The War on Christmas

I suppose you think that I'm posting this to take the "Merry Christmas" side of the debate and to tear the "Happy Holidays" side a new one. Only sort of, but not really. Although I prefer saying "Merry Christmas" as that is really the day most people and businesses mean when they say "Happy Holidays", the whole War on Christmas is for fools. Both sides of the debate are objectionable on their own merits and demerits.

For the "Merry Christmas" side, those who push so hard for this seriously makes me wonder how much of a religious agenda they have in this and whether this is another heavy-handed effort to push religion on others. They complain about a War on Christmas yet they enthusiastically participate in the commercialization of the holiday that has led to its semi-secular status, making it de facto "Merry Capitalism". No objection to capitalism in that sentence, by the way. I haven't turned on my almost if not entirely non-existent readers.

For the "Happy Holidays" side, there's something disgustingly politically correct about opting for Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. The reason businesses opt for saying "Happy Holidays" is so they don't lose any customers who don't celebrate Christmas. The purpose of saying "Happy Holidays" is to please those who might take offense to Christmas, but then you're displeasing those who cherish Christmas. One man's cherished tradition is another's source of antagonism. I feel as if this is a debate society doesn't need to have, especially since we have better things to debate about, such as what to do about the US careening to bankruptcy. But that's not a subject for Christmas, and sorry if that dampened your delight. Christmas is a time for giving, getting, joy and good cheer, for even if you don't celebrate religious Christmas, you sure as hell celebrate presents.

Merry Christmas!

The Government Regulates the Internet and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal

Today the FCC voted 3-2 to adopt net neutrality rules, although on a more moderate scale than initially proposed. More moderate means big cable and DSL providers will be prohibited from slowing or blocking websites, and prohibited from engaging in "unreasonable" discrimination of online traffic. Wireless networks, on the other hand, have more of a free hand on discriminating content. This is yet another government interference in commerce and will likely result in a bevy of "unintended consequences" and some bad judgments on what is "unreasonable". Yes, I know a lot of technically savvy young people support this concept, but it limits potential new innovations. Whether this FCC ruling will be overturned by Congress has yet to be seen. However, prospects are hopeful: On June 8, 2006, Congress rejected an amendment that mandated net neutrality on a 152-269 vote, which included 58 Democrats siding with Republicans, and a lot of these were not the stereotypical Blue Dogs either. A lot of the opposition came from members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Only 11 Republicans supported net neutrality. Whether the 2006 proposal is similar enough to this decision to get the same Democrats to vote to overturn the ruling is the mystery here, and whether Obama will bother to veto Congress's rejection is yet another mystery.

Oh and by the way, in another turn of events Congress voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy last week on a 250-175 vote. This is actually a liberal policy I support. Frankly the evidence is slim that the impact of ditching "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will be disastrous and all the policy did was force a personal decision in the name of others' comfort. I think enough people in the military are comfortable with people going out of the closet provided it doesn't cause a disruption in the functionality and efficiency of the military. For those who might have reservations about this, think of it this way: What if the military's best general was gay? Would you end his military career and let that talent go to waste? This is what can happen with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

I'm back! And what a year.

I have returned and much has happened during the year, personally and politically. As I thought, this year was fun. The 2010 election yielded a net gain of 63 seats for the Republicans in the House, well over what they needed to take the House. The last time any party made a net gain that high was 1948. In the Senate, Democrats were relieved at their loss of six seats. Most observers believed it would be more. This year Sarah Palin established herself as a force to be reckoned with, albeit an unstable and possibly a destructive one for the GOP in the future. This year, the Tea Party proved it was not a joke: First to the GOP by defeating a number of incumbents in the primaries, and then the Democrats by snatching the House. Some of the most delightful victories this year were Mark Kirk taking Obama's seat for the Republicans, Marco Rubio winning his Senate race in Florida, Rand Paul winning his Senate race in Kentucky, political opportunist Arlen Specter finally meeting defeat, liberal firebrand Alan Grayson losing reelection in a center-right district, and the sweep of the Midwest and South. Even in the East Coast the GOP did well, but were limited in gains in New England.

