Making Matters Worse

The price of gasoline at the pump reflects the relationship between the supply of available gasoline and the demand for gasoline. Government intervention that lowers the price of gasoline without government intervention that also increases the supply of gasoline can only result in a shortage of available gasoline. Government intervention that reduces the profits for selling gasoline without government intervention that also reduces the demand for gasoline can also only result in a shortage of available gasoline.

Senator McCain wants to declare a holiday on gasoline taxes. Senator Obama wants to make oil companies pay a windfall profit tax on the excess (sic) profits from gasoline. Is it asking too much to ask for a serious Presidential candidate who understands that government intervention is causing the problem of gasoline shortages and higher prices, not leading to the solution of more gasoline and lower prices.

The market solution that will lower the price of gasoline is to allow existing oil companies to explore and drill in more places and for new competitors to enter the oil industry with the expectation of making an above average profit. More production of gasoline will lower the price of gasoline and meet the demand for gasoline.

Shall They Dance

Sun-Tzu, the Chinese General and military strategist circa 400 B.C. is attributed with being the first to say, “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”.

I suspect Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will each be giving the words of General Sun-Tzu much consideration as long as they both remain in politics. Publicly, they will appear to be close friends, yet privately, they will always remain close enemies.

Barack Obama desperately needs the support of Hillary Clinton voters, but at the same time, he cannot appear to need Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton desperately wants to be President of the United States, but at the same time, she cannot appear to be a sore loser.

A Vice President Clinton would be closer and less of a pain in the rump to a President Obama than a Senator Clinton would be, but a Clinton on the ticket could add to the scandals sticking to Senator Obama.

The Vice Presidency could be a stepping stone to becoming President, but it isn’t a stepping stone Senator Clinton needs.

No matter what happens in the November election, expect lots of tap dancing from these two for years to come.

The Road Less Traveled

The rising price of gasoline has made my commute to and from work much faster and much safer. “Faster” because there are fewer cars on the freeway during drive time hours and “safer” because traffic is moving at a steady pace instead of too slow or too fast.

For me, the higher price of gas is worth the time I am saving driving back and forth to work. I am getting better gas mileage and I am enjoying my commute more.

At some point, the gas market will adjust. Fewer drivers using gas or the same drivers using less gas is lowering the demand and higher profit for gas producers is increasing the supply. Additionally, employers will have to find ways to compensate employees for their higher cost of living caused by higher gas prices.

There will come a time when the freeways are congested again and the risk of accidents will increase again. For now, I will enjoy the high gas prices while it lasts.

The Republican Soul

Has there ever been a major Presidential candidate more terminally constipated than Mitt Romney? If you answered Al Gore or John Kerry, you might be right, but do Republicans really want their own version of a poll-taking, script-reading, position-parsing, consultant-driven, image-building, hair-coloring, privileged-class pretzel of a candidate? Do Republicans really want a candidate who is capable of buying an election without ever demonstrating the willingness to fight for or finance any of the positions important to Republican voters? Apparently some Republican voters do, but so far, not most. Apparently almost all of talk radio does, but not me.

Character still matters to many Republican voters. We celebrate politicians who become life-protecting, tax-cutting, government-reducing, freedom-protecting, law-enforcing legislators, once they fight to reform government, not when they are trying to buy our vote in an election; especially a Presidential election.

The Republican Party is left with some very flawed candidates this Presidential election cycle. Our Party needs to be tweaked and our nominating process needs to be reformed before the next election cycle in 2012. This year we go to the general election with the candidate we’ve got. If Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee, the positions of the two major Parties will be different, but the soul of the two major Parties will be the same. Is that what we really want?

Freedom and Government

In order for the citizens of any country to experience freedom, the government of their country must be limited in scope and small in size.

Freedom is incompatible with big government. Government can be small in scope (limited), yet still be big enough to restrict freedom when resources are taken from tax payers and spent by bureaucrats. Very small government is also incompatible with freedom. Government must be large enough to protect the innocent without being so large it encumbers the freedom of its citizens.

In the following graph, freedom is assigned a value between 0 (No freedom) and 12 (Maximum freedom). Taxes are assigned a value between 0 (No taxes at all) and 100 (Every citizen turns their entire paycheck over to the government).



As long as tax revenue is collected and spent by the government in a way that prevents one citizen from preying on another citizen, the tax revenue collected will be used to ensure and increase freedom. Citizens are allowed to do whatever they want, suffer the consequences and enjoy the benefits of their freedom, just as long as they don’t impede on the freedom of others.

