Res Publicas

School Vouchers in a Purely Competitive Marketplace

2009-05-01T10:19:00.000-07:00

What if I told you that a simple change in public policy could result in a solution to our current unemployment problem, and our current education problem? Is that something you might be interested in?

Its a tall order so you are dubious right off the bat. Well, let me disabuse you of your doubt.

Here's the short answer, we give the option for every student in America to take their $10,000.00 worth of government funded education money (voucher) and use it in any educational capacity they and their family sees fit. At the same time, we drastically ease restrictions on what qualifies to receive this voucher in return for educational services. The purpose? Every member of the young, college educated, unemployed work force, can choose to open a school. The result? A purely competitive education market, funded by government spending, through individual students, with small class sizes and unheardof teacher/student repport. Here is how:

Any one who was awake during introduction to microeconomics in college knows that probably the most utilitarian way to distribute goods and services in a society is through a purely competitive market. A purely competitive market has many small firms, all producing relatively homogeneous goods or services, has low market entry/exit barriers (cost of starting or selling the business), and perfect information for buyers and sellers. Market equilibrium is achieved, which means that the good or service is sold at the lowest possible price, and the good or service is produced at the highest possible quantity. This education plan can achieve perfect market conditions.

Here is what it means in an abstract example. Producing a marble has a certain cost. The cost associated with this unit for a includes the worker's wage, the cost of the marble making equipment and the rent for a marble making shop. Because there is this cost, a certain price must be payed for the production of that marble, or none would be produced. If the price is above the cost for the marble shop, it will produce marbles. If the price is below the cost, the shop will not produce marbles. That is how we figure out that at a certain price, a certain quantity will be produced.

We know the average price of education around the country, payed by tax revenue, is about $10,000.00 per student per year. That money must pay for teacher's salaries, teacher's union dues, administrator's salaries, ganitorial service, security, counselors of every stripe, athletic coaches, school building costs, books, utilities, computers, librarians, school district administrators, school board members, attorneys, accountants, busses, bus drivers, insurance, school supplies, and other education costs that I haven't thought of. This means that the money which is allocated to the essential education function, teacher time, is a low percentage by the time the money has to pay all the other costs listed above. If we want to improve education, we need to increase the quantity and quality of the essential education function, teacher time.

The only way to increase the quality and quantity of a good, is to raise the marginal profit available to producers of the good. I know what you just thought, schools shouldn't worry about profit. Profit in economics is the difference between price and cost - if the price is above the cost there is posiive profit - if the price is below the cost, there is negative profit. In order for more or better education to be produced you could either raise the price of education, or lower the cost of education. Raising the price is easy, you say, just tax people more. Education is priceless isn't it? I'm not averse to raising taxes to pay for education, but there is a better way to get more bang out of the $10,000.00 per student already being payed by the generous taxpayers. Remember all the stuff that the $10,000.00 has to pay for? I'm referring to everything below "teacher's salaries" above.

Not much of the $10,000.00 actually makes it to the teachers, and here is how I know that. Say the average class size in the United States is 30. Its probably much higher, but I like even numbers in my examples. $10,000.00 times 30 is $300,000.0o per year, per classroom. How much of that does the teacher receive, $30,000.00 maybe - probably less in reality but lets try to keep it simple. So, the essential function of education is payed for by 10% of the whole price of education. The bang for our education buck is %10. My plan can get this number much, much higher, by making education much much cheaper.

Imagine a school that is run entirely by one person, a recent college graduate named Steve. Having tested the waters in the presently hopeless labor market, Steve was only able to find work as a waitor. Nothing against waiting tables, but Steve graduated summa cum laude and was hoping to use his brain at work and make some difference in the world.

Instead of waiting tables, Steve enrolls in a program to test the viability of a new education program. In order to establish a school, all Steve would have to do is rent a space, which could be in his own house, if he had room in his house which could be suitably situated as a small classroom. Steve would have to buy a few computers, buy a few books, build a few desks, get high speed internet, and maybe take some kind of general knowledge test to ensure he is able to teach the basics. The details if the test and accompanying license are not important here. It is enough to say that a recent college graduate intent on being a teacher at the high school level should have sufficient understanding of calculus, lab science, computer science, literature, writing, history and civics.

