Politics: Florida Forecast

Romney 39%
Gingrich 33%
Santorum 16%
Paul 12%

My PJ wearing bottom lines:
Romney gets the win but not big enough to put the race away.
Paul is running for a cause so he will keep going no matter what.
If Santorum and Gingrich both land in the 20%, Santorum will have reason to stay in.  But a third place showing below 20% means he should sit down with his team after Florida to decide whether to keep going or call it a valiant effort and go home.

UPDATE:
Wow!  I got the Gingrich number about right and was close on Santorum but clearly underestimated the shift to Romney!  Paul's protest vote seemed to have peaked in Iowa and New Hampshire.  I wonder if it is simply that those two early states like to be contrarian, whereas South Carolina (more conservative) and Florida (much larger) have an electorate that is actually voting for whom they think is a winner and less willing to make a protest vote?

Was listening to an interview with a pollster (Rasmussen?) on a podcast and he speculated that voters are seeing it as a two-man race.  As such, Santorum and Paul numbers will fall as people run to the top two.  He noted that polls were showing anywhere from a 5 to 16 point lead for Romney and that a result closer to the higher end of that range could be trouble for Gingrich.  I suspect Gingrich will stick it out just to be combative.  Paul keeps going for his cause.  I think Santorum may drop out.  Whether he will endorse or not, I don't know.  If there is a GOP administration, wonder if he might get a cabinet slot?





UPDATE:  Next up Nevada and Maine caucus followed by Colorado and Minnesota caucus which favors organization (Romney) and passionate supporters (Paul).  Romney did well in all four in 2008 and solid performances in 2012 could nearly put the nomination away.

UPDATE:  Here is an interesting take:  If Gingrich support falls and transfers to Santorum then the result is a Romney-Santorum match up going forward.  I suppose the Santorum people will be keeping an eye on the numbers to see if they scenario appears to have any validity.


Politics: More or less power to the Federal Government? A question since the founding of America!

After America won its independence from England, it became apparent that the Articles of Confederation provided for too weak a central government for the nation to thrive.  Thus, the Constitution was drafted to increase and yet limit the powers of the central government.

One of the great gifts of the first President, George Washington, was his good character to actually attempt to live by Constitutional limits.  As the military leader of the Revolution, he was such a hero to the American people that he could have easily ruled as a dictator.  In the history of the electoral college, how we select Presidents, he was the only one to receive a vote from every elector in 1788 and 1892, and thus be unanimously elected President!  Nonetheless, he filled out a cabinet with strong figures with differing views and did not seek a third term.

I recently read Thomas Jefferson by R.B. Bernstein.  On pp. 90-91, he described the tension between Hamilton who wanted a stronger government and Jefferson who distrusted giving more power to the federal government.  Both men served in Washington's cabinet.

Excerpt:
Jefferson feared that Hamilton had plans radically at odds with the Constitution.  As he saw it, Hamilton wanted to warp the federal government out of constitutional shape ....... Only a republic could preserve liberty, Jefferson insisted, and only virtue among the people could preserve a republic.......  To preserve liberty, Jefferson argued, government had to be as close to the people as possible.  To him, that meant a decentralized government, giving power over domestic issues to the states, the level of government closest to the people, and not to a distant federal government.

In contrast, Hamilton saw himself as free from local interests and prejudices, a true advocate of the national interest...... Doubting the state government's ability to respond to national problems, he maintained that only a strong general government could defend American interests effectively.  Finally, he did not share Jefferson's faith in the people's wisdom, nor did he believe that allying the rich with the government would create a corrupt aristocracy and destroy liberty.

Doesn't this sound familiar?

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Politics: Differences between civilian and military life - Post President's 2012 SOTU Speech Analysis

President Obama is noted for giving pretty good speeches.  I didn't catch all of the latest SOTU.  As is typical for such speeches, there was the list of proposals as well as emotionally stirring passages about some aspect of American greatness.

I tip my hat to the President for recognizing the tremendous sacrifices and dedicated work of the military in the beginning and the end of the speech.

Excerpt:
Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought -- and several thousand gave their lives. We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home. These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.
...............
All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job -- the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other -- because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s somebody behind you, watching your back.

I have great respect for our military and I appreciate the President for highlighting their courage.

