Christian Conservative Social Justice

Misleading WHO Health Care Report - Part I

2009-07-02T21:27:00.000-07:00

According to the WHO the United States is ranked 24th in the world in life expectancy. People in the U.S. live to be an average of 70 years old while people in Japan (ranked 1st) live to be an average of 74.5 years old.

So according to this statistic one could come to the conclusion that the United States has inferior health care. But that conclusion would be wrong.

While quality of health care plays some role in life expectancy, there are many, many other factors that play into this statistic as well. For life expectancy rates to mean anything at all in relation to health care one would have to control for things such as homicide rates, accident rates, diet, exercise, genetics, smoking rates, etc.

When these rates are controlled for the United States is at or near the top of the heap.

Americans are far more mobile than the rest of the world. We are far more likely to own a care and use it than any other country. Thus higher auto fatality rates.

Also, because of our wealth Americans find all kinds of dangerous ways to spend their time from mountain climbing, to skiing, to eating junk food on a daily basis.

All of these things are important issues in and of themselves, but they have little to do with the quality of the health care system in America.

The Inferior Massachusetts Health Care Plan

2009-07-01T21:40:00.000-07:00

Some people may reject analysis of socialized medicine in Europe or Canada based on the idea that "we can do it better in America". But the state of Massachusetts is proving this line of thinking to be incorrect. Massachusetts adopted a government run universal health care plan in 2006 and in only three years has created a myriad of problems.

State spending on health care has increased 42 percent in Massachusetts since 2006 which is 33 percent above the national average. According to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average average (9% in 2009).

Taxes have gone up to pay for the plan, but they aren't enough. The plan is racking up a significant deficit and the Massachusetts government is discussing cuts in reimbursing doctors and further rationing of care to make up the deficit.

The Boston Globe reports the average wait is now 63 days to see a family doctor and 50 days to see a specialist.

The number of uninsured has come down, but not dramatically. Cato estimates over 200,000 are still uninsured.

The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council ranks Massachusetts last of all 50 states for business friendly health care policies.

Government medicine hasn't worked in other countries around the world and it's proving to be equally unsuccessful in the United States as well.

Canada's Inferior Heath Care System - Part III

2009-07-01T21:11:00.000-07:00

John Stossel, who works for ABC (specifically 20/20) and has been writing and reporting on government waste for years, has written an insightful article about the problems of socialized medicine, specifically in Canada. Here is a snippet:

"People line up for care, some of them die. That's what happens," says Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of "The Cure". He liked Canada's government health care until he started treating patients.
"The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house." "You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! Just wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! Just wait six months."
Polls show most Canadians like their free health care, but most people aren't sick when the poll-taker calls. Canadian doctors told us the system is cracking. One complained that he can't get heart-attack victims into the ICU.
In America, people wait in emergency rooms, too, but it's much worse in Canada. If you're sick enough to be admitted, the average wait is 23 hours.
"We can't send these patients to other hospitals. Dr. Eric Letovsky told us. "Every other emergency department in the country is just as packed as we are."
More than a million and a half Canadians say they can't find a family doctor. Some towns hold lotteries to determine who gets a doctor. In Norwood, Ontario, "20/20" videotaped a town clerk pulling the names of the lucky winners out of a lottery box. The losers must wait to see a doctor.
Shirley Healy, like many sick Canadians, came to America for surgery. Her doctor in British Columbia told her she had only a few weeks to live because a blocked artery kept her from digesting food. Yet Canadian officials called her surgery "elective."
"The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live," she said.

Canada's Inferior Health Care System - Part II

2009-06-28T11:31:00.002-07:00

People from countries that have government run health care come to the United States by the masses every year to receive medical treatment they can’t get anywhere else. Just yesterday (Friday, June 26, 2009) there was a story in the Canadian Press about a critically-ill premature-born baby from Hamilton, Ontario who was transferred to a hospital in Buffalo, New York after she was turned away for treatment at a local facility.

Why was the girl turned away for treatment? 1) The local facility didn’t have enough beds. 2) Canada does not have the capacity to deal with the demand for neo-natal intensive care for premature births.

In other words, it’s called rationing. And this is what rationing produced – inferior care and a government official who decides whether your specific situation is worthy of receiving care or not.

If America also decides to head down this road of a single-payer system the questions become obvious. Where will these people from all over world go? More specifically, where will Americans go? Unfortunately, the answer is equally as obvious. We’ll all be out of luck. Hope and pray it’s not you or your family who is in desperate need of that care.

Canada's Inferior Health Care System - Part I

2009-06-28T07:50:00.000-07:00

In Canada, the government decided one way to control costs of the government health care system was to cut the amount of money doctors and nurses could make. This has lead to an inevitable 21% decrease in the number of doctors and nurses and even more dramatic rationing of care.

The incidence of colon cancer in Canada is 25% higher than in the U. S. This is due to the long waits in Canada to see specialists and the difficulty and oftentimes inability to get colonoscopies.