Steve takes the plunge and decides to do it. He is confident that he can make a living by enrolling only seven students. The limit is 10 students per teacher. If he is a good enough teacher to keep his seven students all year, he will make $70,000.00, before expenses. If he is frugal and wise, his net wages could easily equal $50,000.00 per year. Steve doesn't think its a bad deal at all considering the next best use of his time would earn him around $25,000.00 waiting tables, if he is lucky. He spends 6 to 7 hours with his seven students each weekday. He teaches each subject, in a manner he sees fit. His students are tested often, in tests administered to students from each school like Steve's, so their parents know how Steve is doing, as well as how their kids are doing.

Utilizing internet resources, most of which are free, such as wikipedia, and Google books, Steve can teach his students any subject he wants, and any subject the students want. Think of how cool it would be for students to guide their own education, based on their own aptitudes and interests? Of course there would still be a required core curricula, of math, English, science, and civics.

If the parents of Steve's students didn't think he was a good teacher, or thought he was a little too creapy, or if the student didn't meld well with Steve's teaching style, they can easily transfer to a different Steve-like school without any trouble. Steve knows this, so he tries very hard to be a good teacher.

Thats it. Thats the plan that could revolutionize education. It establishes a market for education which is regulated by perfect competition. It could be available to every child, unlike current voucher programs which are scarcely available. It costs no more than we are currently spending on education, and it will increase the role of parents in their kids education.

Does anybody believe that will actually work? If not, why? Let me know.

Somali Pirate Encounter and American Exceptionalism

2009-04-12T08:05:00.000-07:00

Recently the Somali Pirates took possession of their first US ship the Maersk Alabama. Over the last few years the Somali Pirates have baffled international maritime authorities having seized hundreds of ships flying flags of other nations. Their pirating efforts have been virtually undaunted, that is until they messed with the United States. The US/Pirate encounter has given us and the world another reason to believe that American Exceptionalism is real.

American Exceptionalism, a concept first put forth by Alexis de Tocqueville, is the idea that America has a special place at the head of all developed nations. Our history, traditions, institutions and most importantly our people, have advanced, in a relatively short period of time, far more than other nations. It is controversial, particularly for liberals who point to our history of slavery, and our present struggle with lagging education statistics and civil rights to decry American Exceptionalism as a myth.

The recent dust up with the Somali Pirates should be added to the list of reasons for believing that there is something special about America, and something very real about American Exceptionalism. Hundreds of foreign ships have been captured by the pirates, and the governments and owners of every one of those ships have given in to the pirates demands, or have let the captured sailors, around 230 of them, rot in pirate custody. On the other hand, when the pirates captured their first American ship, the American crew fought back and indeed took back control over their ship.

The refusal of the American crew to lay down before the pirates hearkens back to September 11, 2001, when the American passengers of Flight 93, on their own initiative, in an effort to defend the United States, attacked the hijackers and caused the plane to crash in a field, rather than into an important government building. The lesson from that infamous day was that the terrorists should be afraid of the American people, not the other way around. The Somali Pirates have learned the same lesson.

The Somali Pirate incident has shown us that American Exceptionalism does not stem from our government, our material wealth, or our massive and deadly military - it stems, as it always has, from our people. The crew of the Maersk Alabama epitomizes the American Spirit, when challenged, they showed that they are tough, independent, and will return violence in the face of violence.

And of course, lets not forget the SEALS. All they needed was the go ahead and three quick shots later the situation was over.

Cap and Trade Should Be Benched

2009-04-09T09:36:00.000-07:00

I am not ignorant of the science; I'll even repeat it here so everyone knows that I'm not just paying lip service. Carbon emissions causes global temperatures on average to rise. The polar ice caps melt, draining millions of acre-feet of freshwater into the ocean. The sea levels rise, the thermohaline circulation shuts down, and no longer does the ocean transmit the sun's heat to northern latitudes... Ice age. Ok, so we can all agree on the theory.

Here is the problem: enacting drastic carbon reducing measures such as Cap and Trade, and other carbon taxes poses a much greater risk to our present survival than climate change or rising sea levels. Consider this: our economy is presently far more fragile than the Earth's climate, and our ability to affect the economy is presently far greater than our ability to affect the climate. Carbon taxes are regressive. A regressive tax is one that is proportionately levied more heavily upon the poor, than the rich. Well how can that be, you ask? After all Cap and Trade is a tax levied on rich energy companies, big industry, and baby-seal-hating SUV drivers. While that may be true, what is also true is a law of economics: taxes always get passed on to the consumer.