However, as I read some post-speech analysis that highlight the differences between civilian life and military life, I began to be concerned about the implications behind the use of the closing rhetorical flourish to advance the President's agenda.

As a civil society, we ask a portion of our society, the military, to essentially live by a different set of rules for the benefit of the society as a whole.  This point was made by two columns I came across.

Below are some excerpts from an essay in the WaPo, Obama to the Nation:  Onward Civilian Soldiers.

The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics. People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lock step, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer -- this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society. Progressive presidents use martial language as a way of encouraging Americans to confuse civilian politics with military exertions, thereby circumventing an impediment to progressive aspirations -- the Constitution and the patience it demands.
....................
His campaign mantra “We can’t wait!” expresses progressivism’s impatience with our constitutional system of concurrent majorities. To enact and execute federal laws under Madison’s institutional architecture requires three, and sometimes more, such majorities. There must be majorities in the House and Senate, each body having distinctive constituencies and electoral rhythms. The law must be affirmed by the president, who has a distinctive electoral base and election schedule. Supermajorities in both houses of Congress are required to override presidential vetoes. And a Supreme Court majority is required to sustain laws against constitutional challenges.

Here are some excerpts from an essay at National Review, Obama's Vision for a Spartan America.

We have a military to keep our society free. We do not have a military to teach us the best way to give up our freedom. Our warriors surrender their liberties and risk their lives to protect ours.
..................
This nation isn’t great because we work as a team with the president as our captain. America is great because America is free. It is great not because we put our self-interest aside, but because we have the right to pursue happiness. I don’t blame the president for being exhausted with the mess and bother of democracy and politics, since he has proved so inadequate at coping with the demands of both. Nor do I think he truly seeks to impose martial virtues on America. But he does desperately want his opponents to shut up and march in place.

The military as an institution is the servant of civilian authority to protect the nation from threats to the nation.  It is an authority driven system because of the nature of its mission.  Our government is an agreement of the people to concede some powers to its leaders.  The tension between how much power to concede to a central government for the benefit of society has existed since the beginning of the American experiment.

Politics: Your mission should you decide to accept it is to design a tax system ...



Here is my attempt to diagram what happens when Mr. Carl Citizen earns a salary at a company, saves money at his local bank, buys various things around town, responsibly keeps up his home, invests in a mix of dividend paying companies (so called "value" stocks) and companies that if successful will result in a capital gain (so called "growth" stocks).

Taxes are a necessary part of living in a modern society.

However, as you can imagine, Mr. Carl Citizen wonders how much government spending is useful versus wasteful and whether there are simpler and fairer ways to levy taxes for government revenue.

Non-profit of the month: January 2011 - DonorsChoose.org

Their tag line:  Teachers ask. You choose. Students learn.

Browse the list and see if there is something at the school you went to.

Take a look around and see if the school in your neighborhood has a project.

After finding something, go ahead and give to help fund that classroom's needs.


Be No. 1... Give to Public Schools in Need! - Go to DonorsChoose.org

Science: Vitamin D and Math Modeling

As a molecular biologist, I work on trying to better understanding the actions of vitamin D.

A few years back, we established a collaboration with a mathematician to see if there might be some way of looking at the problem from that angle.  Click the link below to see the result!

Vitamin D Binding Protein and Monocyte Response to 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D: Analysis by Mathematical Modeling

Politics: South Carolina Bounce Onto Florida

Real Clear Politics keeps running track of the major polls for Florida.

Right after Gingrich's big win in South Carolina, Insider Advantage and Rasmussen Reports reported on their 1/22 pool data (the day after the SC primary).  Gingrich was up 8 and 9 percentage points respectively.

The Florida primary will be held on January 31.

Will be interesting to see what the ebb and flow of the numbers are this week and over the weekend.

Is there going to be buyer's remorse and Gingrich bounce fades?
Will Romney rally or will he continue to decline?
If there are declines in Gingrich and/or Romney's numbers, will they go to Santorum or undecided?
What will the level of die hard protest voting be for Paul?

IA numbers for 1/22:
Gingrich 34%
Romney 26%
Paul 13%
Santorum 11%
Others/undecided 16%

RR numbers for 1/22:
Gingrich 41%
Romney 32%
Santorum 11%
Paul 8%
Others/undecided 8%

The numbers have changed! And there is enough time for it to change again before next Tuesday's voting!