However, once tax revenue is used for any purpose other than the protection of freedom, citizens begin to have less freedom, regardless of the intentions or morality of the stated purpose. Every last penny taken by government and spent by government has reduced the amount of money available for the taxed citizen to freely spend and has most likely also created a restriction against a certain free choice by the tax payer.

Of course citizens of most modern countries do have a right to restrict the freedom of their fellow citizens, but let’s be clear what is happening when we allow government to borrow, tax, and spend; the majority is practicing tyranny over the minority.

They Left Me (and I do mean left)

The California Republican Party is encouraging voters to approve Propositions 94, 95, 96, & 97 to expand gaming revenues derived from casinos owned by four Indian tribes in California.

I have voted for Republicans since 1988 because I want to decrease the size, scope, and power of government, not because I don’t want to pay for big government. The funding of government is almost irrelevant, but the power of government is what needs to be limited and controlled.

By supporting these Propositions, California Republicans are saying the size of government is irrelevant, and all we should care about is the source of government spending. How pathetic.

One of Ronald Reagan’s most famous quotes is his statement that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. I know how he felt. The California Republican Party has left me.

Self Serving and Biased Analysis

Way too many blog pundits, just like their predecessors and cousins in the traditional media, are making claims and predictions about the Presidential primaries based more on personal hunches than actual facts.

I find the political analysis of others to be interesting, but I don’t find very many pieces on the internet to be any more insightful than what I am hearing on talk radio, or reading in traditional media; which isn’t very insightful at all. The predictions and analysis by the experts has been consistently wrong since the 2006 elections.

At this point, all of the caucuses and primaries have amounted to nothing more than a pre-season where a few of the non-serious candidates have folded their tents and closed shop. The real season starts in Florida and then continues on Super Tuesday. On February 6th we will have plenty of facts to analyze. Until then, political punditry is merely speculation; nothing more. Most of the speculation is self serving or biased anyway.

Anecdotal Irony

I was sitting in my reclining chair last night watching the third coldest football game in the history of the NFL on FOX feeling that perhaps the Global Warming zealots had suffered a serious blow to their religious beliefs when I decide to check CBS during a commercial time out. Apparently, the true believers at CBS just can’t be dissuaded by actual weather since they decided to air a rebroadcast of their show “The Age of Warming”. Did CBS get purchased by the Comedy Network when I wasn’t paying attention? You can’t make this stuff up. Even the fellow believers at NBC had to admit this morning on the Today Show that a larger percentage of the United States was below 10 degree Fahrenheit than ever before.

Of course anecdotal evidence like a football game in Green Bay in the middle of January doesn’t disprove the current theory of man-made Global Warming. However, anecdotal evidence like a retreating glacier in the Andes Mountains of Peru doesn’t prove the theory of man-made Global Warming either. Glaciers have expanded and retreated throughout History and always will. Football games in Green Bay in the middle of January have produced some great athletic spectacles throughout NFL history and always will.

Déjà vu not named Hillary

I don’t want a President of the United States who will say and do whatever it takes to become President. A good President needs to have a soul and an ideology beyond getting elected.

Mitt Romney may have won the Michigan Primary last night, and he may have improved his chances for obtaining the Republican nomination, but he also may have revealed his true colors, and in effect, diminished his chances for the nomination.

It doesn’t matter how many times Romney is described as a true conservative by the conservative establishment, he still looks like Bill Clinton to me, and after his speeches in Michigan last week, I am beginning to think Romney and our former President are interchangeable. Both are professional panderers. Romney, just like former President Clinton, seems more concerned with getting elected than with advancing freedom and justice.

The term “conservative” may not mean the same thing to everyone, but if the term “conservative” doesn’t include the value of honesty, then I am not a conservative, true or otherwise. I suspect there are many other voters like myself who are finding Mitt Romney harder and harder to vote for because truthfulness is more important than being on the winning side.

Examen

Tod Bolsinger at his very best. He really is a modern day Apostle.

Prayer That Changes Things

Debate Analysis

Saturday evening’s New Hampshire Presidential debates televised on ABC were probably the best Presidential debates I have ever seen. Charles Gibson did a good job of introducing topics and then getting out of the way as the candidates clarified their own positions and mischaracterized the positions of some of the other candidates. Viewers had a good opportunity to hear the ideas and see the personalities of the major Republican and Democratic candidates.