Trickle-down economics may be a myth, and maybe not. One thing that has always been true is that taxes trickle-down and raise prices to the consumer. Not all taxes that get passed down to the consumer are regressive, for instance taxes on Lexus, Rolex, Prada - are not regressive because the end consumers are rich. However, when the good being taxed is a necessity, the tax is regressive.

Necessitites are economic goods that are necessary for survival. No matter how much a necessity costs, it still must be purchased. For instance, food is a necessity. Taxes on food are classic regressive taxes.

Energy is a necessity for two reasons. The first reason is that energy is a necessity in and of itself. Energy comes in the form of electricity, heating oil, natural gas, and gasoline. People need energy for light, for heat, for cooking, and to get to work. A tax on energy raises the cost of the necessity for everyone, but it affects poor people more heavily because poor people must pay a higher proportion of their income for energy.

The second reason is that energy is a necessity indirectly. Every good on the shelves of every store arrived with energy - diesel or coal - presumably. So a tax on energy is effectively a tax on transportation. This raises the price of all other necessities which are transported: food, building materials, clothing, and energy.

Cap and Trade will disproportionately raise taxes on poor people. In a fragile economic climate, possibly more susceptible to inflation than ever, raising the prices on consumer goods is a dangerous plan. It is far more dangerous than the veritable drop in the bucket that a few more years of undiminished carbon emissions will cause.

Colbert's Space Station Module - A Model for Direct Democracy

2009-03-29T08:37:00.000-07:00

NASA recently decided to name its new space station module by way of a national internet vote. The Colbert Nation, talk show host Steven Colbert's legion of followers, seized the opportunity and stuffed the online NASA ballot in favor of naming the module after their standard bearer, Mr. Colbert. It is yet to be seen whether NASA will follow through and actually name the module after the election winner, Mr. Colbert. Nevertheless, the NASA internet balloting, and the Colbert Nation, have showed us how a model of direct democracy could work.

America is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is a system in which all government decisions are made by the people. This kind of system is more accurately known as Direct Democracy. It existed in Ancient Greek city states such as Athens. Every elector (men of the patrician class) frequently met in the city to vote on legislative proposals, judicial decisions, and the like. To be sure there were elected executive officials that made certain decisions when necessary, but for the most part all government decisions were made by the people. Direct Democracy is fine in a small city, where all the electors are able to meet on a regular basis.

Democracy becomes impractical, even impossible, as the government increases in geographic jurisdictional size. The limits on Direct Democracy are limitations on travel, and communications. Imagine how unproductive you would be to have to travel for days from your home, business, and farm every time there is a legislative meeting.

The internet solves this problem. Now due to enhances in communications technology, we can all communicate with one another instantly, even virtually meet, discuss, and vote without leaving our homes. The Colbert space module is a model of how this can work.

There is a distinct advantage in direct democracy, versus representative democracy: decisiveness. Our modern representative form of government is actually hampered by telecommunications technology, not enhanced by it. In a world where everyone can instantly learn what is said and what is done over the internet, outrage and political correctness, dominates. No government proposal, such as naming a space module for instance, can get accomplished when the name offends some group, or fails to adequately represent some group, or interest.

One major example comes to mind: the re-building of the ground zero sight in downtown New York City. Almost eight years have gone by since the towers fell and in that time literally nothing has been done to re-build the ground zero sight. Its sad really. The most powerful nation in the history of the world cannot re-build the sight of its most tragic domestic attack in almost eight years: not a monument, not a building, scarcely a plaque, statute, or memorial of any kind. The reason is a hyper-sensitive populace, made more responsive to perceived offense, by the internet.

Political correctness has run amok, largely due to everyone being plugged in, all the time. Unfortunately elected representatives face the brunt of political correctness scrutiny and can therefore get nothing done. Here is how it works: a politician proposes a plan for a building including a name, and a blueprint. Some group decides that their particular ethnicity, or cultural heritage is underrepresented, or that the building is somehow offensive and they go online and rail against the politician and the plan. The media, having taken its cues from the internet for at least five years, picks up on the "outrage" and reports it, and then the outrage mushrooms. The politician cannot afford to stand up to the outrage, and he withdraws the proposal.