RR numbers for 1/25

Romney 39%
Gingrich 31%
Santorum 12%
Paul 9%
Others/undecided 9%

IA numbers for 1/25:
Romney 40%
Gingrich 32%
Paul 9%
Santorum 8%
Others/undecided 11%

RCP's collection of polls from 1/26 to 1/28 have Romney leading from 8% to 16%.  Closer to 8 is more realistic.  Santorum and Paul aren't doing much with around 13% and 9% respectively.

Politics: Things not looking good for the GOP Presidential nominees

Leave it to Canadian Mark Steyn to cut through the noise and hit the problem with the GOP nominees on the head.

Excerpt:
Historians will look back mystified at a contest between Mitt’s soporific trimming and Newt’s histrionic showboating.

Newt is a great rhetorical puncher but will he be able to govern?

Romney's claim has been, vote for me, I can win. But he now apparently lost in Iowa and is looking to be headed to a defeat in South Carolina.  He needs to make a positive case for his candidacy beyond a vague sense of inevitability.

Politics: South Carolina Primary Guesses

Gingrich 35%
Romney 34%
Paul 17%
Santorum 11%
Others 3%

Gingrich being from the South gets a bump and his jabs against President Obama and the media are crowd pleasers.

Paul will continue to get around 20%.  Sometimes a little more as in Iowa and New Hampshire and sometimes a little less like in South Carolina.

Santorum seems unable to repeat the Iowa success and notification that he "won" Iowa is too little too late.

Romney's railroad keeps chugging along but not exactly wowing the GOP.

Update:  CNN is posting a poll with Gingrich gaining a huge lead.  I'm a little skeptical that his surge is that large.  Clearly, he is getting a lot of movement because people think of him as a fighter and people are in a fighting mood.  But I think Romney will pick up some support from those who think Gingrich might be a little too over the top.  I predicted the 1% win for Gingrich late Friday night.  As I sit here in my PJs this Saturday morning, a larger win for Gingrich is probable but I don't think it will be double digits.

Update:  I clearly underestimated the shift to Gingrich and the hit Romney took over his Bain life and non-revealed tax returns.  Santorum's showing allows him to fight another day.  Paul's drop off suggests to me that perhaps many SC voters realized they didn't want to cast a protest vote.

Now, onward to Florida!  With the realization that this is a serious race, Paul's numbers should decline even further.  If Romney can arrest his decline, it will be Gingrich vs. Romney.  But if not, who would have guessed a few weeks back a Gingrich vs. Santorum race?  We shall see!

Here is the screen shot from the NYT for the results as of 7:26pm PST.


Politics: President Obama's Team of 1% Folks

How does the left feel about the 1% on its side of the aisle?

Check out the salaries of some Team Obama members in their lives before working at the White House.

$1.1 million - President Obama’s new chief of staff, Jacob Lew
$8.7 million - Prior chief of staff, William Daley
$16 million - First chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel
$5 million - National economic director, Larry Summers
$2 million - Budget director, Peter Orszag
$7 million - National security adviser, Tom Donilon

I think firing up anger at the 1% is foolish whether one truly believes the 1% are evil or whether the anger is stoked for political purposes.

Are there excesses in a capitalist society?

Yup.

Does that mean we should decry all the "1%" folks?

Nope.

Art: Time Lapse Video

1.98 million hits as of this morning.  Enjoy!!

Politics: Wow, things are happening fast ...

A few days ago, it looked like the HMS Romney was sailing easily to victory.

But with the questions about what Bain Capital was about and his tax returns, Team Romney is bailing water.

Santorum's bounce from Iowa has clearly faded and the endorsement of an evangelical group over the weekend seems to have made little difference in his declining fortunes.  Look for him to bail out after South Carolina.  Who will he endorse?

Huntsman saw the writing on the wall and bailed out and endorsed Romney.

Perry saw the writing on the wall and bailed out and endorsed Gingrich.

Gingrich is gaining ground because people love a fighter and in debates he hits POTUS with one hand and the media with the other and the GOP undecideds are eating it up.  But just as this is happening, ABC News lands a tell-all interview with the ex-wife.  Will this make a difference?

Meanwhile, Paul marches on getting 15-20% of the vote because his two note message, cut spending and bring the troops home, draws those not happy with either party.

Pundits look for analogies to other campaigns and the fit is never perfect but how about this one? 