Here are some of my thoughts on the debates:

Biggest Surprise: The Democrats, with the exception of Governor Richardson, sounded like adults trying to widen their appeal beyond the activist extremes in their party. They were all able to talk about domestic and foreign policy challenges without just bashing the Bush Administration. Richardson sounded like he was on pain medication. His friends and family need to begin gentle intervention.

Most Predictable Moment: John McCain has never delivered a funny line in a debate. Mitt Romney is flatter on his feet than President Bush. You had to know that at some point in the debate, John McCain was going to botch a good line and Mitt Romney was going to let him get away with it by botching the comeback even worse.

Best Communicator: Of all the candidates, Rudy Giuliani seems to always know where his is going with his comments. He gives just enough introductory information, just enough meat to make his point, and then ends with a quick close. Barack Obama is also good at making a point, but Obama’s points are way too generalized for my liking. I don’t need a complete explanation, but I do need a few specifics.

Biggest Winner: All of the candidates had multiple opportunities to turn any question into a campaign issue with a salient point. All of the candidates, Richardson excepted, were prepared, capable, and successful at presenting themselves and their major campaign themes. Of all the candidates thought, I believe Governor Huckabee did the most to demonstrate that he is different from the way he is being characterized by the conservative media. Huckabee won by making conservative points and taking ammunition away from his opponents. He also has a way of smiling at the right times and frowning at the right times to come across as very likeable.

Biggest Loser: Mitt Romney is smart, he knows the issues, even the details of the issues, but he usually comes across as too prepared and too robotic. He needs to convince voters he believes what he says and he needs to be more likeable to voters who want a President who can relate to their issues and their feelings. By running negative adds and then by wanting to get back to the issues when he was challenged about his negative campaign adds, Romney reinforced the feelings of voters who think he is a robot unable to relate to average Americans.

Finally in the Game: Fred Thompson was also a winner in the debate. He should be able to compete with Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Huckabee going forward.

Enigma: Ron Paul is a complete enigma. He is completely right about the Constitution and completely wrong about foreign policy. Being right about the Constitution still wouldn’t get him elected even if he was also right about foreign policy. There are just too many Americans who want the Federal government dictating policies from Washington.

Running Mates: It is very interesting how the two candidates with the most to disagree about never even brought up the other candidate or his positions. I bet Giuliani is thinking Huckabee would make a good running mate and I bet Huckabee is thinking Giuliani would make a good running mate. I don’t think I could vote for either one unless they were running on the same ticket. The sum would be greater than the parts.

Phoniness Defeated Romney

I agree with Michael Medved:

The message ought to be obvious: the core issue was phoniness, not faith-- and the religious and non-religious alike react badly to phoniness…

In other words, Non-Evangelicals appear to have been much more influenced by the religious variable in their distaste for Huck, than Evangelicals were influenced by that variable in their distaste for Mitt.

Those who insist, over and over again, that the Iowa Caucuses reflected “Christian identity politics” or a “tidal wave of Evangelical support” are basing their analysis on feelings, not facts; on vapors, not voters. It’s dishonest to say that a guy who just won a crushing state-wide victory, without even winning the majority of his own religious group, displayed a one dimension appeal to Christian zealots only.

This endlessly repeated story line is not only tired, it’s a lie.

and Mark Steyn Too:

As governor, as preacher and even as disc jockey, he's spent his life in professions that depend on connecting with an audience, and he's very good at it. His gag on "The Tonight Show" – "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off" – had a kind of brilliance: True, it is cornball at one level (imagine John Edwards doing it with all his smarmy sanctimoniousness) but it also devastatingly cuts to the core of the difference between him and Mitt Romney. It's a disc-jockey line: the morning man on the radio is a guy doing a tricky job – he's a celebrity trying to pass himself off as a regular joe – which is pretty much what the presidential candidate has to do, too. Huckabee's good at that.

I don't know whether the Jay Leno shtick was written for him by a professional, but, if so, by the time it came out of his mouth it sounded like him. When Huck's campaign honcho, Ed Rollins, revealed the other day that he wanted to punch Romney in the teeth, Mitt had a good comeback: "I have just one thing to say to Mr. Rollins," he began. "Please, don't touch the hair." Funny line – but it sounds like a line, like something written by a professional and then put in his mouth.

Official Endorsement

The official Contrarian Views endorsement for the 2008 Primary season is … none. There is just too much to dislike about all of the candidates at this point. I’m sure I will end up supporting the Republican nominee over the Democratic nominee, but I wish we had better choices.