On top of this, the death rate to colon cancer is 25% higher than the colon cancer death rate in the U.S. In Canada the government has controlled health care costs by denying access to the two most effective colon cancer drugs. Americans have access to these drugs.

Americans are much healthier than Canadians in the vital diseases. Americans have a 6% lower death rate from heart disease and a 16% lower death rate from cancer.

Obamacare Is Very, Very Expensive - Part I

2009-06-25T19:56:00.000-07:00

President Obama has largely taken a hands off approach to health care reform. Instead he has given the Democratic House and Senate tremendous latitude in shaping their own bills.

I presume he is doing this for a couple of reasons. 1) He is sheltered from political fallout if a poorly imagined bill is floated to the public. He can simply say "that's not my bill". 2) The House and Senate will likely produce multiple bills and he will then choose the one he likes the most at the end of the process.

Currently, there are no less that eight health care reform bills being worked on in both the House and Congress. This makes having a genuine health care debate difficult since each plan is radically different than the others. But as details of each plan emerge I'll break down the cost of each one as best I can.

1) The Kennedy Bill - This was the first bill floated to the public. Prior to its release Obama hinted that this was his favorite of the bunch. This plan does include the public insurance option and the CBO estimates this plan will cost upwards of $1 trillion and still leave 36 million people uninsured through 2017. Obama quickly retreated from this bill after such a negative reaction from the public.

2) Senate Finance Committee Bill - The CBO estimates this plan will cost upwards of $1.6 trillion. A private consulting group Health Systems Innovations Network estimates the cost of this bill to be upwards of $4 trillion. Congressional Democrats are now "rethinking" this bill as well.

3) After months of work, House Democrats released an 852-page bill which would establish a public plan, require that everyone carry insurance, and require employers to provide coverage or pay a fee of 8 percent of bankroll. The Democrats won't even allow the CBO to score the cost of this program (it's cost would dwarf the other plans).

Obamacare is being "marketed" as a way to control health care costs through increased competition. But as the above numbers indicate the controlling of costs is nowhere to be found. These numbers are reckless and fiscally irresponsible.

As additional health care bills are floated to the public, I'll analyze the cost of these as well.

Public Plan Is Trojan-Horse For Nationalized Health Care

2009-06-24T22:19:00.000-07:00

The most troubling part of the current health care debate is the dishonesty of President Obama and the Democratic Party.

During his June 23, 2009 press conference President Obama said this when asked whether his public plan health insurance option would drive private health providers out of business:

"Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say the marketplace provides the best quality health care - that they are offering a good deal then why is it that the government - that they say can't run anything - suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical."

While his delivery is smooth the content of his rhetoric is a lie. The entire purpose of the public plan is to eliminate competition and serve as a "first step" or a "bridge" to socialized medicine. It is also logical. If the government can provide a product for a lower cost and not face any negative consequences even if they lose a massive amount of money of course private industry is going to go out of business. There is nothing "competitive" about this at all.

If one doesn't want to take my word for it, then listen to both the creators of the plan and those who are pushing it the hardest.

The architect and creator of the public plan strategy is far left political writer and thinker Jacob Hacker. He has been peddling this plan in a variety of different forms since 2001. By his own admission this strategy is simply the first step towards a single-payer system.

Speaking to the Tides Foundation (a far left nonprofit) on July 21, 2008 Mr. Hacker said: “Someone once said to me, ‘This is a Trojan horse for single-payer,’ and I said, ‘Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there.’ I’m telling you, we’re going to get there.” His basic point was that the elimination of competition from the private sector was an obvious byproduct of the public plan.

In addition to Mr. Hacker, several current sitting Congressmen and Cabinet members have made similar statements. Representative Jan Schakowsky a Democrat from Illinois said the following on April 18 of this year during a speech: “And next to me was a guy from the insurance company and he said to me, 'A public option would not let private insurance compete. A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer.' My single payer friends, he was right! The man was right! . . . This is not a principled fight. This is a strategy for getting there and I believe we will!"

Continuing, Senator Russ Feingold a Democrat from Wisconsin said the following during an interview with the liberal media group Democracy Now! on May 5, 2009: "I do support single-payer health care. . . I would love to see it and I believe the goal here is to create whatever legislation we have in a way that could be developed into something like a single payer system."

Even more, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said this in 2007 about her strategy for "closing the gap" towards a single-payer plan: "What we need is a national agenda and a commitment to universal health care. . . I mean I'm all for a single-payer system eventually. I think what we have to do though is work with what we've got to close the gap."

Finally, Barrack Obama in 2003 during a speech stated in very specific, clear, and strong words that he was a proponent of a single-payer, universal healthcare system for America. He went on to say that “we may not get there immediately” but went on to suggest that they would be successful over time in this issue.

I don't care if President Obama or any other Democrat for that matter is an advocate for nationalized health care. If that is what you want then debate it on its merits and let the American people decide. But instead, the Democratic Party has cloaked the health care debate in dishonesty as a "strategy" to get what they want. Shame on the Democratic Party and shame on President Obama.

