therefore, if you only added 2 more apples, there will only be 4 apples in the bucket now. It's simple, it's straightforward, but it'd be wrong. Overlooking John as a variable means that, while the math didn't lie; while the math wasn't wrong, it did not reflect reality. And if we had based our actions on the result of that math, we would have potentially made the wrong decision. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Let's say that we adjust our math, represent John, and based on this math, decide we have enough apples to bake an apple pie. However, what happens to our plans if, because of our mathematical oversight of not considering Sally, we only wound up with only 1 apple in our bucket because our math didn't represent that she removed 5 apples for herself? Based on our math, we would have concluded that we had enough apples, and we would have began preparing to bake. However, at some point, we would have come up very short of apples. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Similarly, when we try to model complex systems like climate or the economy, we can easily draw the wrong conclusions and plan the wrong actions based on, not faulty, but incomplete, math. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even looking at previous data can be misleading if not all variables are considered. If we look at data that shows that home sales went up at the same time that tax rates went up, we could draw the conclusion that higher taxes cause increased home sales. Based on this conclusion, we could plan to raise them even more in hopes of further increasing home sales. However, by overlooking that a new factory opened up a few miles down the road, our conclusion would be wrong, and our actions would be mistaken. In the end, our wrong conclusion and the following actions might have led to not only the reduction in home sales, but also possibly the closing of the factory. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This type of oversight can happen easily. Looking at some specific economic data, one can easily see how people would conclude that getting into WW2 got us out of the Great Depression. However, the data doesn’t tell the whole picture. Similarly, many economists and politicians will bring up a chart or point out some data that indicates that their prescribed action worked in the past and should be implemented now. But without taking a full, contextual view of that event and that time, it’s difficult to understand all the variables that may have affected things.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>“So are you saying we can’t trust math? Well we might as well throw it all out the window?”</i></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My point isn't to say we should ignore math. My point is that we need to be cautious about just blindly trusting what math "tells" us. We need to understand that in complex systems, even a small misunderstanding of a single variable, let alone possibly omitting one entirely, can change a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback">negative feedback</a> system into a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback">positive feedback</a> system. We need to be careful about basing actions on mathematical models without trying to look at the entire context of the situation. Otherwise, we may very likely find out we don't have enough apples. </span></div>Tocanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07904853021689474570noreply@blogger.com0