Put it on paper; make it public

LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Iran and and six world powers have agreed on the outlines of an understanding that would open the path to a final phase of nuclear negotiations but are in a dispute over how much to make public, officials told The Associated Press Thursday. [Associated Press]

Perhaps there is some overriding principle I haven't considered, but it seems to me that this agreement should be in writing (I've read that it likely won't be) and that every word of it should be made public (I understand that our last agreement with Iran was never made public).

This is a big deal. This agreement may well determine if Iran -- widely acknowledged as the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world -- acquires nuclear weapons. Why on Earth would we not want the terms explicitly laid out in precise language (i.e. in words) to ensure that all parties are crystal clear about what is being agreed to? And so that any violations of the agreement can be judged against a clear and unambiguous document? This is especially important since Iran has a long history of violating such agreements.

As to whether the agreement should be made public, Barack Obama is our elected representative. How do we not have a right to know what he is committing us to? We should be able to examine the agreement. We should be able to discuss and assess it. We should have the option to act on that assessment in the next election if we feel a change in policy is needed to protect our interests and security.

This whole process stinks. Wasn't this supposed to be "the most transparent administration in history?"

Harry Reid and what's wrong with Washington

Andrew Johnson, writing at The Corner:

Harry Reid (D., Nev.) appears to have believed that the ends justified the means when he used the Senate chamber to level unsubstantiated accusations against the Koch brothers and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. 

In his first television interview since announcing his retirement last week, Reid shrugged off criticism that his infamous claim, without any evidence, that Romney never paid any taxes was “McCarthyite” and a reflection of what is wrong with Washington.

“Well, they can call it whatever they want,” a coy Reid told CNN on Tuesday. “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

This is a but a modest example of the cynical and shameful way Harry Reid does business. He is a liar and a bully, and a particularly loathsome human being. He is, indeed, "a reflection of what is wrong with Washington."

He is a reflection of something else, however, which is far more troubling. He is a reflection of us.

Consider that Reid's lack of character is no secret. There's a reason they call him "Dirty Harry." Yet his Nevada constituents have endorsed his corruption each election for nearly three decades. His Democratic colleagues have repeatedly chosen him as their leader, granting him one of the longest runs as Majority leader in Senate history.

Now, as Reid retires, will come the praise and honorifics. We can look forward to magazine articles, television segments, and even books lauding his effective leadership and unwavering dedication as a public servant. The lies and corruption will be largely be ignored or, worse, lauded as hallmarks of his "tenacity" and "fierce commitment" to fighting for those who couldn't fight for themselves. Good Ol' Harry. He may have been a thug, but that's what it takes to get anything done in Washington!

I'm tempted to document how the vast majority of liars, bullies, and thugs seem to amass on the political Left, and how Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) enable, support, and endorse them. But I don't want to distract from this one, somber point:

Yes, Harry Reid reflects what is wrong with Washington. But who sent him there? Who gave him all that power to corrupt and abuse? The thing is that Harry Reid, and all the other miscreants in Washington are, in every sense of the word, our representatives. They reflect us. And that is what's wrong with Washington.

Think it over, then do as you're told

Washington Times:

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it would allow insurers to issue until October 2016 health plans that do not meet Obamacare regulations, pushing back another Affordable Care Act deadline well past November's midterms.

Facing the prospect of another wave of cancellation notices this fall, the administration took even further action to mitigate the blowback from President Obama's broken promise that all Americans could keep their health care plans under Obamacare.

Not long ago, congressional Republicans attempted to pass legislation which would have made changes to ObamaCare. Obama fought this legislation, insisting that ObamaCare is "settled law." This made no sense, of course, since Congress has the constitutional authority to pass new laws. A law is only "settled" until Congress says it's not. (The president has veto power, of course, but the point stands: there is no such thing as settled law as Obama would have it.)

Since then, Obama has made dozens of changes to what he insists is "settled law," all without these changes being first voted on by Congress. The president has no authority to make or change laws on his own, which means that in addition to being a liar and a hypocrite, Obama has repeatedly violated the oath he took to uphold the Constitution. In a sane world, he would be impeached for this, but we don't live in a sane world.

As the Times article suggests, this latest change, allowing insurers not to obey "settled law" until after the 2016 presidential election, is politically motivated. Democrats own ObamaCare, and they can't afford to have millions of cancellation notices sent out prior to a big election. They say otherwise, of course, but the rationale they give is completely transparent:

“We’re extending this to give people an opportunity to make a judgment about what works best for them and their families,” a senior administration official said, briefing reporters on the major policy change.