Time To Derail The Obamacare Express

2009-06-23T19:32:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow night America will be treated to a one hour health care infomercial that will have the look and feel of a genuine news story thanks to ABC (which is now in competition with NBC for which major news network can provide more favorable coverage to the President).

On the eve of such an important event I am compelled to join those across the country who have had enough of the out of control spending and are drawing a metaphorical line in the sand in opposition to Obamacare.

This is the one economic issue that the GOP (and all fiscally conscious Americans) can not afford to lose. Creating a massive new entitlement program (on top of Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid and equal to 1/6 of the economy) in healthcare would be the fatal decision that sends this country over the cliff to the European welfare state.

This is the time and this is the issue around which to get involved. On my end, I'll be blogging almost daily about this issue for purpose of both educating people and providing suggestions on how to get involved. If you find following me on Facebook or this blog is a hassle, drop me your email address and I'll send my posts directly to your inbox.

Colin Powell Makes No Sense

2009-05-06T20:08:00.000-07:00

One should tread lightly in criticizing an American hero like Colin Powell, but the comments he made about the GOP this week made no sense.

The Republican Party is in big trouble and needs to find a way to move back to the middle of the country, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday.
Powell said the GOP is "getting smaller and smaller" and "that's not good for the nation." He also said he hopes that emerging GOP leaders, such as House Minority Whip Cantor, will not keep repeating mantras of the far right.
"The Republican Party is in deep trouble," Powell told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington sponsored by Fortify Software Inc. The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. "Americans do want to pay taxes for services," he said. "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less."
Powell also criticized other GOP leaders, for bowing too much to the right.
He blasted radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, saying he does not believe that Limbaugh or conservative icon Ann Coulter serve the party well. He said the party lacks a "positive" spokesperson. "I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without," Powell said.

Americans want to pay taxes? Americans want more government? What?

Anyway, in the 2008 Presidential election, the GOP nominated a man in John McCain who is arguably one of the most moderate Republican Senators in American history. So one would think Mr. Powell would show his support by endorsing and voting for McCain.

This, however, did not happen. Powell endorsed and voted for Obama. And continues to support Obama even as he governs to the far left.

I have tremendous respect for Colin Powell's accomplishments, but I can't really take his political opinions very seriously.

Revitalizing Conservatism - Expand The Base - Minority Leadership

2008-11-20T20:16:00.000-08:00

America is unmistakably changing color. Analysts predict that by 2050 whites will become the majority minority.

And this more than any other reason (and there are others) is why I believe the Republican Party is in deep trouble.

Why? Because currently conservatives have very little voice in minority communities. McCain lost the Latino vote roughly 70-30. McCain lost the black vote roughly 95-5.

It seems pretty obvious to me that unless the GOP finds a voice with these groups it will quickly become irrelevant. The GOP will no longer be able to win elections simply by winning the majority of the white vote.

One of the first and most obvious steps to take in talking with these groups is to make sure the people talking to them aren't almost exclusively white. The GOP needs not only new blood, but it needs fresh faces who bring a little diversity to the party.

I know, I know, conservatives don't view the world through the lens of race. We view diversity as something that undermines democracy and excellence. In general that's true, but in this case, conservatism needs to "embrace change".

Consider these comments the other day from Rush Limbaugh:

This whole business of class politics, it gets confusing. You know, it makes me just want to abandon all this class politics. I hate identity politics and I hate class politics, because we are all Americans. I don't like, "We gotta go out and get the Hispanics, though, Rush." There's a way to get Hispanics. We can get African-Americans. We can get women. We can get everybody with a set of core principles that we do not abandon that benefit everybody regardless the damned color of their skin or their gender! We're all Americans, for crying out loud. And now we got people on our side who want to get into class politics and identity politics and come up with a portion of our agenda that targets this group (say it's Hispanics) or this group (say it's the working poor) or gotta go get this group: one-armed amputees on West 14th Street in The Village. I mean, however they want to get this down pat, we gotta go do it. Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Broad pricniples that apply across the board: conservatism, liberty, capitalism, free markets, property rights, national security.

Before I analyze this quote, I want to make it clear that I am not a Rush Limbaugh hater. Rush has been and continues to be a strong leader in the conservative movement.

In general, I think Rush in right. Conservative principles are powerful and compelling. I believe, as he does, that these principles speak to the lives of all Americans regardless of color or class. But there is one problem. There is one area in which I diverge from his opinion.

Hispanics, African-Americans, and many other ethnic groups (on the whole - there are obviously exceptions) aren't interested in hearing conservative principles from Rush Limbaugh. They aren't open to embracing conservative principles as articulated by Sean Hannity. It's just not going to happen.

The conservative columnist Tony Blankley touches on this in the article "Forging a Conservative Agenda" which he wrote immediately following the election.

But, as a national cause championed by a national party, a conservative agenda must learn to speak persuasively to a near majority of Hispanic Americans, or we will be merely a debating society. When Texas joins states such as Colorado, New Mexico (and even North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona, Florida and many others) where Hispanic votes are necessary for victory, there is no possibility of national governance without finding that voice.