I’ve been almost certain for years that I would never, ever, vote for John McCain, but as I look at the Republican field, he almost seems more acceptable than the rest of the bunch. I do think Fred Thompson has the most positions consistent with my beliefs, so I am hoping at some point he will find a way to communicate his small government beliefs, but if he doesn’t get more energy real fast, it will be too little too late.

...Derangement Syndrome

Ten years ago Andrew Sullivan was my favorite online writer. He was not only one of the first to use an online journal as a way to increase his exposure and readership, he was also easily one of the best pundits on the internet. His opinions were fresh, his writing style was brief and clear, and he was impossible to categorize as being left or right. But after Sullivan developed Bush Derangement Syndrome, I could no longer relate to anything he wrote. His hatred for President Bush seemed to push him toward hating anything and everything associated with our President. It wasn’t enough for Sullivan to criticize the decisions of President Bush, he became unable to opine on matters Bush without demonizing everyone in the Administration and everyone who supported the President. His hatred for President Bush ruined his objectivity and my interest in what he had to say.

Hugh Hewitt has now become just as unreadable as Andrew Sullivan to me. He has developed such a bad case of Huckabee
Derangement Syndrome that he can no longer be considered to have an objective view of politics or much anything else.

As much as I like President Bush and think overall he has been a good President, part of me will be glad when his term in office expires. As much as I love politics, part of me will be glad when the 2008 election is done. I want to be able to read two of my favorite writers again. I sure hope …Derangement Syndrome is not fatal or final.

Appropriate Reaction

Doesn’t it seem like the News and commentary regarding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is out of proportion to the significance of the event?

Ralph Peters has a Contrarian view of former Prime Minister Bhutto’s significance to the democratization of Pakistan.

Appropriate Force

[PREVIOUS]

Almost daily, I will observe someone using an inappropriate amount of force. Sometimes, it is one of my daughters as they learn a new activity or skill, but often it is an adult who doesn’t understand the relationship between force and success or has yet to learn the proper amount of force for the job at hand.

A good way to view the proper amount of force is to visualize what happens when hammering a nail. Someone experienced with a hammer and a nail will start with a few taps to get the nail started in the right direction, continue with a few pounds that are forceful enough to drive the nail, but not so hard the nail bends along its shaft, and then finish with a few taps to bring the nail flush with the board so as not to damage the board. Hammering a nail with appropriate force for each step is a skill that can be learned fairly quickly, but it is a skill that must be learned. First time hammerers rarely get the nail hammered correctly. Another mechanical example is the force needed to tighten a bolt. Too loose and the bolt will not stay in place; too tight and either the threads will be striped or the bolt will get stuck.

Inexperienced salespeople often have difficulty selling a product because they struggle to discern the right amount of pressure to apply to a potential buyer. Motivated newbie’s will tend to oversell and end up repelling a potential buyer while timid newbie’s will tend to undersell and miss some good opportunities.

The word “torture” gives the impression of a one size fits all method of extracting information. This is unfortunate because experienced interrogators need a wide range of rewards and punishments as a way to bribe and threaten an enemy combatant in order to extract the greatest possible useful information. The methods used will depend on various factors including the timeline for needing the information because some threats are more urgent than others, the personality of the enemy combatant, and the history of the enemy combatant.

Many forms of government sanctioned punishment have been discontinued due to mistakes, worse case scenarios, and abuse. Interrogating enemy combatants could also result in mistakes, worse case scenarios, and abuse, but all three can be minimized by allowing very experienced interrogators to use the appropriate force necessary to extract useful information.

Interrogation Toolbox

[PREVIOUS]

The problem with the words “always” and “never” is that neither word leaves any room for the word “appropriate”. Both words demark extreme and inflexible positions.

My wife and I made the decision to only spank our children as a last resort if a child of ours was being intentionally defiant. I can count on my fingers the number of times I have spanked both of my daughters. As a parent, placing one of my daughters over my knees and swatting them on the butt was the hardest thing I ever had to do because I knew it would bring tears to their eyes and screaming to their lips and I couldn’t be certain they would understand why their punishment needed to reach that level of severity. In order to deliver the spank, I had to resist what I felt like doing and do what I knew was appropriate to do.