Romney is Bush 41, a decent and honorable guy who is just a little slow footed when it comes to rough and tumble politics and not too alert to the optics of how he comes across.

Gingrich is Bill Clinton, brilliant, charismatic but volatile. 

Paul is Ross Perot, absolutely unelectable but tapping into major concerns in the electorate.

Clinton won the Presidency in 1992.  Will Gingrich win the GOP nomination in 2012?

Anyway, tonight's debate could be huge:
Gingrich will have to answer about the ex-wife interview, keep up the good jabs against President Obama and the media and avoid over-the-top snark against Romney.
Romney needs to defend Bain Capital, explain his tax returns and regain the initiative.

Faith: Eucharist Haiku

Tearing up the bread
Darkness falls hard, the wine spills
At the cross, he pays

Pass around the bread
Share at table, the good wine
We remember him

He breaks the warm bread
He pours out the cup of wine
We are home with him

Politics: Bain Capital - Venture Capitalism or Vulture Capitalism

Mr. Romney cites his experience in leading Bain Capital as one of his qualification for the Presidency.

However, he has come under attack for that role.

One would think his role at Bain would be easy to assess.  Alas, because of the nature of a private equity company, it isn't so simple according to this Politico.com article.

Memo to Romney campaign:  if you think Newt and Perry are hitting hard, wait until Team Obama hits with $100+ million of negative ads.  If the truth is your friend, you got to get hard facts out there AND compelling narratives.

Sports: Pac12 and March Madness

It is a down year for the Pac12.

The question on the minds of Pac12 fans (and in my case a UCLA fan) is how many teams the Pac12 will get into the tournament?

As of today, Lunardi has three teams in:  Stanford as a 9 seed, California as an 11 and Colorado a 14.  Lunardi has Colorado in only because it is currently atop the Pac12.  If that were not the case, I think he would only have two Pac12 teams in.  However, he has Arizona sitting in the first four out group; thus, Arizona could get in under the right circumstances bringing the Pac12 invites back up to three.

The winner of the Pac12 tournament automatically gets into March Madness.  

I would guess that if the Pac12 tournament winner is not the regular season champion, the regular season champion would get in as an at-large.  This would be the best path for UCLA.  I suspecting for UCLA to finish number two in the regular season and lose in the Pac12 tournament might be risky unless the loss is in the Pac12 championship game against the #1 seed.  UCLA has no quality wins in its out-of-conference record and two terrible losses (LMU, MTSU).  Thus, UCLA needs a dominant performance within the Pac12 to have a shot at an at-large if they don't win outright.

The worst case scenario for the Pac12 is if the regular season champion has five or six losses and loses in an early round in the Pac12 tournament.  If this is the case, could the selection committee opt to take only one Pac12 team?

Politics: New Hampshire Primary Predictions

Like any other blogger in pajamas, I can make predictions about the elections!

New Hampshire is somewhat different than Iowa for various reasons:
  • The primary system allows more casual voters to participate compared to the more activist participation rules of a caucus of Iowa.  Thus, it is a more moderate electorate.
  • I think New Hampshire allows non-registered Republican voters to cross over and vote in the primary.  Thus, liberal and independent non-Republican voters can boost certain candidates.
  • Historically, New Hampshire voters almost have an anti-Iowa mood as shown in recent history in recent contested GOP election cycles.
Iowa winner
1980 - Bush
1988 - Dole
1996 - Dole
2000 - Bush
2008 - Huckabee
2012 - Romney/Santorum (essentially it was a tie)

New Hampshire winner
1980 - Reagan
1988 - Bush
1996 - Buchanan
2000 - McCain
2008 - McCain
2012 - ?

I think the unique features of NH probably helps Huntsman the most.  Also, Huntsman camped out in New Hampshire much like Santorum worked Iowa hard and so he will get a good amount of the not-Romney vote within the Republicans and he should draw a decent amount of the moderate/independent voters that can cross into the voting.
Paul will consistently draw around 20% of the vote because of his slash Washington spending (drawing libertarian and some conservatives supporters) and isolationist foreign policy (a mix of liberal, independent and libertarians who all share in common that particular viewpoint).  Am guessing in NH he might get a bit more than the 21% he got in Iowa.