Our challenge is not to retreat to the comfort of self-congratulatory exile, but to sweat and bleed - and be victorious in the arena of public opinion.

Blankley essentially argues that the GOP should return to principled conservatism, but then should also fight for these principles among all people groups.

Speaking to other ethnic groups doesn't mean conservatives have to open up their pocket book and promise huge government entitlement programs. But it does mean an investment of time, relationship, and a modeling of what this looks like.

The Republican Party has some very strong leaders who also reflect the growing diversity that is America (there I go again using the evil d- word).

Sarah Palin - Bobby Jindal - Michael Steele (and there are others of course). These are the names of some current strong leaders who can assist in the process of expanding the conservative base.

Revitalizing Conservatism - Return To Principled Conservatism

2008-11-19T21:35:00.000-08:00

This new brand of conservatism based on building a coalition of interests (the K-Street Project) as opposed to building a coalition based on principles and ideas has a created a Republican Party that sold its soul for the benefit of a few years of political power. The fact that there is even a discussion as to whether or not principled conservatism should be the foundation of the GOP is evidence of just how far conservatism has lost it's way.

What are the core principles of principled conservatism? Now that is a debate worth having and thankfully many conservative thinkers are engaged in this discussion.

First Principles - National Security / Smaller Government / Fiscal Responsibility / Personal Liberty

That's a pretty good list.

Michael Steele - Empowerment / Ownership / Opportunity

That's a good list.

Jeff Flake wrote a good article which appeared in the Washington Post the day after the election.

I suggest that we return to first principles. At the top of that list has to be a recommitment to limited government. After eight years of profligate spending and soaring deficits, voters can be forgiven for not knowing that limited government has long been the first article of faith for Republicans.
Of course, it's not the level of spending that gets the most attention; it's the manner in which the spending is allocated. The proliferation of earmarks is largely a product of the Gingrich-DeLay years, and it's no surprise that some of the most ardent practitioners were earmarked by the voters for retirement yesterday. Few Americans will take seriously Republican speeches on limited government if we Republicans can't wean ourselves from this insidious practice. But if we can go clean, it will offer a stark contrast to the Democrats, who, after two years in training, already have their own earmark favor factory running at full tilt.
Second, we need to recommit to our belief in economic freedom. Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" may be on the discount rack this year, but the free market is still the most efficient means to allocate capital and human resources in an economy, and Americans know it. Now that we've inserted government deeply into the private sector by bailing out banks and businesses, the temptation will be for government to overstay its welcome and force the distribution of resources to serve political ends. Substituting political for economic incentives is not the recipe for economic recovery.
There are, of course, other pillars of the Republican standard -- strong national defense, support for traditional values and the Second Amendment -- but these are not areas where voters question Republican bona fides. In any event, as we have seen over the past several months, economic woes tend to subsume other concerns. We shouldn't complain. We can now play our strongest hand.
In some respects, raising a new standard was made easier by yesterday's rout. The Republican Party is not bound by election-year promises made by its presidential nominee. More important, the party is finally untethered from the ill-fitting and unworkable big-government conservatism that defined the Bush administration.

At the end of the day, a return to principled conservatism away from big government big spending conservatism won't be enough by itself to win elections, but it is a great place to start.

Critiquing Obama - Hillary For State?

2008-11-19T18:14:00.000-08:00

Just for the record, I would be absolutely shocked if Obama offered and Hillary accepted the Secretary of State position.

I think Obama floated the idea and Clinton leaked it to use it as leverage to position herself for something else.

But if Obama does offer it and she does accept, I think it's probably a bad move for him. Can't trust the Clintons.

Publish Post

Michael Steele For RNC Chairman - Part II

2008-11-18T16:45:00.000-08:00

It appears Michael Steele's attempt to win the RNC Chairmanship may have hit a dead end before he even threw his hat in the ring.

Like any good political party that has been devastated at the polls over the last four years, watched the opposition party gain both the Presidency and near supermajorities in both the House & Senate, proven itself woefully out of touch with modern American politics, and spent the entire 2008 Presidential campaign scrambling just to keep the Obama machine within its sight, the Republican National Committee has decided they are doing just fine and want to elect one of their own. Great strategy.

Sundheim said of Michael Steele: “He understands where the party needs to go, he has got a strong set of principles, he is well able to articulate a message in all the media forms, and can take that message to the growing areas of the country — youth and minorities — and he does very well with women. He is the future of the party.”

But one influential Republican believes that RNC members are going to insist that the next chair come from the RNC.

“As to the new chair, don’t pay any attention to people who aren’t on the RNC,” he told me. “This is not a good thing, but the current RNC believes only one of their own should be chair. Maybe a dozen have a clue politically — and that’s being very kind. None (as chairman) could be an ideas leader or command the substantive respect of Republican senators or representatives.”