What's ahead for the Republicans now? I honestly can't be sure. But if they really want to win the White House in 2012, they will have to pick one of the following candidates:

Gov. Rick Perry

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee

Sen. John Thune

Soon-to-be former Gov. Tim Pawlenty

Gov. Mitch Daniels

Former Gov. Mitt Romney

I discount both Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Gingrich because if he couldn't keep his party together and chart a course for them as Speaker of the House, how's he going to do it as President? And Palin is still inexperienced and will be the oval office gaffe machine. Moreover, she can't win. Her appeal is limited to the choir.

Now for the Democrats, in spite of the GOP takeover of the House, it is unlikely they will be able to play offense credibly or effectively in 2012. Think of it this way: Is the public going to seriously focus on just one of the Houses in a Presidential race? I think not. I wouldn't discount the possibility of an effective offense so easily had the Democrats lost the Senate as well, as the legislative branch would be more unified against Obama. Obama's got an uphill battle in 2012, as he will have to win back some important states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which turned against him this year. Even in his home state of Illinois, the House delegation only has one Democrat from a district that is not in Chicago-Cook County. For at least two years, the future for the GOP looks good. However, this is no time for the GOP to get secure. Remember, two years changed a lot for Obama and it can change a lot for the GOP too.

Again...weighing a Ron Paul Presidency

In the Conservative Political Action Committee straw poll for President, Ron Paul won a massive victory. Whether this means he will run or not is unknown, but how he'd be as President isn't so mysterious. In 2008, Ron Paul secured his name in history as a famous alternate possibility to the standard Democrat and Republican Party lines. Although fiscally he is farther to the right than perhaps all of his Republican colleagues in the House, Democrats can appreciate his anti-war stances. Whatever the matter, Ron Paul doesn't want government in it, and he is probably the most consistent of all members of the House on policy. Paul being a Representative is excellent...we need his perspective in Washington, but being President is a little different.

The pros of a Ron Paul presidency would be numerous. First, we'd have a President absolutely committed to balancing our budget by cutting government. Second, he would be openly hostile to the Departments of Education and Energy and would seek market solutions for our current healthcare debacle, rather than harnessing the government with more power. He would also veto more bills than any President in history as he is committed to the core to limited government. We would see no "compassionate conservatism" from him.

The cons of a Ron Paul presidency unfortunately are also numerous. First, Paul and Congress would not get along. Even if it were a GOP Congress, even they might think Paul would go too far with his limited government, especially when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. Second, Paul supports positions that although I often think are quite good, are political suicide for a President to take...like dismantling Medicare. Third, I have reservations about the state of national security if Paul were to become President. Although it probably is a good idea to give the Defense Department a cut, I think Paul might go too far, given that on foreign policy, he is pre-Pearl Harbor. I think Paul's ideas on foreign policy and national security could work...perhaps sometime in the future, but right now in this international climate they are unfeasible.

I imagine the positive and negative impacts of Paul's presidency would be muted by Congress, which would force him to make a compromise or two, even if Paul as a Representative is seemingly incapable of compromise. I think a Paul presidency would be economically healthy for the nation, but foreign policy has the potential to be disastrous if Paul finds himself blind to certain realities. In all, I'm unsure about whether Paul should be President but it would be a refreshing change to the politics of late.

With the Scott Brown Victory, Joe Martin Beams from Heaven Above

The Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts reminds me of the old days of politics. The time in which a Texan led the Democrats in the House while a Bay Stater led the Republicans. Sam Rayburn and Joe Martin effectively and honestly led their parties together from 1941-1959. Martin had been elected to Congress in 1925 after his predecessor passed on. After the arch-conservative Bert Snell (R., N.Y.) chose to retire in 1938, Martin became Minority Leader.

Martin, like Snell, had been hostile to the First 100 Days Legislation in 1933, voting against the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Tennessee Valley Authority, and the National Industrial Recovery Act. Thus, he was no liberal, and neither were any of the other Republicans representing Massachusetts during this time. Conservatives stood more than a good chance of being elected in the Northeast. In fact, prior to World War II, the base of the conservative wing of the party was the Northeast, and the base of the more progressive wing was the Midwest. The stout conservative Calvin Coolidge had been born a Vermonter and had been the strike-breaking Governor of Massachusetts before becoming Vice President, and then President. With World War II, politics began to switch more to what we know today. Martin led the GOP out of the political wilderness and into the majority in 1946, where they had a successful if brief run in enacting their reforms, like cutting taxes and enacting legislation curbing the excessive power of unions, both over President Truman's veto.