All is not lost. The internet can be used productively in a democracy, and the Colbert space module is the model. If there is no elected representative to focus the outrage on, no strawman who represents the insensitive or politically incorrect proposal, than the group's (or groups' ) outrage does not act a veto, but merely a voting block.

In the NASA internet voting model, every citizen who had cause to weigh in, weighed in and voted. The Colbert Nation was more mobilized than any other interest group, and their members signed onto the NASA sight in greater numbers than anyone else, and they won for their man, Steven Colbert. The module now has a name, and no one person is responsible for any possible offense, or lack of cultural sensitivity for the name. And, no one has any reason to be offended, left out, discriminated against, disenfranchised, etc., because everyone had a vote. This is decisiveness, created out of the inherent fairness of the direct democratic process.

So, thank you Colbert Nation and NASA. You have provided the model of the future of direct democracy in the nation and in the world.

More to follow.

The Drive for Political Irrelevance

2009-03-29T07:40:00.000-07:00

There is a bill presently making its way through the Colorado Legislature which will peg the Colorado electoral votes during Presidential elections to the national popular vote. It is House Bill 1299 and it has passed favorably through the Colorado House of Representatives. If it passes the Senate, it will likely be signed by Governor "Rubber Stamp" Ritter and it will make Colorado irrelevant in Presidential elections. Indeed, it is part of a national strategy, working its way through several states' legislatures to back-door the elimination of the electoral college as we know it, the effect of which will make the votes and interests of all small states, irrelevant.

People forget that one of the major concerns of the Founders during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was tyranny of the majority. The Founders were very careful to check the power of large states in the Federal Government. The nation might never have been founded were it not for the Connecticut Compromise, also known as the Great Compromise which resulted in a bicameral legislature, one house's representatives elected popularly, the other elected by states. The Connecticut Compromise created a check on the power of large states, and ensured the power and relevancy of small states.

The Virginia Plan, named after the largest and wealthiest state at the time, would have based the election of representatives of both houses of congress, on population. So Virginia, the California of the day, would have dominated both houses of Congress. Were this the only idea for the legislative branch, the small states never would have voted to adopt the Constitution, and America never would have been founded.

Like the Senate, which creates equal legislative power among all states, big or small, the Electoral College was designed as a way to equalize the voting power of all states in presidential elections. In 1789 Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York could almost have elected the first president without the support of any other state. The electoral college made this impossible.

Today there are more states, and the states are spread all across the continent, but we still have the problem that certain states are larger than the others. If the electoral college were eliminated in favor of a popular vote system, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan - all large states - would dominate Presidential Elections, and the smaller states in the rest of the country would be ignored.

Colorado is an interesting example of being ignored in national politics. The 2009 "Stimulus" Bill, allocated some $787 Billion for various spending projects across the nation. Colorado is estimated to receive almost $2 Billion of the total. Is Colorado's share equal to the per-capita population of the United States? Not even close. The 2006 estimate figures some 4.7 million humans in Colorado, some 1.5% of the national total of 299 million humans. Colorado's offensively miniscule share of the Stimulus will be .2% of the total. Colorado is underrepresented in Stimulus spending by more than 7 times what it should be.

To add insult to injury, President Obama chose a museum in Denver, Colorado to sign the Stimulus Bill, hoping perhaps that no one would notice the slight. The gamble worked, and no one seems to have noticed. Imagine how irrelevant, and overlooked Colorado would be if it delegated its electoral authority to the national popular vote? Colorado is not unique, all small population states will be ignored as irrelevant if the Electoral College is dismantled through bills like Colorado's HB 1299, known nationally as the "National Popular Vote Bill"

A more appropriate title might be the "Middle America Marginalization Bill" or the "Bill to Establish Flyover Country."

The Return

2009-02-22T08:18:00.000-08:00

After more than a year off, we're back. It was a transformative year for the country and for me. For most of it I was hiding from that awful year of our lord 2008 on various rivers in the west, and in a college town supporting the local liquor economy. I read an awful lot of Hunter S. Thompson, so his influence here will be felt. Like many, I was looking for serious work. Having been laid off from my law job last March, I too am a victim of the era of greed. Many of my friends, like me, have been languishing in recession-ville, wasting our youth, talent, and education, but not our spirit.