I say it's time for a little grassroots campaign to demand excellence, charisma, leadership, fresh ideas, and new grassroots approaches in our leaders and Michael Steele as RNC Chairman is the first baby step in that direction.

It took me some work, but I was able to get the email addresses of the Nebraska Republican Chairman, Committeeman, and Committeewomen and it would be great if as many Nebraskans as possible could contact these people and let them know you are supporting Michael Steele (or another candidate if you want).

Nebraska Chairman - Mark Quandahl
mquandahl@bglaw.com

Nebraska Committeeman - Pete Ricketts
pete@petericketts.com

Nebraska Committewoman - De Carlson
demaruscarlson@yahoo.com

If anyone out there would be willing to help me do some legwork, I would love to post the emails of every RNC voting member to this post and call people across the country to get engaged. Please email me or leave a comment if you have names and emails of voting members from other states.

Revitalizing Conservatism - McCain Loss Creates Opportunity

2008-11-17T19:41:00.000-08:00

I voted for McCain. But I'll bet many of you who voted for McCain had motivations similar to mine, you voted against Obama as much as you voted for McCain.

To be honest, I wasn't that disappointed when McCain lost. The historical nature of Obama's victory combined with the Republican In Name Only GOP candidate who was leading the GOP down a dangerous path made my own enthusiasm pretty weak.

On the bright side, I'm tending to agree with Dick Morris that if you are going to lose an election, this was the one to lose.

If ever there was an election that was not worth winning, it was the contest of 2008. While it was hard-fought on both sides, had McCain won, it might have spelled the end of the Republican Party. As it is, the party is well-situated to come back in 2010 and in 2012, if it learns the lessons of this year.
Simply put, all hell is about to break loose in the markets and the economy. The mortgage crisis will likely be followed by defaults in credit card debt, student loans and car loans. We will probably be set for two years of zero growth, according to economists with whom I talk. And the federal efforts to protect the nation from the worst of the recession will probably lead to huge budget deficits and resulting inflation. We are in for stagflation that could last for years.
If Obama raises taxes, the situation could get even worse. With a liberal Congress on his hands, he will be constrained to move to the left, if he needs any pushing. When Clinton was elected in 1992, the Democrats in control of Congress gave him a clear message: Either you govern within the four walls of the Democratic caucus or you won’t get our support. Crossing the aisle to get Republican votes, even including the GOP in negotiations, was a no-no for which the president would pay dearly if he transgressed.

The result was predictable. Moderate initiatives like welfare reform were scrapped, the Congress passed tax hikes and legislation became festooned with liberal amendments. Faced with the need to round up every last vote in the Senate and House Democratic caucuses, Clinton had no choice but to load up conservative bills like an anti-crime measure with liberal pork (like a provision for midnight basketball courts in urban areas) to get unanimous caucus backing.

Obama will have to move left to appease his caucus. He will become their hostage, and they his jailers.

Obama is inheriting quite a host of problems (including the far-left House & Senate and all his campaign promises) and if he stumbles significantly, a revived and focused Republican Party can be there to pick up the pieces.

And the GOP really does need to use this time to get their act together. The party is currently wandering in the wilderness edging ever closer to a cliff and it has no idea it is lost. If the soul searching is done effectively and quickly, conservatism will be fine. But if the GOP is unable to adapt to the changing world around them, then they will be wandering for the proverbial 40 years.

On a different note, if Obama successfully deals with the economy, adequately handles any national security issues which will inevitably come his way, and doesn't go wildly overboard with far left policy during his first term, he will be unbeatable in 2012 no matter who the GOP throws at him.

Winning In Iraq - The Surge

2008-11-15T21:58:00.000-08:00

Click here to view a remarkable before and after video highlighting the remarkable success of the surge in Iraq.

Winning In Iraq & Afghanistan

2008-11-15T21:11:00.000-08:00

While I was disappointed McCain lost the Presidential election, the results of the 2008 election didn't matter nearly as much to me as they mattered to me in 2004. In 2004, I felt that Bush had to win for one primary reason, the United States had to win the Iraq War.

It wasn't about defending the war. I still remember the day when it became fairly definitive that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I thought the Republican Party would pay for that misstep (and they did), but I wanted the payback to come after the 2004 election.

I realize people have all kinds of different opinions about war, but the situation in Iraq seemed starkly real to me - if the United States pulled out before defeating the insurgency then Iraq would likely become a base camp for Al Qaeda, a full blown terrorist state bent on our destruction.

Thankfully (at least for me) Bush won and he stubbornly saw it through in Iraq (as I knew he would) and by all accounts the United States along with the Iraqi people are in the process of securing the country.

An independent author, writer, and blogger Micheal Yon writes a powerful account in his most recent blog entry about what he observed during his most recent trip to Iraq. While Yom is a biased supporter of the military he has also been very critical of military leadership in Iraq and has twice been barred from traveling there. Yom also writes candidly in the same post about the war we are currently losing in Afghanastan.