I will never know for certain whether we spanked too often or too little, but I do know for certain spanking is a necessary part of parenting when done at the appropriate time and with the appropriate amount of force. It is quite easy to compare the behavior of two 3-year-olds, one who has been spanked and one who has not been spanked, and know which one of the two understands the consequences of defiant behavior. If I had to guess, I would say we probably should have spanked a little more than we did, but I prefer knowing we may have under-spanked than worrying if we may have over-spanked.

Enemy prisoners need to know that the decisions they make regarding cooperation with interrogators have consequences. Some prisoners will willingly cooperate in order to receive benefits not given to other prisoners, while some prisoners will not cooperate regardless of the amount of hardship inflicted upon them. However, the majority of prisoners will cooperate based on consequences, both good and bad. Various levels of rewards and hardships must be included in the toolbox used by interrogators in order to extract the maximum amount of useful information from enemy combatants. Not every prisoner needs to suffer extreme hardship, but every prisoner needs to know extreme hardship is a possibility for lack of cooperation.

[NEXT]

To Torture or Not To Torture

I’ve been thinking a lot about torture lately because I haven’t read anything persuasive regarding why torture should or shouldn’t be used as a means of interrogation.

The main argument for using torture as a means of interrogation is because torture can and has been used to gain useful information to save lives and apprehend murderers.

The main arguments against using torture are because the information gained is not trustworthy, the person being tortured may not know the information that is being requested, torturing prisoners makes the torturer just as evil as the enemy, and torturing an enemy’s prisoners will lead to the allies of the torturer being tortured if captured by the enemy.

Some religious writers who believe man is created in the image of God have also added additional arguments against torture because they feel torture has a dehumanizing affect on the torturer and the tortured which is displeasing (sinful) to God.

Taken alone, each of the arguments for and against torture make a lot of sense, but taken alone or even combined, none of the arguments make a compelling case for why torture should or shouldn’t be used because of the counter arguments to each one.

For instance, regarding the argument for torture, how many people need to be tortured for how many times before one life will be saved? Slight torture on one person for one time to save one life doesn’t seem all that bad but severe torture on a hundred people for a hundred times to save one life seems quite excessive.

Regarding the arguments against torture, why does it matter if some of the information is not trustworthy when all of the information extracted can be tested in other ways for accuracy and truthfulness? If the one being tortured is a murderer, how can torturing this person make the torturer just as evil unless the evil of murder is defined down morally? Additionally, if the enemy already has a record of cutting off the heads of live prisoners, how is torturing one of their combatants going to make them any more evil or dangerous to our allies since they are already as dangerous as a group can get?

The more I’ve thought about torture, the more I’ve realized I can’t make any big sweeping declarations regarding the rightness or wrongness of torture. However, I do have a few points to add to the debate which I will get started with in my next piece.

[NEXT]

Pundit Political Objectivity

Is it possible to have an unbiased and objective view of events and people in the News?

I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh for the first time on a road trip from Chicago to Fort Smith in 1990. I became very excited as I listened to his radio show because for the fist time in my adult life I heard a radio broadcaster who believed in self reliance, personal responsibility, and capitalism, just like me. The fact that he was also against abortion endeared me to him and his program even more.

However, the more I listened to Rush, the more I realized he sounded just as confident, and just as bombastic, even when I knew he had his facts completely wrong. His demeanor never changed regardless of any view he was expressing. The confidence he projected when he was right sounded bloated when he was wrong.

I try to read and hear the diverse perspectives coming from many different reporters, analysts, and pundits; but like most everyone else, I have my favorites, and my time is limited. George Will is always solid when he is opining about human nature and economics. Hugh Hewitt has been at the top of my list for all things political, mostly because of his defense of religion and religious people in public life and for how gracious he is has treated me on the few occasions we have had contact.

Even though I haven’t written much lately, I have been following politics and the race for the White House. Most of the top tier of Republican candidates have a few attributes I like and a few I don’t. Candidate Huckabee is a good man with way too many government solutions for my taste. I can understand how Governor Huckabee is not the candidate for voters like me who lean libertarian, but I don’t understand all of the attacks against Governor Huckabee coming from conservatives like Will, Hewitt, and others that have crossed the line from criticizing his positions and record to criticizing his character.

The bias of Will and Hewitt seems to have affected their objectivity. If it could happen to them, it could happen to anyone.

The Little Engine That Could

With all due respect to Notre Dame and all its blue-chip players, Navy's celebration should be our celebration.

John Feinstein is the author of "A Civil War: A Year Inside Army vs. Navy, College Football's Purest Rivalry." He has been a commentator for the Navy football radio network for 11 years.