Let's walk this through. The law, as written, automatically cancels the insurance policies of millions of Americans and forces them into policies the government says they must have. People are upset about this, as Obama repeatedly promised them the law would do no such thing. ("If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.")

So now comes this delay, pushing the betrayal of that promise up past the 2016 presidential election. And the reason given is "to give people an opportunity to make a judgment about what works best for them." But what will happen after people make that judgement? The government will ignore it, cancel their policies, and herd them into ObamaCare policies anyway! 

We'll give you a little time to decide before we force you to do it our way.

I'm tempted to ask just how stupid they think we are, but we keep electing people who treat us like sheep, so I guess I have my answer.

Off the reservation

Actress Maria Conchita Alonso, best known for her work in Moscow on the Hudson, lost her job with a theater company in San Francisco’s Mission District because she voiced support for Tim Donnelly, a conservative candidate for California governor.

The show's producer, Eliana Lopez, had this to say:

We really cannot have her in the show, unfortunately. Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants. But we’re in the middle of the Mission. Doing what she is doing is against what we believe.

It's a shame that people routinely lose their jobs over such innocuous things as voicing an opinion -- that whole "free country" thing, and all -- but that's where we are. Still, it works both ways. Alonso can say what she wants; her employer can hire who she wants. Assuming no one broke any contracts, that's about right, I think, as far as fairness goes. But I also think we have gotten a little too sensitive about people expressing opinions -- and by we, I mostly mean those on the "tolerant" Left.

What was it Alonso said that was so offensive? According to the Washington Examiner, she used the word illegal to describe those who entered the country illegally. Say it isn't so!

This is what is so maddening. The term illegal immigrant is about as neutral and accurate a description of the people at issue as the English language allows. They literally immigrated here illegally, and it is that precise behavior that is at issue. The Left insists that we abandon this perfectly apt phrase and instead refer to these people as undocumented workers -- a term that is misleading and inaccurate.

We have no way of knowing whether they are workers or not, and their employment status is not what is at issue. Undocumented downplays the the whole deliberately violated our sovereign borders thing as if it were a mere clerical error.

But this is the go-to move of the Left. They can't win arguments on the merits, so they bully people by trying to control the language. Force people to use meaningless, innocuous phrases and they will think meaningless, innocuous thoughts. It's pure propaganda, but, too often, it works.

Alonso was also called out for her use of "vulgar language" in the ad. After watching the ad twice, I gather this refers to Alonso's comedic reduction of a host of California's chronic ills to "We're screwed." Pretty tame stuff as vulgarities go, and also ironic considering the show she was canned from: The Vagina Monologues.

But as one hyper-sensitive Mission District residents put it, “We don’t act like that. First of all, that is not a typical Latina."

A typical Latina? Now there's something to be offended about. How insulting is it to suggest that members of a group have to act, think, and talk alike? Think about that. This is the "tolerant" Left, calling for heads because someone dared to color outside the lines of their racial group. Can't have those Brownie's going off the reservation, now, can we?

Sad, and disgusting.

Capitalism can't fund Socialism

Best thing I read today:

Whatever the outcome of the American presidential election, one thing is certain: the fighting of it will be the most significant political event of the decade. Last week’s Republican national convention sharpened what had been until then only a vague, inchoate theme: this campaign is going to consist of the debate that all Western democratic countries should be engaging in, but which only the United States has the nerve to undertake. The question that will demand an answer lies at the heart of the economic crisis from which the West seems unable to recover. It is so profoundly threatening to the governing consensus of Britain and Europe as to be virtually unutterable here, so we shall have to rely on the robustness of the US political class to make the running.

What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect....

[T]he myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished. This is the defining political problem of the early 21st century.

Read the whole thing.

Thoughts on the Akin affair

I've been kind of passively following the dust up over Rep. Todd Akin's recent comments on abortion. In case you missed it, here's what he said:

It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, [is that pregnancy resulting from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.

Both the Right and the Left are in a frenzy over this. For the Left, this is understandable. Akin's underlying view -- that all abortions should be banned -- is in extreme opposition to pro-choice sensibilities. Add to that the caustic phrasing ("legitimate rape") and the assertion that women's body's somehow parry evil rapist sperm and you've got the makings for some righteous (Lefteous?) outrage. Some of the indignation is, er, legitimate, of course, while a lot of it is political. There's blood in the water, and Politics 101 dictates that the Left make sure that Republicans in general, and Romney and Ryan in particular, have plenty of it on them. Fair enough.

The reaction from the Right has been more interesting to me. Sure, the Republicans are on defense here. One of their members committed a huge unforced error and there's a mad scramble to get him into quarantine lest the malady spread to the body large. There's a lot at stake, so this all makes sense too.