About Iraq:

The Iraq war is over. Barring the unforeseen, the darkest days are behind, though we are still losing soldiers to low-level fighting with enemies that are true “dead-enders.” Last month we lost seven Americans in combat in Iraq. Peace, however, is not upon us. Another thirty or so Iraqis died today in suicide attacks. Nobody suffers more at the hands of Islamic terrorists than other Muslims.

About Afghanistan:

Our enemies are winning. The enemies know it. We know it. Who are they? The Taliban, with its deep local roots is enemy number one. Al Qaeda is hanging around to make trouble. Some Paks, who don't want to see a thriving Pushtun state on their border, are our enemies. They fund and shelter the Taliban even though we rely on them to help us defeat it. Nothing is straightforward in this part of the world. We have other enemies in Afghanistan who hate the Taliban.

Yom also writes about the challenge Obama will face in Afghanistan:

Whatever else, Mr. President-elect, this is no time to go wobbly. It is important to note that some top British and U.S. commanders believe that we can make a “success” out of Afghanistan. We’ve learned a few things over the past seven years. We’ve truly got a “dream-team” of military commanders with great in-theater experience, to advise and guide the next phase. They saved Iraq. Use them well, Sir.
President-elect Obama says he is serious about Afghanistan. (Just don’t fumble Iraq, please.) As he must be learning in intelligence briefings, it's going to be tough stuff. It will be like solving a human Rubik’s Cube during a firefight while the media screams every time you make a wrong move – or what is perceived as a wrong move, and there is a clock ticking and at some unknown point the cube self-destructs.

What Do You Do If You Are A White+Evangelical+Conservative Racist?

2008-11-14T22:33:00.000-08:00

Criticizing white evangelical social conservatives seems to have become the "in" thing these days among emerging evangelical thinkers and theologians. An influential thinker in this movement is a writer, pastor, and theologian by the name of Greg Boyd.

I need to preface this post by saying I'm not at all familiar with Boyd's theology. I haven't read any of his books and only in the past week was made aware of who he is. The only reason I bring him up at all is because his most recent blog post addresses one of the reasons why I started this blog - the issue of race. His title of the blog entry is The Heresy of an Unreconciled Church and it begins this way:

Several people responded to my most recent blog by contrasting what I wrote with the “hostility” and “venom” they were reading on some white conservative Christian blogs the day following the election. While most other Americans — even most opponents of Obama’s politics — were celebrating what Obama’s election means for race relations in this country, these white Christians, I was told, were enraged. While I think this is tragically sad, I’m actually not surprised.

Why is Boyd not surprised? Well, a few weeks ago he attended a seminar by Michael Emerson who wrote the book Divided By Faith and he learned the following:

One of the sad but unavoidable conclusions Emerson drew from this combination of studies was that participating in a homogenous church — as the vast majority of white evangelicals do — actually makes people more prone toward racism. Folks who are strongly bound to homogenous religous groups tend to embrace racial stereotypes and be more wary of people whose ethnicity and culture is different from their own than those who don’t. As a result, participating in homogenous religious groups tends to make people less interested in, and less adept at, making progress at bridging the racial divide.

In this light, it’s not surprising that some white evangelicals were enraged over Obama’s victory while so much of the rest of the country was celebrating it. Arguably, no group in America is at one and the same time more invested in political opinions that oppose Obama and less able to appreciate the significance of his racial achievement than this group.

Boyd then proceeds to lay into white conservative evangelicals a little more and finally ends with these statements:

So too, if refusing to preach the forgiveness of sins is heresy, then so is the refusal to passionately engage in racial reconciliation.

And in this light, we have to confess that the evangelical church in America is, to a large extent, guilty of heresy…as perhaps are some of those who were spewing venom after Obama’s election.

I have so many thoughts about Boyd's post that I barely know where to begin. For someone who appears so comfortable in his critique of the church, he shows surprising ignorance regarding why races are so segregated on Sunday, little knowledge of the depth of progress we've made as a nation in this area outside the church walls, and offers zero guidance to the people he brands as heretics and racists.

So instead of trying to unpack everything he wrote, instead I'll ask a question.

What should you do if you are a white evangelical christian who attends a mostly white church (as I am and as I do) and cares about certain social issues such as racial reconciliation?

I wish I could answer that question in a sentence, but I can't. The answer to that question is messy and complicated. And, in fact, you will get radically different answers depending on who you talk to.

But my own journey in attempting to answer this question is one of the very reasons why I started this blog.

In future posts I'll share some thoughts in this area - and I promise to offer some constructive advice rather than just drop a "heretic racist" bomb in your lap.

Where Is The Republican Party?

2008-11-13T20:02:00.000-08:00

I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the ideas suggested towards the end of this conservative blog Power Line post, but the following paragraphs reflect almost to a tee my own thoughts and feelings about where the Republican Party stands right now.

This is the dreariest part of a modern political cycle: the weeks and months after a Republican defeat. It all seems depressingly familiar: Urban conservatives of a certain stripe say that we need to get rid of the social conservatives. Hard-line conservatives say that we got too liberal and we need to toughen up. Moderate Republicans say we got too "extreme" and need to move toward the center. Others point to demographic doom if we don't jettison old-fashioned elements of conservative thought and appeal to the MTV generation, Hispanics, etc. We've been here before, too often.