This blog is taking a new direction. It will be dedicated to the lost generation: those of us who are over-educated, under-compensated, rarely appreciated, and almost never listened to. It will be a platform for the discussion of issues of grave national concern, but from our perspective. It will be the start of the political movement of our generation.

For too long the older generations have held onto the reigns of political power in this country. Even now the World War II generation is just beginning to lose power to the older baby-boomers. During the Obama campaign, our generation showed its first signs of political life. Unfortunately, we were used. What was the first act of the so-called President of our generation? He signed the largest tax onto our generation that has ever been passed by any government onto any group of humans, anywhere in history.

President Obama has shown his true roots. I'm not talking about race, ethnicity, or religion - those are not characteristics that our generation are concerned with. Those are issues of the past. No, President Obama showed that he is, first and foremost, a product of his generation. He was born in 1961 - a few months after the boomer generation ended. Of course, the lines by which generations are defined are blurry, not hard-lines. According to wiki-pedia, the boomers were born between 1944 and 1960. So, at the very least, Obama was conceived as a boomer, if not born as one. So, the President of hope and change used the same fear-mongering tactics to continue the same economic policies of greed and avarice of President Bush. And like his predecessor, President Obama has already ballooned the national debt beyond the level that even socialist economists would think prudent. When you include the near-bankrupt social security system, which will most certainly also be debt financed by our generation, it will be a long time before we get our heads above water. Make no mistake about it, the taxes we will pay for our entire lives will go to the repayment of this government debt.

Its hard to get your head above water if you are never given the opportunity to swim. We are the true victims of this recession and the accompanying unemployment. The millennial generation, or whatever you want to call the children of the baby-boomers who came of age around the turn of the new millennium, never expected anything from the future but good things. We went to college, under the prevailing ethic that if you didn't go to college you were a loser. Having been driven by a similar ethic, I went to law school because everyone was going to college and I wanted to distinguish myself from everyone else. The result of all of this education - more debt. Sound familiar?

So this is what we're going to do: consolidate and mobilize political power for our ends, not theirs. There are policy solutions which could move this country past the era of greed, and the politics of entitlement. Unfortunately they are not discussed in a serious way because the entrenched interests of prior generations forbid it. Our generation can outflank these entrenched interests if we mobilize under our policies and our principles. This blog will explore our policies and advocate for our principles. Look forward to policy articles on energy, education, markets, national defense, food production and distribution, health care, drug policy, the environment, and the role of government.

Colorado Sunday Liquor Law

2008-01-23T13:03:00.000-08:00

For those who are not familiar with the Colorado Alcohol Beverage Control laws, it is prohibited by law to buy liquor, wine, or beer stronger than 3.2% alcohol by volume on Sundays in Colorado. This has been the law in Colorado since the repeal of the 18th Amendment in 1933.

It is a silly law, to the point that you cannot take freshly brewed beer home, from one of our many fine micro-breweries, in a to-go container known as a growler. The only exception is for wine, which is corked at a table in a restaurant.

Every time the issue has been brought up at the state level, through the legislature or through the ballot initiative process, the liquor store owners have lobbied heavily against the repeal of the prohibition. It takes a moment to understand why.

Liquor stores also have a monopoly on liquor sales throughout the state, other than 3.2 beer. You cannot buy anything but 3.2 beer in a grocery or convenience store. So, if you want liquor, wine, or decent beer, you have to buy it from a liquor store. Due to this monopoly, the Sunday prohibition doesn't cost the liquor stores anything. Thirsty consumers will buy what they need on Saturday, or wait until Monday. The Sunday prohibition is therefore nothing but a free day off.

Of course, there is the religion thing. As if devout Christians througout the state would skip church service and rush to the liquor store to get themselves wasted on a Sunday morning. WWJD?

The following is a letter to the editor, from me, printed on January 22, 2008 in the Canon City Daily Record:

This week, the Colorado Senate is likely to consider repealing the Sunday liquor sales ban.

The Sunday liquor ban is an antiquated government regulation that restricts consumer freedom of choice. I understand the concern from liquor store owners that the Sunday ban gives them an automatic day off. However, it should not the province of the Colorado Legislature to grant or deny days off to independent business owners. Business owners should have the choice to be open or closed on any day they wish. Likewise, consumers should have the choice to buy legal goods and services on any day they wish.

