Santorum and Kennedy

.
I understand that Santorum has disagreed with John Kennedy's argument that the separation of church and state should be absolute. He then went on to say what he thought an "absolute separation of church and state" would mean. To him it means that no discussion of public policy could involve religion. All public policy debates would have to be secular in nature. It seems to me that in his mind that would mean that you could not even ask the question of whether the C Church should be required to buy insurance. You could only say "should an organization be required to buy insurance for employees". With that definition of separation of church and State I don't think I would go along either. But most of us don't use that as a definition of SOCAS. We use one that even Santorum might very well agree with.

So I would say he flubbed it by assuming that we all agreed about what SOCAS means when he should have talked about definitions. I think that most people say that they that they agree with an absolute SOCAS, but they mean something much less dramatic that his version.

He shot himself in the foot with that one. That is why I think he will collapse. The only question is whether it will happen before or after the Rs have made their choice. I think it will be before.

the latest Koran Burning

.
I don't have a problem with an apology for a mistake (the Koran again) but I do hope that it was noted that a) it was not intentional and b) the Koran's in question had already been desecrated by having notes written on them by the inmates who had been given the books by their captors.

If that was the case. Was it?
.

the payroll tax cut

.
Well I've been thinkin' for some time how odd it was that I hadn't seen anyone in the media who was noticing that the "payroll tax" that was just passed was being paid for out of the SS trust fund. That is all of that money that we are not paying in payroll taxes is money that will not go into the SS trust fund.

Finally though someone did mention it. I'm sure there were more, but to their credit the list included Tom Harkin D Iowa and Joe Manchin D WV who were willing to point out that this was reducing the time until SS does not have the money to pay the promised benefits. Benefits and taxes were supposed to be adjusted as needed to keep SS solvent for 75 years. That was so you could fix the problems way ahead of time which would make them relatively painless. According to the SS annual report it was good until the early 2030s before this tax cut. Let's see 2033-2012 = 21.

But the politicians (read we) have adopted a tried and true method of getting the people to steal from the future to put more money in our pockets today. They just took another huge chunk out of it with this taxcut. But not to worry. Someone asked Democratic Minority Leader Pelosi about it and she said that SS could handle it. Let's see, is 21 close to 75?

I guess, as they say, its close enough for government work.
.

centrist 5

.
I am again asked to explain what I mean by saying that I am a centrist. In a world where both sides of the aisle have apparently begun to believe their own propaganda I can give a brief approximate answer.

The left, led by Obama says that we can get all of the money that we need to operate the government by a modest increase in taxes on the rich.

The right, led by various people says that we can get all of the money we need to operate the government by cutting tax rates.

In this context, a centrist is someone who recognizes that both of those beliefs are nonsense and we are all going to have to pay to get out the hole that we are still digging.
.

Birth Control Mandate 2 - Cynical(?)

In the comments on Birth Control Mandate 1 I suggested that Obama did this "as a base rousing action. A chance to change the topic of conversation from money to culture wars issues."

Bruce suggested that this was cynical. I think that raises a good pair of questions:

A. Is it cynical to think that Obama did this thing as a political ploy? Consider Clinton's Sister Souljah moment in 1992 which was a similar gambit. No, I don't think that it is cynical that I believe that politicians try to manipulate our emotions in order to get our votes. I think that it just means that I watch these guys.

B. Would it be cynical of Obama if he did this thing as a political gambit*? Well by doing this he has firmed up an important part of his base and thrown a monkey wrench into the Republican nomination race. Notice how much the Rs have dwelt on it and that Santorum, the quintessential R social issues guy, is now at the front of the pack. This is a great issue for Santorum in the primaries, but a disaster for the Rs in the general.

With a bit of luck Obama may have induced the Republicans to nominate Santorum!!

I don't think it is cynical of Obama, I think it is clever.

* The word "gambit" is particularly appropriate here because, in chess, a gambit is the giving up of something - usually a pawn - in the expectation of getting a lot more back later. In the political case you take some temporary heat for some bigger gain later.
.

Americans Elect

I wonder if the YA community thinks that this whole Americans Elect thing will actually go anywhere? I am doubtful.

For a while I thought that Jon Huntsman might end up being the AE candidate, but he was so quick to endorse Romney that it seems highly unlikely. Is there a serious person out there who would consider bucking their party in favor of an internet primary?

I am trying to come up with a few potential candidates, but am not having much luck. Maybe NYC mayor Bloomberg? I don't know. 

best statistics question ever

.
By way of Raymond Johnson, the best statistics multiple choice question ever written on a chalkboard. Try not to think too hard.

If you choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance you will be correct?

a) 25%

b) 50%

c) 60%

d) 25%


To see it on the blackboard go to best-statistics-question-ever .
.

Birth control mandate

.
I'm really having a hard time following the birth control mandate question.