What I find interesting, and impressive, is just how unified, rapid, and demonstrative has been the condemnation of Akin from the Right. This is the Stupid Party, after all, renown for its capacity for self-sabotage. Yet Akin has been nearly as universally lambasted by the Right as by the Left. He's truly become radioactive -- a political leper, for a comment that, frankly, doesn't strike me as all that egregious when you unpack it. Yes, politically it was a stupid remark, a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but let's break it down a little.

Akin was trying to make a a point about the Left's disingenuous tactic of always making the abortion argument about the exceptions rather than the rule. Virtually all abortions in the US are done as a form of after-the-fact birth control -- not as a response to rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. It's been a while since I've looked at the numbers, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 98% of abortions are cases where the woman engaged in voluntary sex, got pregnant, then decided she didn't want the baby. That is what the heart of the abortion argument is about. But the Left routinely tries to brush that aside and make the argument about the other 2%, the exceptions where women are helpless victims instead of willing participants dealing with the consequences of their own choices, as is the case in the vast majority of abortions.

Now I'm not going to defend the crude and clueless way Akin made his point. But let's look at what he actually said:

1) He stated that pregnancy resulting from rape is rare. "Rare" is subjective, of course, but is this controversial? A quick and dirty web search gives me estimates of about 32,000 rape-related pregnancies per year in the U.S. out of approximately 6 million total pregnancies. That's about one-half of one percent, which strikes me as pretty rare.

2) He asserted that in a "legitimate rape," a woman's body has ways of preventing pregnancy.

Now the phrase "legitimate rape" is excruciating, but it's silly to suggest that he was endorsing rape or suggesting that it's sometimes okay, so don't even go there. He is obviously referring to forcible, violent rape -- a distinction that, unfortunately, it's necessary to make in this day in age as, in some circles, it's now considered "rape" if a woman consents then changes her mind after the fact. ("Sometimes yes means no too," we're told. Anyway, that's a discussion for another day.)

In any case, the assertion here is that a woman's body somehow reacts to violent rape in a way that reduces her chances of being impregnated. Now, I have no idea whether this is true, and neither do you, but Akin was immediately and universally condemned for this remark. I find this interesting, as I can readily think of an explanation for why this might be so. What if the female body has evolved to react to extreme mental and physical trauma by taking measures to thwart or terminate impregnation? Isn't it conceivable that Nature has determined that carrying and/or raising a child in the midst of undetermined and indefinite upheaval isn't a good way to propagate the species and has taken measures to prevent it?

It's an extraordinary claim, admittedly, and so Akin should be challenged on it. Just who are these doctors that have told him this, and what is their evidence?  Those are fair and appropriate questions, and the guy should have to put up or back down, as the case may be. But I'm no expert on these things, and neither are most people, so I say give him a chance to make his case before branding him a liar and a fool. If it turns out that he is, then have at him, by all means.

3) Finally, Akin expresses an opinion: that abortion is wrong, even in the case of rape, because it punishes an innocent for the crimes of the rapist.  Whether you agree with it or not, that's a pretty mainstream opinion. It's the official position of the Catholic Church. It's a view held by millions of Americans. Yet the Left act as if he's guilty of child abuse -- a bit ironic, when you think on it.

The Left claim to be champions of tolerance and civility, but they show damn little of it anymore, viciously attacking any viewpoint that differs from their own, even if those viewpoints are widely held and informed by centuries of tradition. This is all the more annoying as they are constantly harping about need for tolerance and acceptance on the part of their opponents.

But anyway, just to be clear, I'm not defending Akin. I know nothing about the man, and I don't share his views on abortion. (I'm kind of a "tweener" on this issue, but that, too, is a discussion for another day.) He obviously stepped in it big time with these comments, and I think it's probably in the best interests of his movement and his party that he step aside. But those are political considerations. When I consider what he actually said -- foolish and clueless as it may be -- I'm just not that outraged.

More: A very interesting take on this from Larry Elder. He doesn't exactly defend Akin either, but he sure puts things into perspective.

More: Mona Charen has, I think, I reasonable take:

Is it such an outlandish idea? I looked it up, and it appears that there is no evidence that pregnancies are less likely in cases of rape, but it didn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me. Many things about the human body are peculiar and amazing. And frankly, more people than are today admitting it must believe that a woman's mental state has something to do with her capacity to conceive. Consider that every woman (including me) who has ever experienced infertility is told, even by some doctors, that she should try to "relax."