If the rigor of owning a liquor store and being open seven days a week is too great, there is nothing preventing a liquor store owner from selling his business and doing something else that doesn’t require the same time commitment. By law, liquor store owners must be adults, it’s time they started acting like it.

Bush's Arab Arms Sale: A Few Thoughts

2008-01-15T10:13:00.000-08:00

In the midst of the 2008 Presidential Election it is easy for real news to slip through the cracks in the main stream media. On President Bush's recent sightseeing trip to the Middle East, he managed to offer some $20 Billion worth of American advanced weapons systems to the blood brothers of some of our worst enemies. Eventually, this might prove to be a very bad idea.

Of course, the administration touts this weapons sale as a positive step in our ongoing conflict with Iran. In the geopolitical paradigm of Cold War era strategy, it makes since: the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Unfortunately, as the Bush Administration has learned time and time again, Cold War era thinking does not work in the Middle East.

Included in the weapons systems proposed for sale are some of our gems, systems that have been proven to be effective in battle. The systems include: patriot missle batteries, smart bomb kits, and the Navy's Littoral Combat system (a naval weapons system devised around the Navy's global littoral defense strategy as the next generation of US Navy strategy).

History proves that meddling around in that region, particularly by arming "friendly" factions and nations, has not always served the United States well. Here is a brief history of American arms transfers to the Middle East.

In the 1970's, in an effort to quell the Soviet military advance and occupation of Afghanistan, the United States armed the Afghani rebel group, not quite famously known yet as The Taliban. Fortunately, this strategy had some initial benefit as American arms helped turn Afghanistan into the Russian Vietnam. The losses sustained by the USSR in Afghanistan, no doubt, hastened the eventual self-destruction of the USSR.

However, in the long term, this arms transfer has proven to be a bad strategic move for the United States. Throughout the 1990's, and until the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, the Taliban used the weapons and money obtained from the United States to reign over Afghanistan. As we know today, the Taliban has presided over one of the most anti-democratic, oppressive, and most religiously fascist governments in the history of the modern world.

In the 1980's Iran and Iraq were engaged in a vicious war. Iran was not a friend of the United States at that time. In the late 1970's, the secular government of Iran under the Shah, which had been propped up by the United States, was overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini. In the process of seizing control of the country, the Islamic radicals took control over the US Embassy and took 66 hostages. Although the hostage crisis was resolved (largely by the United States agreeing to sell arms to Iran) the diplomatic ties between the US and Iran were virtually severed.

During the course of the Iran/Iraq war, the Reagan Admistration decided that our dog in the race was to be Iraq. Iraq was secular; our hope was that the secular government of Iraq would prevail over the sectarian government of Iran. The President of Iraq at the time was none other than Saddam Hussein. The Reagan Administration sold arms, and other supplies, to Iraq so that Iraq would win the war. The war turned out to be a stalemate and although hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians died, there was no clear victor.

In the early 1990's, the short sighted policy of arming our "friends" in the Middle East would once again turn around and bite us in the ass. The world's attention was once again turned to the Middle East as Iraq took unprovoked and aggressive military action against Kuwait. The concern was that Saddam was attempting to build Iraq as a military hegemony over the Middle East region. The United States, under the first Bush Administration, was not about to let Saddam take control over the world's oil supply. Bush took aggressive action in the Gulf War. The Coalition forces, under the command of General Norman Schwarzkopf, drove Iraq's forces back from Kuwait in the most successful military campaign since Patton drove his 3rd Army through France and into Germany, and in the process saving the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne.

Despite the resounding military success of the Desert Storm campaign, it might never have been necessary if the US didn't help arm Saddam's army a few years earlier in the Iran/Iraq war. In 1990, Saddam had the 4th largest military in the world, acquired with a little help from Uncle Sam.

We know the story after that. In 2002, the United States invaded Afghanistan which was being defended by the very group that was propped up by American arms and support a few decades earlier.

We will have to wait for history to determine whether the current arms sale being proposed is another in a long line of short-sighted, eventual failures of foreign policy. The problem will be isolating this event from the many other foreign policy failures of the United States since the end of the Cold War.