Santorum got a bounce out of Iowa but I don't think it will be enough to overcome how far down he was.  But he will get the more conservative not-Romney vote.

My guess is that Gingrich is going to fade.

My guts tell me Romney will win but not get the "knock-out" their campaign is hoping for.

My predictions:
Romney 34%
Paul 23%
Huntsman 18%
Santorum 15%
Gingrich 8%
Others 2%

UPDATE:  My predictions underestimated (5.4%) Romney's vote totals and over estimated Santorum's support (5.7%). Pretty much on target for Paul, Huntsman and Gingrich.


Politics: The new health bill - promises and problems

Having been through the recent open enrollment period at work late last year and looking at the various health plans.  I realize that health plans come in really two major flavors.  Pay more per month but pay less in deductibles and co-pays when you have major health services.  The other type has lower monthly payments but higher deductibles and co-pays when you have major health services.

How will the health law affect these flavors I don't know.

What are some features in the new health law and what are the promises and problems that might arise?

The new health plan tries to get rid of denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Having heard and read stories of honest people getting the run-around from insurance companies on these issues, one can understand the desire to shake up the system.  The insurance companies do deserve the PR black eye they get for those stories.

But there is another side to the story in defense of the insurance companies because the sad reality is that some people are "gaming" the system. Some unscrupulous people will wait until they get sick and then they buy insurance.  Thus, insurance companies will investigate those patients and sometimes they deny properly against people "gaming" the system.  But, of course, sometimes they wind up harassing people who are honest.

To avoid this problem, the health law has the insurance mandate that forces people to buy insurance or face a financial penalty.

Again, some people will still "game" the system and take the penalty rather than buy insurance since the penalty is likely to be far less than insurance premiums.   The most likely example of this calculation will be younger people who may opt not to buy insurance because their relatively high premiums help pay for the insurance of older more expensive customers.  Instead, younger people may take their chances they won't need insurance and pay the fine instead.

The mandate provision hasn't taken affect yet and it is being challenged with arguments to be heard in the Supreme Court some time in 2012.

Thus, if the provision survives, it will be interesting to see how it will actually play out.

Best case scenario:
People actually decide to buy insurance rather than face financial penalties.

Worst case scenario:
People still "game" the system thus defeating any benefits from these two provisions.

The health law expands eligibility for Medicaid and offers premium support of private insurance offered through state operated exchanges.

The problem here is that the Medicare program is already pushing state budgets to the breaking point as it is.  With the expanded eligibility, those state budgets will be pushed even further into the red.  Also, where does the Federal government find the money to offer premium support for people buying through the exchanges?

Best case scenario:
State are allowed to experiment in the Medicaid program because the status quo version is financially unsustainable.  The state run exchanges don't overdo the regulations leading to robust competition within them keeping costs in check.

Worst case scenario:
The Medicaid program continues to run red ink pushing forcing states to cut other services and/or raise taxes to try to keep the bills paid for Medicaid.  The state exchanges overdo the regulations such that insurance companies drop out of the health insurance business reducing choice and competition.

To raise revenues, the health law increases taxes on the wealthy,  imposes fees on medical device makers and drug companies, penalizes high end health insurance subscribers and adds various other taxes and fees.

Taxation levels are a tricky thing.  At one level, people do accept taxation as part of maintaining functions of society.  But there is a hypothetical level of taxation that becomes punitive and people begin to change their behavior.  It will be interesting to see whether the new taxes really raise the revenues expected.

One can imagine a group of engineers who design and manufacture medical devices may at some point make the calculation to get out of the industry and make some other kinds of widgets that are more profitable. Drug companies potentially could forgo certain lines of research because they may not be profitable enough to compensate for the additional fees they may face.  As for taxes on the wealthy, indeed some people are so wealthy that it really won't matter to them what the taxation rate is.  But for those "on the margin" of the next tax rate, they might hold back figuring earning those extra dollars isn't worth it if it pushes them into the next tax bracket.  If these kinds of behaviors become common, innovation decreases and revenues won't meet expectations.

Best case scenario:
The taxes raise the expected revenue and don't inhibit innovation in medical devices and treatments. 

Worst case scenario:
Tax revenues don't meet expectations forcing the raising of other taxes.  Medical device companies develop fewer devices and others get out of the business.  Drug companies shrink their research portfolios to concentrate on projects they think are more sure bets.