This year, the intra-conservative sniping seems more listless than usual. There doesn't appear to be much conviction in any corner. My own view is that our political dialectic has reached a dead end. The current constellation of issues, which has been fairly constant for around thirty years, has played itself out. That doesn't mean the issues aren't important; they are. But the political lines that we've drawn and the ways in which we've defined the issues have become sterile and no longer hold much promise of any actual resolution of the problems in question.

We'll be writing a lot about this in the coming months, I think. I think it's pretty obvious that conservatives need to find new ways to address issues, new ways to apply conservative solutions to problems, new ways to shape conservatism to make it more appealing to a broader slice of the population. I haven't figured out what those new ways are, of course. But take the example of Barack Obama. By merely raising the idea of a new kind of politics that would get past the current battle lines and come at issues from new directions, he became one of the most popular figures of our time, even though he had absolutely no clue how to do what he talked about. We should be able to do at least as well as that.

I realize I am one small voice in this dialogue, but I am glad to be able to participate in the discussion. The Republican Party really does need a makeover and maybe this time we can get it mostly right.

Language Matters - Compassionate Conservatism

2008-11-12T20:46:00.000-08:00

The word "compassion" is a great word. That is until it is bumped up against the word "conservative". Then you just have an oxymoron. A clashing of ideas and principles that creates ambiguity rather than clarity.

In 1994, "compassionate conservatism" led to a really bad idea called the K Street Project.

Following the Republican takeover of both houses of Congress in 1994, the conservatives made a conscious, concerted attempt effort to build a permanent governing majority based on interests and not just values. Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, House leader Tom Delay, lobbyist Jack Abramoff and others launched “the K Street Project” --- an ambitious plan to align major industries and lobbying concerns with the Republican Party in the same way that organized labor, teachers, social workers and trial lawyers became permanently bonded with the Democrats. The effort to expand the party’s base and raise unlimited funds through the prospect of constituent gain brought notable election victories for the Republicans but also led directly to the lavish spending on “earmarks” and other dubious appropriations that represented the most conspicuous failing of the Bush administration. When it comes to federal activism or sweeping new initiatives, no party of small government and constitutional limits can hope to compete with its welfare state opponents without sacrificing its credibility and its very soul. In part, the GOP effort to out-do the Democrats in pandering and the service of special interests led directly to the disastrous Congressional defeats of 2006, and to the difficult campaign season of 2008.

Today, conservatives are left with the elites battling between two unsatisfying choices. On one hand, we have a call for a return to principled traditional conservatism (a good start, but not enough). On the other hand we have the reformers who want to continue down the path exemplified by Bush and McCain (marked by ridiculous spending and the abandonment of basic conservative principles).

I would place myself in the reform camp, but my idea of reform doesn't involved abandoning traditional conservatism in the process.

The key to revitalizing the party is to make its message more relevant, not to spend more money.

The key is to generate descriptive words that compliment conservatism and generate transformational ideas rather than undermine its core principles.

Who would have thought a simple word like compassion could wreak so much havoc?

Michael Steele For RNC Chairman - Part I

2008-11-11T18:44:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, an article came out and was picked up today in the Washington Times that a battle was brewing between Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele to replace Mike Duncan as the RNC Chairman.

Like any good conservative, my first thought was who is most qualified and who could do the best job at this position? Newt has been there done that when he lead a Republican revolution with his Contract With America in 1994. Michael Steele is the former Lt. Governor of Maryland (a far left leaning state) and at the time was the highest-ranking elected African-American Republican in the United States. Both of these men would be great choices and would be qualified for the position.

I was undecided between the two for all of one day. Then I read this article by Michael Steele today in the Wall Street Journal - Listen. Adapt. Be Positive.

Most Americans today see a Republican Party that defines itself by what it is against rather than what it is for. We can tell you why public schools aren't working, but not articulate a compelling vision for how we'll better educate children. We're well equipped to rail against tax increases; but can't begin to explain how we'll help the poor. We exclude far better than we welcome.

We must articulate a positive vision for America's future that speaks to Americans' hopes, concerns and needs. It's time to stop defining ourselves by what we are not, and tell voters what we believe, how we'll lead, and where we'll go; how we Republicans will make America better; how we'll make their families more prosperous, their children better educated, their parents more secure, and all of us healthier, safer and stronger.

Our faith in the power and ingenuity of the individual to build a nation through hard work, personal responsibility and self-discipline is our uniting principle. That is the sacred ground upon which our Republican Party was built. For the sake of all Americans, it is the ground we must reclaim.

In the coming days I'll be outlining some of my own ideas for revitalizing conservatism. But in many ways, Michael Steele (thank goodness) is already stealing much of my thunder. This article is right on the money is so many different ways.