Do we really want another 4/8 years of Bush, Clinton, Bush... foreign policy? Awareness is the key to prevention.

Newt on Hillary

2008-01-14T16:51:00.000-08:00

It has been widely reported on cable news that Newt Gingrich, on his podcast, recently praised Hillary Clinton. The question remains: why?

It is well known that Newt Gingrich is one of the most outspoken conservative republicans of the last 25 years. He championed the 1994 "republican revolution" and was one of the principle architects of the "Contract with America." The Contract was a 10 point list of policy goals that the 1995/1996 repulican led Congress promised to accomplish in their first term in office. Many of the goals were direct rebutals of policies promoted by the Clinton Administration.

Gingrich flirted with the possibility of running for President in 2008 on the Republican ticket. Last year Gingrich warned the country against another Clinton Administration. Why then would he praise Hillary on his pod-cast at a time when she is struggling to maintain her position as the democratic front runner?

Gingrich recently praised Hillary on her political acumen, and her "courage to learn" saying that learning during a campaign is a sign of a great candidate. Has he flip flopped? Has the great anti-Clinton republican swiched sides?

No. Gingrich was praising Hillary in order to help the republican nominee (whoever it turns out to be) to win the general election.

The fact is, if Hillary is the democratic nominee, the republicans have a pretty good shot at winning in the general. Her negative polling numbers (people who dislike her) have never really changed regardless of what her positive polling numbers have done. She stands a very poor chance of winning among male voters, particularly among white male voters. Moreover, she has a more difficult time hiding her leftist views than Obama, and therefore will have trouble winning independent, and alienated republican votes.

If Barack Obama is the nominee he will probably win, regardless of who the republican candidate turns out to be. He is very popular among young people and minorities - voting groups that traditionally do not turn out to vote as much as older, white voters. He comes off as somewhat of a moderate, avoiding policy and speaking in vague platitudes. His vague speaches have great effect because he is a fantastic orator. It has been decades since a great orator has run for president. His oratorical ability and stage presence will win him millions of votes from the undecided, from the unengaged, and from young voters who have never seen an inspiring leader at the national level, except of course in the movies.

Newt Gingrich wants Hillary to win the democratic nominee because she is clearly more beatable in the general election than Obama.

The Clintons' Race Card

2008-01-11T14:38:00.000-08:00

There are reports all over the web about the "backlash" from the black community to the Clinton campaign's racial slips in the days surrounding the New Hampshire primary. The racially charged statements were not mistakes, but were carefully crafted messages designed to inflame the black community.

What does the Clinton campaign have to gain from inciting racial tension in the Democratic primary?

The answer is simple, it is taken straight from the Clinton playbook: to divide and conquer.

Hillary Clinton is up against the biggest political threat that she has ever had to deal with. The Obama campaign has literally taken on a life of itself and has forced the Clinton campaign back on its heals - a position the Clinton's are not at all used to or comfortable with. Part of the reason that the Clinton campaign is facing this uphill battle against the Obama campaign is because of the minority vote, which will overwhelmingly favor Obama in the coming primary elections.

In classic Clinton style, the Clinton campaign has responded with somewhat unnoticable and unremarkable statements which have just been offensive enough to inflame some of the more outspoken and high profile individuals from the black community.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html

The Clinton campaign knows that if race becomes an issue in the Democratic primary it will likely turn off white voters to the Obama campaign. Obama cannot win without the support of white voters, but Clinton can win without the minority vote. By that simple logic, the more the Clinton campaign can slit the Democratic Party along racial lines, the better it is for Clinton.

The Clinton's have succeeded in their first attempts to divide and conquer the Democratic Primary race: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

Here is the Clinton strategy at the moment: 1) The Clinton campaign divides the party along racial lines. 2) The black community voices their outrage at Clinton's comments - solidifying the minority vote for Obama. 3) The media reports heavily on the racial divide and racial tension by airing the backlash from the black community. 4) The Obama campaign is forced to respond to racial comments from Clinton campaign, and from black community. 5) The Obama campaign is off message, no longer racially neutral in the eyes of white voters. 6) The division of the Democratic Party along racial lines is complete - white Democrats support Hillary, minority Democrats support Obama. 7) Clinton wins Democratic Party nomination.