In the 1950s, the Northeastern Republicans grew more moderate to liberal and Martin followed, but he still retained a sense of fiscal conservatism. The 81-year old Martin lost renomination in 1966 to a more liberal Republican and died two years later. I'm sure that if Martin is watching the political scene from wherever place in heaven he is, he is smiling over Massachusetts at least taking a slight step back to its Republican roots.

Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that it is unconstitutional to limit the spending of corporations and unions for political advertising and overturns the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold ban on political advertising from these entities 30 days before a general primary and 60 days before a general election. Not only were corporations and unions limited, but so were organizations like the ACLU and the NRA. Conservatives and Libertarians have praised this decision as being true to the 1st Amendment, while liberals fear that corporations will hold undue power over the public (and thus the political process) and that the court is returning to the Lochner era of the Supreme Court (1897-1937), in which Supreme Court decisions were frequently pro-free enterprise.

I don't believe corporations will hold undue power, and if their arguments are sound, then by all means the public should listen to them and heed their words. The left seems to think that the people are sheeple who will be mesmerized by corporate arguments which will surely be malicious and untrue. Another assumption they make is that the Democratic Party will be harmed more than the Republican Party. This might be true, but don't forget that there are plenty of businesses out there that support and give money to Democrats as well as Republicans. Socialists are left out in the cold, but they have always been left out in the cold by American politics and rightly so.

What this decision does is limits control of political speech. The provisions of McCain-Feingold extended beyond a mere time regulation as the intention was clearly to curb a certain kind of speech. Time regulations on speech are perfectly constitutional if there is no discrimination on the basis of content. Just like technically voting rights for the public can be revoked as long as it is done without prejudice, but this won't happen. Anyway, this limiting of control most certainly does damage to incumbents, and it should. After all, it should satisfy the bipartisan crowd of people who complain about over 90% reelection rates (which ignores the fact that many incumbents smartly choose to retire rather than making a risky or unsuccessful reelection bid). It certainly satisfies me as reelection rates should be even lower given the piss poor performance of Congress.

Overall, while I doubt this decision will have as strong of an impact as its enemies believe it will, I hope it does.

Rothenberg: 58 Democratic seats in play

In the wake of Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.) opting not to run for reelection, pollster Stuart Rothenberg now puts 58 Democrat held House seats as competitive while the Republican seats remain at 14. This is excellent news, and I've been seeing some individual House race polls, including Indiana's 9th, in which former Congressman Mike Sodrel may defeat incumbent Baron Hill a second time in 2010, as he has a 9 point lead. Ohio's 1st looks excellent too with the excellent Steve Chabot leading liberal incumbnet Steve Driehaus by 17 points. Driehaus unseated Chabot in 2008 during the Obama wave. Republicans look like they will make significant gains in legislative representation in Tennessee and Arkansas. Even in the Northeast the GOP may take back some House seats. In Nevada, it looks like Harry Reid is not going to win reelection, Joe Biden's Senate seat will probably be overtaken by At-Large Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) stands a good chance of winning the Obama seat. Snarlin' Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) looks like he will get his comeuppance from conservative challenger Pat Toomey. Even the race for the Senate in California with Barbara Boxer is starting to look competitive. The GOP just might pull off a takeover of the House this year. They just might. The Senate is still almost impossible.

Why Blizzard Should Support Obamacare

World of Warcraft (WoW) has been the most famous MMO to date, and this is in spite of a $15 monthly fee to play. I don't know about you, but even if a game was the best game in the universe, wasn't an MMO, and I wasn't unemployed, I still wouldn't pay $15 a month to play it. I wouldn't pay that much even if it were Team Fortress 2 with endless weapon variations, limitless maps, and thousands of class taunts that would pause entire games because people would be on their backs laughing.

Back to the point, I think WoW playing will experience at least a considerable increase after the passage of Obamacare. Among the many not-so small provisions of this enormous measure, the Senate bill allows for young adults to stay on their parents' insurance policy until they are 26. The House bill allows for this until the age of 27. The only two things aside from passing the age limit that disqualifies you are marriage and being a parent.