To cut costs, the health law imposes indirect price controls on insurance companies and reduces compensation in Medicare.

Price controls direct or indirect tends to diminish quality or supply or both.  Using a crude example, if you fix the price of "widgets" too low, the manufacturer of the widget may reduced the quality of the product thus increasing her profit margin when selling it.  The other outcome is that some manufacturers will get out of the widget business and look for other more profitable goods thus leading to shortages.

Best case scenario:
The indirect price controls turn out to be mild enough that insurance companies don't get out of the health insurance business but still keeps a lid on medical inflation.  Reduced compensation to medical providers in Medicare doesn't continue to result in medical providers opting out of Medicare contracts.

Worst case scenario:
Indirect price controls lead insurance companies to drop their health insurance business units reducing choice and competition.  Remaining companies cut quality to sustain profitability. Reduced Medicare compensation rates leads to doctors refusing to see Medicare patients leading to shortages and diminished quality.

Certainly, the health law gets an "A" for good intentions.  It will be closely watched whether reality turns out to be closer to the best or worst case scenarios.

World: Iraq and the Vietnam Analogy

The US fought in Vietnam for a long time.  The last American troops left in 1973.  In 1975, Saigon fell.

Will Iraq be like Vietnam?

Some will say that South Vietnam's collapse was inevitable and that the American presence there just delayed it.

Some will say the same of Iraq.  The argument goes that Iraq was destined for civil war without a dictator like Hussein ruling with an iron fist. 

What is the "answer" to the historical "what if" regarding the Iraq war?

What would have happened if there was no war and Saddam Husein remained in power?
 
How would Afghanistan be today if instead of invading Iraq we had put in more troops in Afghanistan earlier on?

Would the governments of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have fallen without the Iraq invasion?

Some will say, eventually Hussein would have died or someone would have staged a coup and civil war would break out with the support of the neighboring Iranians.

Some will say, whether American troops stayed in large numbers or not, the Taliban would have made a comeback sooner or later because the neighboring Pakistanis support the Taliban and enough people within Afghanistan want them in power.

Some will say that Egypt, Tunisia and Libya's authoritarian governments would eventually have died of old age or be overthrown by Jihad minded revolutionaries.  In either case, Jihad minded revolutionaries would take over eventually.

"Nation building" is very difficult.  Were the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq doomed to failure in the long run after the short term successes of ousting the Taliban and deposing Hussein?

Would it be cruel to suggest that the success stories of post-World War II Germany and Japan came as a result of the Allied armies essentially laying waste to both countries and forcing them to rebuild from scratch?  America defeated the Tailban and Iraq military forces on the field.  But those battles resulted in nowhere near the type of destruction the German and Japanese armies and population centers experienced.  Is it possible that nations can only be rebuilt into a new society if the old one is utterly destroyed?

Or is there something uniquely problematic about the Middle East and Central Asia?

Was nation building a fool's errand?

If this is the case, then the US should give up on Iraq and let them have their civil war and wait for the bloodied survivors to emerge.  Likewise, the US should leave Afghanistan and let forces in Kabul fight it out with the Taliban and wait for the blooded survivors to claim victory.

Is this the most moral thing to do?

Under this approach, the only scenario where US forces would intervene is to bomb and raid terrorist training camps that would probably start appearing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I suppose if chemical weapons factories started showing up on satellite photos, those too would be legitimate targets.  But otherwise, the US should leave them alone and let them kill each other until they decide to stop when they have bled enough.

Is this more moral than what we have been doing?

Which is more moral, the inaction of the pacifist or isolationist or the intervention of the US global policeman?

This is depressing.

Politics: US Military Spending

How much do you think the US spends on its military?

How much should the US spend on its military?

Below are three graphs that show how much the US actually spent on its armed forces in recent history.

The first graph goes all the way back to 1930.  As you can see, there was the huge spike in the 1940s during World War II.  American truly transitioned into a war economy at one point having 42% of all economic activity devoted to the military. 


The second graph shows the period from 1950 to 1980.  One can note the peak in the 1950s probably due to the Korean War and the Cold War with the USSR.  In the 50s, routinely 10% or more of the US economy was dedicated to military spending.  President Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex.  And indeed, since then, the USA has not spent near the levels of the early 50s.