If this seven point strategy succeeds, as planned, by the Clinton Campaign, Clinton will win the Democratic Party nomination.

Awareness is the key to prevention.

The Unstoppable Obama

2008-01-06T11:14:00.000-08:00

You heard it here first, Barack Obama will go wire to wire in the 2008 Presidential Election.

There are several factors that lead me to this prediction. The first is, of course, Obama's stunning landslide victory in the Iowa Caucuses. The second is, for the first time since JFK and RFK, the most youthful demographic in the electorate, 18-30, has a candidate that not only they can get excited about, but also one that they will turn out and vote for. The third is that, for the first time, a minority candidate has proven his political ability and popularity among white, mid-western voters.

The Youth Factor

I am twenty-six years old. The first president I have any cognizable memory of is George Bush I. I was just a child for most of the Reagan administration. My generation has no real memory of any president who was not named Bush or Clinton. Although President Clinton was wildly popular during most of his presidency, he was anything but inspiring. His impeachment is maybe one reason why. He did little to excite my generation, and even if he could have excited us it would have meant little because most of us were not old enough to have voted for him in 1996.

My generation, what Thomas Friedman calls the "Q generation" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10friedman.html, has always been fairly disinfranchised from the American political system. The first Presidential Election that my generation was old enought to have voted in was the 2000 election. This election will always be remembered by my generation as the election in which George W. Bush was elected, although he lost the popular vote.

My generation was rattled on the morning of September 11, 2001. The news came while most of us were preparing for the schoolday. The president became immensely popular in the wake of the tragedy, but how did he inspire us with his leadership? Did he ask us to enlist, which many of us would have? Did he ask that we volunteer? Did he ask that we sacrafice? No. He did nothing to inspire our strength and ambition. He asked us to shopping.

The Iraq war was another downer. A surprising number of us probably supported the war effort in the beginning, like a surprising number of Congressmen and media personalities. Unfortunately, for more important reasons than just the voter turnout rate of my generation, the war has been managed very poorly. For those of my generation involved in it, many of my close friends, it is not only a downer because they are over there fighting it. It is a downer because of the frustrating rules of engagement. Even people who didn't live through the Vietnam era know that waiting to fire until fired upon is not the way you win a war.

The 2004 Presidential Election was anything but an exciting contest. John Kerry could not have seemed more inept against the Karl Rove machine if he had stood idly while one of us was held down by Bush goons and tazed while exclaiming: "Don't taze me bro!"

But now, for the first time in our generation, we have a man worth getting behind. He is a commanding orator. He doesn't look like the same tire old men we're used to. It doesn't sound forced when he speaks of hope. He is the first presidential candidate that we have seen who looks like he could play the President in a movie or television show.

The youth factor, more than any other, is why Obama cannot be beat. Polls do not represent the Q Generation. Pollsters usually don't bother calling cell phones and many of us don't own traditional land-line telephones. A poll of "likely voters" almost by definition excludes my generation. If Iowa illustrates anything it is that we are showing up this year, and conventional wisdom has no way of accounting for the ramifications of it.

The Minority Factor

Even more than Obama appeals to young people, he appeals to racial minority groups, particularly African-Americans who have just been waiting for their candidate who can compete with white candidates in states where the electorate is dominated by white people. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did not fit the bill.

For the first time in history, minority voters have a viable candidate. They have a candidate that can win it all.

Obama's appeal to minorities is important for two reasons. First, it will solidify the so called "minority vote" which is typically split among democratic candidates. Second, it will add to the minority voting demographic by turning out the minority vote.

Like young voters, minority voters have been disenfranchised from the system. It would require no less than the entire racial history of the United States to fully understand why. However, the fact remains that they neither register to vote nor turn out as much as their white counterparts, particularly in the primaries.

The minority factor was not proven empirically in Iowa, and it probably won't be proven in New Hampshire. Neither state has enough minority voters to really illustrate the effect of Obama on minority voter registration and turnout. Michigan and South Carolina, however, will show that in 2008, minority voters are showing up.

What Iowa did illustrate was that Obama can win, and win big, in a predominately white state.

In short, Obama is going to win not only because he is popular among established voting groups - rural, white, and middle class, but also because he is popular among groups that have yet to be fully represented in the American electorate - young, urban, and minority.