What is missing here? An education requirement, one that requires people to be full time students at least one semester of a year. If we are going to force insurance companies to allow for parental coverage of young people, we might at least make sure the young people are using this time productively, bettering themselves for the good of society. But this is not so according to this plan. Since their health insurance is being covered by parents under law, the young people have extra money from their jobs that they can use to pay for WoW subscriptions (if they are not getting laid, or for when they are not getting laid), and game for long hours instead of studying. It's the essential nerd boon, and it is moreso a boon for Blizzard Entertainment. I don't know the politics of the people at Blizzard, but somehow I doubt it is anywhere near hard-line conservative. That being said, I think it would be smart for them to back Obamacare. What greater benefit than a bunch of young people not obligated to further education using incomes from their lower wage jobs to fuel their WoW addiction.

Scott Brown Victory and Obama's First Year

Part 1: Scott Brown

A victory in Massachusetts? Who'd of thunk it. A year ago, a Republican getting into Ted Kennedy's seat wasn't even a dream, wasn't even under consideration. But now, the political atmosphere has changed, and it sure as hell doesn't like Democrats. Yes, Martha Coakley ran a campaign of ineptitude, yes she referred to Curt Schilling as a "Yankee's fan", and yes she managed to turn a 30 point lead into a 5 point loss. But there's more to it than just Coakley.

People elected Scott Brown because he is Scott Brown, he is for lower taxes and against new proposed taxes on banks. He effectively used the late President Kennedy's message for lower taxes and made it his own. Kennedy was promoting pro-growth policies, which is what the Obama Administration is completely failing to do by attacking business, treating them as disobedient children, and proposing such disatrous economic schemes as "cap and trade" and "public option". But its greater than Scott Brown, its Obama. After a year, Obama has failed to make progress on unemployment in this country, even after committing around $800 Billion (with warnings of dire economic consequences if this wasn't done quickly), and the Democrats placing blame on Bush is getting old, as they have been in the driver's seat for a year, enough time to make at least a dent in the economy. As Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said about the situation in Massachusetts, "if you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up." Indeed, many of the Democrats, including David Axelrod, Obama's version of Karl Rove, are already attempting to minimize the unmistakeable impact of the situation.

Part 2: A Year in Review

This day marks the first anniversary of Obama's swearing in. Let's review what's happened and what results have been yielded:

What has Happened?

. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (now the statute of limitations is after last paycheck, rather than after contract was signed for anti-discrimination lawsuits).
. Stem Cell Research expanded.
. SCHIP signed (expanding children's healthcare through raising cigarette taxes).
. $800 Billion Stimulus.
. Credit Card Bill of Rights signed into law.
. Brings more troops into Afghanistan.
. Tries to bring to the House a potentially disastrous measure called the "Employee Free Choice Act", which would have enabled unions to know who did not support them in the card check process.
. Tried to shut down Gitmo, proves to be far more complicated a task than he or the Dems anticipated and it appears stalled now.
. Tried to get OPEC to reduce oil prices, answer was of course "no".
. Attempts to pass "Cap and Trade", but given the massive price the private sector not to mention the American consumers and workers would have to pay, it will probably not make it through.
. Flies to Copenhagen to push for the Olympics in 2016 to be held in Chicago, but Rio de Janiero is chosen instead.
. Went to Copenhagen for the Climate Conference, but negotiations fell apart because China won't play ball.
. Passes separate healthcare bills through House and Senate, but since the two versions are different, Congress is still negotiating.

If there's anything I've forgotten, please let me know.


Results?

. Democrats win by narrow margins in two special House elections in New York.
. Republican Chris Christie wins the Governorship of New Jersey while Republican Bob McDonnell wins the Governorship of Virginia.
. Parker Griffith (D-Ala.) switches to Republican in a seat that hasn't been held by Republicans since Reconstruction.
. A Republican, Scott Brown, wins a seat in Massachusetts held by Democrats since John F. Kennedy defeated Republican incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. in 1952.
. The economy isn't better than it was a year ago.
. Obama's poll numbers are down.
. The healthcare plan is officially unpopular.

Overall:

2010 is going to be a fun year for Republicans, and this special election is a promising start.