Anyway, my encouragement is for conservatives across the country to contact the national committee woman, national committee man, and chairman of the Republican Party of your state (these people elect the RNC Chairman) and let them know you would like to see Michael Steele elected as chairman.

Hit the link here to find out who the RNC voting members are in your individual state.

UPDATE: Click here to go to the Michael Steele for RNC chair website. Thanks Kathy.

Another Reason To Visit This Blog

2008-11-11T17:32:00.000-08:00

A focused message. There is a tremendous amount of information to be accessed through television, books, magazines, and the internet. I'll sift through this information for you to provide analysis.

Taking Stock - Conservatism In Deep Trouble

2008-11-09T21:08:00.000-08:00

I've always been a believer that when something goes wrong it is important to figure out exactly what went wrong and why it went wrong to avoid having it happen again. This seems like common sense, but is actually contrary to human nature. The tendency of human nature is to get set in your ways and to do the same destructive things over and over, with the only change in behavior being to do the destructive behavior more forcefully or loudly (anyone who is married or used to be married knows what I am talking about).

As an educator (a former 8th grade Language Arts teacher) I used to make adjustments literally from class to class. Prior to teaching a lesson, I would put pen to paper and develop the best possible plan I could imagine. But when that plan would meet real life students it often didn't work (at least not nearly as well as I wanted it to).

As each class period rolled by throughout the day, my lesson would continue to change. 2nd period had a better lesson than 1st period. 3rd period had a better lesson than 2nd period. And so forth. I always felt bad for my 1st period classes. They were the recipients of my best ideas, but my 8th period classes were the recipients of my best lessons which had been honed in the fire of immediate feedback.

Throughout every level of the Republican party right now some people are expressing opinions about why the Republican party has been so brutalized recently at the polls. I say "some people" because many are choosing more destructive paths of behavior. Some powerful conservatives have taken to mudslinging (Sarah Palin seems to be the favorite target), others have taken to proposing solutions without having taken even two seconds to reflect on what is going on around them (we should return to the basics of conservatism), and even others who are engaged in analysis are doing so only at the most superficial level (Bush was not a fiscal conservative and spent money like a liberal).

Despite my earlier post expressing optimism about the future of the party, I am equally concerned about its future. When one gets beneath the surface and looks at some trends, I believe the winds right now are blowing people away from conservatism. Some of these trends are alarming. How long conservatism spends in the wilderness will depend on how quickly we deal rightly and realistically with these challenges.

I've got some ideas about what led to the current lurch left in America. Some of these thoughts are obvious and others not so obvious. It is the not so obvious ones which concern me the most.

But don't leave me on my own. If you have ideas or articles which you think are appropriate to this discussion, please leave a comment or drop me an email and join the discussion. It's time to do a little soul searching. It's time to take stock.

Reasons To Visit This Blog

2008-11-07T07:06:00.000-08:00

There are many valid reasons to be skeptical of this blog. Reasons which become obvious if you visit even a handful of times.

I'm not a professional blogger.
I'm not important, powerful, or well known.
I work, have a wife, three kids, etc. so I’m not able to write every day, let alone several times a day.
I’m not very tech savvy. It will take me some time to figure out how to do the little things which are staples in other blogs.
For those concerned about the feel of a site, mine is a little lacking right now.

Ultimately, however, I'm still going to ask you to give me a chance. Here are some reasons to continue visiting this site and encouraging people you know to visit as well.

A unique perspective. Over time you’ll be introduced to some ideas here that you won’t find in the national media.
A participatory culture. I intend on including you in the discussion. Together we can create sift through the mounds of competing ideas and blaze a new path.
A positive, inspirational tone. Rather than ridiculing the other side, I’m interested in revitalizing the conservative message in such a way that it is relevant to all of the American people.
A potential voice. While I’m not a politician, my work provides me a potential platform to be heard by people who could act on new ideas.
A powerful goal. The purpose of this blog is to bring fresh new ideas to the table which will help shape a movement.

Let’s go!

Future Of Conservatism - Let's Go!

2008-11-04T23:37:00.000-08:00

Our guy lost (ok many of us voted for McCain while holding our noses), we mourned (each in our own way - me with lime Tostitos - most with alcohol), but today is a new day.

One great principle of conservatism is that we don't need to wait around for someone in authority to tell us what to think or what to do. We can start blazing a new conservative trail today, right now.

Based on the results of last night's election, we have some work to do.

But conservatism is not dead. Not even close. It is needed today more than ever.

I have lots of ideas on how to make conservatism relevant once again, this time to all of the American people. I bet many of you have some ideas as well.

Join me in this dialogue. Send this link to your friends. Encourage them to join the discussion.

Let's go!

Congratulations President Obama

2008-11-04T21:27:00.000-08:00

December 6, 1865 marked the official end of slavery in the United States with the official ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

July 2, 1964 marked the end of racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And November 4, 2008 marks the first African-American candidate to be elected to the highest American political office.

Today is a historic day for America. I offer my congratulations to the new President elect of the United States of America Barack Obama.