Though dismissed as a myth for some time, the role of stress in infertility is being reconsidered now by specialists. Dr. Margareta D. Pisarska, co-director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles told WebMD that "it's becoming more and more important, in terms of what studies we do, to focus our efforts on the physiological effects of stress and how they may play a role in conception."

So maybe I'm not so alone in my lack of outrage as I thought.

Charen also echos Elder's observation of a severe double standard:

So Akin's views are scandalous and can be used to discredit (however implausibly) other Republicans. But the views of the leaders of the Democratic Party —favoring abortion for any (including sex selection) or no reason throughout the nine months of pregnancy — are not controversial. The Democratic Party's support for partial-birth abortion is not worthy of skepticism. The views of the president of the United States — opposing a law providing that a baby accidentally born alive after a botched abortion be protected from the abortionist's knife — is not shocking. No Democrat has ever, so far as I know, been challenged by a member of the mainstream press to distance himself from the president's extreme abortion position.

Akin is guilty of having his facts wrong. Many of his critics are guilty of worse.

Yeah, I've always wondered about that. Obama thinks it's okay to kill a baby that has actually been born despite efforts to abort it. This isn't at all a mainstream position as far as I can tell. I've never met anyone, on the Left or the Right, that doesn't think this is plain murder. But Charen's right: no one in the media challenges him on this, or asks other leaders on the Left to comment on it.

Why Obama's gotta go

Here's another "keeper," this time from Niall Ferguson. He lays out a comprehensive case for why Obama has to go. I often have trouble remembering these types of details, so it's nice to have something bookmarked to refer back to when people ask why Obama deserves to be voted out.

Republicans pushing for Internet sales tax

This seems like a bad idea, both economically and politically, especially in a foundering economy right before an election.

Despite their lip service to cutting taxes, a handful of Republican senators are pushing for a sales tax on Internet purchases. Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming has introduced the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act that would create a new national online tax that would take away more of our money and freedom. The Republican cosponsors of S. 1832 are Sens. Lamar Alexander, Roy Blunt, John Boozman, and Bob Corker. These Internet sales tax schemes are nothing new but greedy politicians seem more determined than ever to pass it this year.

There's a reason Republicans are known as the stupid party.

Oh, and anytime politicians start talking about "fairness," check your wallet.

Team Obama's vicious lies

Yesterday I commented on Team Obama's use of the name "Romney Hood" to mock Mitt Romney's economic proposals. While Obama relied on a single, dubious report to mischaracterize Romney's policies, the attempt to taint the plan by branding it in such a way was a sharp move from a marketing/propaganda perspective. I felt that, should the label stick, it could do some real damage, and I suggested that, ironically, Obama's own ineptitude might be Romney's strongest ally in making sure it didn't.

Well, only a day later and I'm proven right, though not in the way I thought I would be. Absolutely no one is talking about "Romney Hood" today, as Team Obama managed to steal it's own thunder by running what Business Insider calls "the most vicious ad of the 2012 campaign." This is a vile ad, that stops just short of accusing Mitt Romney of the murder of a steel worker's wife. But, as CNN points out, not only is the ad "outrageous," it's "inaccurate" as well.

Rather than walk through all the inaccuracies here, I recommend that you simply watch the ad, then check the timeline provided by Conservative Review:

• 1999 – Romney leaves Bain to run the 2002 Olympics (paid leave of absence)
• 2001 – GST goes bankrupt
• 2002 – Joe Soptic laid off (by Jonathan Lavine, an Obama bundler…not Mitt Romney), Soptic’s wife does not lose health insurance
• 2002 or 2003 – Joe Soptic’s wife laid off from her own job and loses her own health insurance
• 2006 – Soptic’s wife dies of lung cancer previously undiscovered because she refused to go to the doctor

I've been critical of Team Romney's tactics in past -- for example when they edited a clip of Obama quoting an aide of John McCain to give the impression that the words were actually Obama's. That was sleazy and dishonest, and is one reason why I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney.

But this new Obama ad is truly reprehensible. It's looking like it may blow up in his face, and every decent person should be hoping it does. They say elections have consequences. Well, vile and dishonest campaigning should have consequences too. If Americans don't start holding candidates responsible, then we get what we get.

Update [8/10/12]: It just gets worse:

One day after claiming the Obama campaign had no knowledge of the story of the man included in a  pro-Obama super PAC ad, spokeswoman Jen Psaki admitted the campaign had worked with him before.

A Romney spokesman said,

The Obama campaign has now admitted that it lied to the media and the American people in a disgraceful attempt to conceal their connection to this shameful smear. Americans deserve better – they deserve a president who’s willing to run an honest campaign and be honest about his own record.