In the 60s, America fought in Vietnam and kept a strong military for the ongoing Cold War.  8 1/2 to 11 cents of every dollar in the US was placed toward defense spending.

In the 70s, the Vietnam War ended for America (last troops out in 1973; Saigon fell in 1975) and various peace movements and anti-nuclear weapons protests were felt by the politicians such that spending on the military fell from 9% of GDP down to 5.5%.



The third graph picks up the statistics from 1980 to current times.  Rhetorically, people called the Reagan military build up massive.  Indeed, it rose from 6% to 7% of GDP and was sustained for a handful of years but it was hardly massive (see the first graph above and note the relatively shallow upward hump in the graph for the 1980s).  Also, put in historical perspective, the levels of military spending during the Reagan years were less than typical spending in the 1950s and 1960s. 


With the fall of the Iron Curtain in the 1990s, defense spending fell all the way down to 3.5% of GDP.  But alas, America was snapped back into the hard reality of the ways of the world when September 11, 2001 changed the landscape.  Defense spending rose up to 6% of GDP while fighting raged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US has pulled out of Iraq and is reducing its commitment in Afghanistan; thus, spending on defense will decline once again.

Question:  how much should America be spending on its military?

The reality is that when something terrible happens in the world, whose phone is going to ring?

Indeed, the phone in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue rings and POTUS (Democrat or Republican) will answer and have to decide whether or not US armed forces will be sent.  The budget and strategy mapped out in the next couple of years will determine what kind of capability and numbers POTUS can call upon to respond to a crisis.

Politics: "Non-partisan" California Redistricting Apparently Partisan

Recently, in California, a ballot measure was placed before the voters to establish a "non-partisan" commission to draw up the boundaries for various elective offices.  The theory was to take the process out of the hands of the elected officials who would draw up district lines that protected themselves and their parties from competitive elections.

Alas, it appears that the "non-partisan" commission's work got manipulated by partisans posing as non-partisans.

Excerpts:
The report included an exclusive interview with a redistricting commission member who alleged partisan behavior by his supposedly non-partisan commission colleagues, but the series didn’t cause much attention in the media, the Capitol, or among the public. Apparently, no one was surprised that a commission formed with the best of intentions - i.e., taking backroom political deal-making out of the process by which political lines were drawn - was cynically manipulated to create a partisan advantage.
.......
Commissioner Gabino Aguirre managed to obtain a Senate district for his friend, Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams, in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Aguirre made a campaign contribution to Williams after he was in the running for membership on the commission, and then helped craft the new Williams district without disclosing his contribution to anyone. He also helped draw the district intended to end the career of GOP Sen. Tony Strickland. Aguirre hosted a fund raiser in 2008 for the candidate running against Strickland’s wife.
.......
Let this be a reminder of how easily any reform - no matter how appealing it may sound - can and will be manipulated by those who are most skilled at the political game. In California, reform measures promoted by political novices will undoubtedly be manipulated by the pros.

The LA Times was not convinced that the process was corrupted.

Here are maps at the LA Times.

As you can see, the maps are quite hard to read in the big cities.

Compare the California maps with a rural state like Iowa where district lines are probably a bit easier to draw without strange shapes.  California districts have to accommodate widely varying population densities.  Also, in California, the map drawing is complicated by the requirements to take into account the ethnic groups in proposed districts.

The LA Times also has the proposed districts broken down by party registration and ethnic distribution.

Politics: Iowa Prediction

I think Ron Paul's isolationist views are not a good idea but he captures the anti-Washington sentiment and has a very loyal following.  Rick Santorum is now the current not-Romney candidate.

Thus, my forecast:
Paul 24%
Romney 23%
Santorum 21%
Gingrich 13%
Perry 9%
Bachman 7%
Others 3%

UPDATE:  Here is a screen grab below from the NY Times.  My predictions were pretty close to the final results in the sense I figured the top 3 would be pretty bunched up with some spread between the other three.


Life: Thoughts by the Shore

The constant crash of sea to shore
How small we on this earthly place
Enamored with our thoughts that roar
Drowning out God's whispers of grace.

You are constant as sea to sand.
Water gently caressing my feet
Sand settling around where I stand
Embedding grace - God and I meet.

Aging Parents - Random things from this season of life, part I

A handful of years ago, I entered the phase of life of helping out in looking after aging parents.  At this moment in 2024, my dad passed on...