A friend told me that she had read some of the comments on a blog and that it was depressing how simplistic the writers (on both sides I think) were about the topic and that none of them thought that it was complicated at all.

Well that's the way blogs are I thought, but then I listened to Senator Boxer and pro and con views on PBS last night and they took the same view.

"This is not a religious issue it is a health care issue," Boxer said.

Then on PBS:

"Of course it is a religious freedom issue since the government is forcing the Catholic Church to do something that is contrary to its fundamental beliefs."

The other side says, "I see it as a health care issue. I don't see it as a freedom of religion issue." Poof. (She was Methodist.) She showed no sign of ever having contemplated any religious aspect of it. She apparently believed that the freedom of religion argument was sufficiently dealt with by saying: I don't see it that way.

It reminds me a bit of the water boarding question. Some were horrified that the Government would water board a known terrorist for information. It was clearly a civil liberties issue they said. [later that day: I am told-not civil liberties rather international law. The point is the same] The other side took the view: I see it as a national security issue. I don't see it as a civil liberties issue. Poof.

Same song, second verse. Strange thing though there has (I think) been a bit of a role reversal. Those who worried over the water boarded terrorists are not the same group as the folks who are now decrying the coercion of the Catholic Church. In fact ...
.

An apology(?) tour

.
Romney is now speaking about Obama's "apology tour" and arguing that instead of apologizing for America, Obama should be apologizing to America.

Maybe that works. I did not think that it was an apology tour, I thought it was a reality tour. An attempt to let the world know that he recognized that this was not the fifties or sixties. That he knows that the US GDP is no longer half of the world's GDP, it is now only one fourth of the world's GDP. We no longer dominate the world. But if we have enough sense we can still be the first among equals for a long time. But to do that we cannot continue to act as if we are the the elephant in the room.
.

Trump again

.
If Trump had any class at all he would have imitated what the John Birch Society did when they wanted to support for Barry Goldwater in 1964. They had enough sense to know that their reputation was very right wing and their support might have a negative effect.

The story was that they notified Goldwater that they would either support him or oppose him which ever he thought would help him the most.
.

Pro Choice

Right to have an abortion – Liberals Yes, Conservatives No

Right to not join a Union – Liberals No, Conservatives Yes

Go figure - I have no problem with the position of liberals or conservatives on either issue. I do have a problem with the rational that both/either group puts forward to support their position on both/either issue.

On the abortion Issue the only issue for me is at what point in the development of a human being do we extend legal protection of life.

On the closed shop (union membership required) issue I find it surprising that Americans will tolerate mandatory membership as an employment requirement.

American Exceptionalism 2

In a 10-31-2010 post I made my case for American Exceptionalism.
Now I would like to say what I believe are some of the consequences of that belief. What you might call the rights and privileges and responsibilities of that status.
Well, let’s start with the part about being a “shining city on a hill” and a light unto the world. I doubt that we were a very bright light when Winthrop was talking about the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 16xx. But if my understanding of history is correct we were such a light (an example of freedom) to some of the world in the late 18th century and to much of the world in the 19th century and well into the 20th century. But now there are lots of places that promote freedom and opportunity. You might or might not think of that as a success of ours, but in any case our special role in that regard is over. There were no rights and privileges that went with the role of “shining city on a hill” other than perhaps an unfortunate inclination to self adulation. But, since we claimed the role, there was a responsibility to live up to its image.

This is incomplete.
.

Dole on Gingrich 2

.
I heard a story that when they were in Congress together, Gingrich and Dole once had the following conversation:

Gingrich: " Why do so many people take an instant disliking to me?"

Dole: "Saves time."
.

Chessmaster Ken Smith of Texas

.
“It is my belief that chess is an amazingly accurate model for many situations in life. The strategies, the competition, and the challenges of living.” Ken Smith, Texas chessmaster of Smith - Morra gambit fame, 1930 - 1999.

Ken Smith will probably be remembered for the work he did on what was previously known as the Morra gambit which was of sufficient quality and quantity that he felt (as do many others) that he was justified in calling it the Smith - Morra Gambit.

A gambit is the giving up of material (usually a pawn) for space or time. The Smith-Morra Gambit is played by white against black's Sicilian Defense. 1. P-e4 P-c5 2. P-d4 PxP 3. P-c3. If black captures PxP the white replies Nxc3 and white is a pawn down with (most people think) insufficient compensation in space and time.

Smith played the gambit at every opportunity against weak and strong players alike. In one tournament Smith was white against Mario Campos Lopez who played the French Defence, 1...e6 instead of the Sicilian against Smith. This led the world class player Bent Larsen to give Lopez's move a question mark along with the comment "stronger is 1...c5 which wins a pawn", presuming Smith would play his 2. d4 gambit.