That sounds spot on.

Obama's fairy tales shouldn't be taken lightly

From a WSJ editorial:

As he escalates his class war re-election campaign, President Obama has taken to calling Mitt Romney's economic plan "Robin Hood in reverse" or "Romney Hood." The charge is that even though Mr. Romney is proposing to cut tax rates for everybody across the board, Mr. Romney will finance this by imposing a tax increase on the middle class.

The Journal goes on to explain that Obama's source for this claim is "a single study by the Tax Policy Center, a liberal think tank that has long opposed cutting income tax rates." It then proceeds to dismantle the study piece by piece and show that it's utter nonsense. Far from dry reading, it's one of the most devastating and entertaining take downs I've read in quite a while. I recommend it.

But setting the facts aside for a moment, I have to say that Team Obama has come up with something pretty brilliant here. Dubbing Romney's proposal "Romney Hood" is a great stroke of marketing and propaganda. The phrase is clever, evocative, and highly memorable. I'm already imagining the caricatures of Romney romping through the inner cities, clad in green tights and felt cap, relieving the poor of their meager possessions. I bet you are too. Now try to get that image out of your head.

Yes, substantive or not, this mockery has the potential to gain legs and be a real problem for Romney. If it takes hold, it could suck all the oxygen out of the campaign, taking the focus off Obama's record on jobs, the economy, and a handful of major scandals that are only now managing to percolate through the filter of the liberal media and into public awareness.

Ironically, Obama himself may be Romney's biggest ally in preventing this from happening. Despite all the hype surrounding the force of Obama's personality, his public speaking prowess, and his superior intellect, there's very little evidence that any of it matches the reality. He's still reading the same canned speeches he was three years ago. He's managed to take a flagging economy and make it appreciably worse. And his purported abilities to influence and persuade have been found lacking in everything from his attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago to his selling of Obamacare, which remains as unpopular now as it did before he launched his relentless speaking tour to promote it. In short, there is a huge Obama fatigue factor; we're simply tired of listening to the guy.

Still, Romney would be foolish to rely on his opponent's fecklessness to fend off what could be a game changer for Obama. As always, the media will have Obama's back. Romney needs to respond quickly and decisively, and keep the focus on Obama's performance.

Romney will beat Obama handily

I'm not especially good at predicting political outcomes, but I'll go out on a limb early and predict that Romney will beat Obama handily in November. Ask me to define "handily" and I'll hedge a bit. I don't know. But I don't think Obama will win. And I don't think it will be a squeaker. Nor do I think it will be a blow out. Four or five points maybe? Or is that considered a landslide these days? That's probably a bit too high. Maybe three points. I don't know. I've got a very poor memory for these things, so I've got nothing to compare it to. So a "handy" win, a few points -- not a squeaker; not a blowout -- is my guess.

Here's my thinking:

Imagine 20 people who voted for McCain last time. How many of them are thinking, Gee, Obama's done such a good job that he deserves to be reelected. I didn't vote for him last time, but he's really won me over?

Now imagine 20 people who voted for Obama last time. How many of them are thinking, Boy did I get suckered. This guy just wasn't ready. Bush may have got us in trouble, but this guy promised to make things better and now they're worse?

My take is that not very many McCain voters have been impressed with Obama's first term, and that quite a number of Obama voters are disappointed with his performance. I'm not sure how many of them are disillusioned enough to switch sides this time, but I'm thinking it's more than will go the other way by a "handy" amount.

Most polls say differently, predicting a close race with Obama slightly ahead, so maybe I'm all wet. But a lot of polling companies are including a lot more Democrats than Republicans in their surveys, and that makes things look a lot better for Obama than they are. Also, I think some who have decided on Romney or are on the fence are saying they will vote for Obama because they fear being labeled a racist.

Anyway, I saw a Gallop poll today that seems to support my thinking:

Eighty-six percent of voters who say they voted for Barack Obama in 2008 are backing Obama again this year, a smaller proportion than the 92% of 2008 John McCain voters who are supporting 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Nine percent of 2008 Obama voters have switched to supporting Romney this year, while 5% of McCain voters have switched to Obama.

As I said, I'm not especially good at prognosticating these types of things, but I thought it would be fun to stick my neck out. Maybe I'll get it right this time.

I hope I am, because I'm definitely in the camp that considers Obama a disaster. Unfortunately, I'm not a big fan of Romney either, so while I think Romney is a much better choice than Obama, I'm afraid we lose either way. It's the difference between shooting yourself in the foot and stabbing yourself in the heart. I'll vote for the bullet in the foot, but I'm not happy about.