When I lived in Texas in the sixties and seventies I had four encounters with Ken Smith which netted me one draw, one loss, one win, and one compliment (sort of). The sort of applies to three of the four occasions. The loss was real. The first was in 1964 when I went to the Texas Open (my very first tournament). Ken Smith was giving a simultaneous exhibition (i.e. he was playing about 30 to 40 players at the same time on 30 to 40 boards). Since I was a newbie he perhaps underestimated me and I managed to get a draw by perpetual check. The next two occurred at the Orin Perry Open in West Texas in 1965. We played in the first round, I was white and played P-e4 he played P-c5. Figuring that it would be an interesting way to lose, I played the Smith-Morra against him and sure enough he crushed me. Later in the day we were between rounds and he decided to show off a bit and offered to play me a blindfold blitz game. I have never seen anyone play a game in 5 minutes in which they did not look at the board. Sure enough he lost. He was a little short on a sense of humor though, because I reminded him of the draw the year before and said, "So I guess we have an even score." He was not amused.

Nine years later at a tournament in Fort Worth I had had unusually good results on Friday and Saturday and in the penultimate round 6 I was on Board 2 against an expert named Babcock who was much stronger than me. But "on any given Sunday" ... I sacked a pawn for position and found some very nice moves and won a pretty little miniature of about 23 moves. Smith had watched the game closely and afterwards he said that it was a very nice game and that it should be published!
I beamed and then he said: "I didn't think that you'd find all of those moves."
Like I said, a compliment, sort of.
.

Dole on Gingrich

.

Received from a reader:

“I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.

Gingrich served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. By 1997 a number of House Republican members wanted to throw him out as Speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when Newt could read the writing on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.

Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. He loved picking a fight with President Clinton because he knew this would get the attention of the press. This and a myriad of other specifics like shutting down the government helped to topple Gingrich in 1998.

In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty bucket in his hand — that was a symbol of some sort for him — and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it, and I’m not certain he knew either.

The Democrats are spending millions of dollars running negative ads against Romney as they are hoping that Gingrich will be the nominee which could result in a landslide victory for Obama and a crushing defeat for Republicans from the courthouse to the White House. Democrats are not running ads against Gingrich which is further proof they want to derail Governor Romney.

In my opinion if we want to avoid a sweeping victory by Obama in November, Republicans should nominate Governor Romney as our standard bearer. He could win because he has the requisite experience in the public and private sectors. He would be a president in whom we could have confidence and he would make us proud.”

state of the union

.
I'm kinda sickly so I'll not say much.

There are a lot of things that he wants to do. Most of which I would support, if we were in a position to pay for them.

I do find it troublesome that he refers to a reduction in one person's taxes as equivalent to an increase in someone else's benefit. It really does give credence to the Republican's claim that Democrats think that the whole GDP belongs to the government and it lets some people keep what they earn and it gives money to others.

The main thing though is what is he asking of us? He wants more money from the rich. From the rest of us he doesn't ask for any sacrifices. I think that a return to the Clinton tax rates that is limited to those making over 350K will produce 70 Billion per year. That is less than 5% of the short and medium term problem which is a current deficit of 1.3 Trillion per year. That is not a serious attack on our money problem.

I believe that he is doing the nation a disservice by giving all of my liberal friends a basis for the belief that we can get what we need from the rich alone.

BTW I support a return to the Clinton rates for all of us. If you have to implement it in stages (because of the recession) that would be ok but adopt it now.

South Carolina

.
It appears that Newton Leroy Gingrich will win in SC.

If you do not believe that "the people" are disgusted with "the media" you should find a replay of the opening of 1/19/12 debate and watch it.

If you didn't see it. As the first question John King asked Gingrich about the fact that his second wife had said the day before that Newt had asked her to agree to an open marriage allowing him to continue his affair with the woman who would become his third wife.

Gingrich unloaded on King, the question, and the media. The crowd roared their approval.

More amazing was the fact that King was not willing to defend his question! Which confirmed for the crowd that Gingrich was right.

To win, Romney will need to stay calm until the race moves to an area that is not quite so retro as South Carolina.

I bet you didn't mind my saying Newton Leroy Gingrich.
Would you feel the same about it if I had said Barack Hussein Obama?
.

Tenure

.
See a description (and/or buy) My Tenure Biennium a memoir by this blogger at this link on CreateSpace.
.

No Labels

.
Point number 10 on the No-Labels 12 program is bipartisan seating in congress. A small thing.

It is worth a look.
.

Gingrich

.
Gingrich is arguing that Santorum and Perry should get out so a conservative (Gingrich)can go head to head with Romney.

He should have, long ago, proposed a criterion by which the conservatives would now have decided who their champion was and have everybody else drop out.

If he were as capable as he thinks he is he would have gotten them to agree (back then) to one that would now make him the choice.
.