Thursday, November 8, 2007

A Whole New Ballgame

One of the defining decisions of the first Bush term was the President's Executive Order ending the Federal funding of Stem Cell research. This executive decision provides a perfect highlight of Principle #1: People Are the Prime Movers.

Stem Cell research has been and will probably continue to be the new lightening rod of Pro-Life / Pro-Choice debate. The President's decisive action established a clear line of leadership on this issue. Despite the false hopes, exaggerated claims and shoddy science, this one man - in the right position at the right time - stemmed a tide that may have led to countless thousands of destroyed embryos and a larger desensitizing ripple through human society.


Low and behold, during the intervening years since that decision, the smart money has invested in extracting stem cells from adults - negating the need to destroy embryos. In one recent study, scientists discovered that male testes are a veritable farmyard of stem cells. Apparently, the female ovaries look to provide a similarly fertile field (pun intended).


Adult stem cells taken from testicles could be a source for everything from blood vessels and heart tissue to new brain cells, report Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers.

Unsurprisingly, the combination (stem cells + testes!) caught the attention of journalists. Australia's ABC News did a nice job of pointing out that the findings, made in mice, have a long way to go before helping people, and that women's ovaries might provide equally adaptable adult stem cells. Scientific American noted that similar findings were made earlier in the year, so at least this isn't a one-off.

The BBC hinted that men would be reluctant because extracting the cells would be "very painful," but didn't say how it's done; apparently it's like getting a biopsy, which I'd imagine is rather less painful than, say, heart disease or dementia. The New York Post covered it briefly -- mostly, I suspect, to let their headline writers have some fun. (The result: "New Ballgame for Stem Cells".)


On Principle,
CBass


Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Principle #1

Principle #1: People Are the Prime Movers

In the coming weeks, I will be laying out some of the foundational principles by which I analyze news, politics and current events. The first of these principles is stunningly obvious, yet amazingly elusive in identification:


All politics, current events, scientific discovery, religious expression, foreign relations and news coverage is determined by the decisions and actions of people. These people make decisions and take actions based upon their perspectives which are shaped by their past experience, personalities and preferences.

In short: World events are driven my people who are guided by perspective shaped from past experience, core personality and personal preferences.



This principle is why elections matter. The prejudices and perspectives of elected leaders, individuals shaped by personality, past experience and preferences, make decisions which impact events, shape policies and affect people.


Unintended consequences, natural disasters, cyclical markets, and a host of other complicated factors certainly have note-worthy places in history - which will relate to my exploration of future principles. Yet, time and again, the prime mover in history - the hinge upon which human events swing - is a key person or cadre of people.


Only people make the decisions and engage in the decisive actions which any logical mind ties to tides of history.



Consider the Cold War:
Liberal leaning historians often present the Cold War an inevitable battle between impersonal forces, world ideologies, which ran its natural course. I tend to think this period was marked by incredibly rich personalities making true decisions of leadership. Consider:


A. Favorite "liberal" JFK and the naval blockade of Cuba which ignited the missile crisis and which firmly established America's ability and willingness to draw a line in the sand against communist expansion.


B. The timely trifecta of Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope which focused the combined force of their moral character and determined leadership toward the final overthrow of communism.


C. The stern determination of Lincoln who faced down civil war, bumbling generals, city-wide revolts and foreign pressure to pursue a course toward victory.




Consider News Coverage:
In a post which serves as a prequel for this one, I provided key paragraphs which explain the personal choices news casters have made in determining how they will broadcast news from Iraq. These choices, filtered through each news casters personal experiences, personality and preferences, scope the bounds of information and frame the way tens of millions of Americans think about our nation's longest military engagement this century.


A. Charlie Gibson is a product of the Vietnam War era. When he was a television reporter in Lynchburg, Va., he had driven to Washington on weekends to march in antiwar demonstrations. And he had lost friends in that jungle war. . .


B. Katie Couric had always felt uncomfortable with the war, and that sometimes showed in the way she framed the story. . . And when the day's Iraq events were too big to ignore, Couric made clear -- in starker terms than the other anchors -- her disgust with the whole enterprise.




Consider Financial Markets:

A. Who can forget the enticingly complex yet mystifyingly empty rhetoric of Alan Greenspan which came to be called, "Fed Speak". With a carefully scripted turn of phrase, Mr. Greenspan could dispatch the global forces of capitalism toward short-terms end of either positive or negative affect.


B. Why do CEO's receive such enormous compensation packages? It's because business knows that despite fluctuations in massive complex markets, the seeming whims of international politics and a host of other "impersonal factors", some CEO's steer the ship of business to safe ports than do others. The perspective of the final decision maker can often make the difference between profit and loss. Business acknowledges and rewards this central role of the personal mover and shaker in business.




I challenge you:
As you consider current events, consider the people shaping these events. What perspectives, informed by past experience and personality, fuel and filter their minds to result in the words, relationships, decisions and actions that give shape and life to today's events?

More importantly, embracing this principle, what will the be tomorrow's results from today's prime movers?


On Principle,
CBass


Saturday, October 27, 2007

Tucson Speech

Many thanks to Stephanie (Taffy) Johnson and the Pima County Republican Women's Club for hosting me as the main speaker at their meeting on 11/18. This is an excited, motivated, positive and effective club of activists.

I spoke on the reasons I am optimistic over the GOP's chances in 2008. What follows is a short handout I left with the club which somewhat covers many of the topics we discussed.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Factors For:

  1. The Democratic Line-up: The GOP's greatest strength in the general election will be the Democratic opposition. No matter whom the Dem's select, they will be no match in terms of experience for the Republican selection.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST clearly and consistently ask for and demand the qualifications of the Dem nominee.


  1. The Republican Line-up: By any standard, the Republican field is impressive. Especially when compared to the utter lack of experience of the Democratic field. The Republicans all have high Executive or Legislative experience and none of them carry any baggage from the current Administration.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST clearly and consistently contrast themselves with both the Dem nominee and the current administration.


  1. Mobilizing a Wider Base: In a tight election cycle, there are two keys to winning: 1) Draw in moderate centrist voters and 2) mobilize the base. Two of the GOP front runners (Mitt Romney and Giuliani) are very well positioned to draw in moderates. Fred Thompson is riding a wave of Base excitement and has high name recognition among moderates. When compared to the likely Dem nominee (Hillary), all 3 should be able to excite the base and capitalize on the displeasure of moderates with the Dem congress.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the nominee must remind the base of the critical issues at stake this year and must positively motivate moderates – especially past Republicans.


  1. It's the Economy: By all measures, this economy is fantastic. It is hitting some hiccups now, but some action from the current Administration and the Fed will likely keep it on the growth track. Even moderate growth over the next 12 months will result in a reduced deficit, high wages, an enlarged GDP, record highs in stocks, historic lows in unemployment and interest rates and a stabilized housing sector. Additionally, tax cuts are set to expire in 2010 – making for an easy and precise measure of EXACLY how much a Dem President and Congress will cost voters.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the facts must be told in terms of timeless conservative principles, not a continuation of Bush policies.


  1. The War on Terrorism: It's hard to say which direction this war will go, but Iraq is clearly on the right military track and we know the Surge will be drawing down next Spring. Thus, the GOP candidate can probably point to some positive signs in Iraq, praise the draw down in troops and constantly focus on the real threats of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. If the electorate sees some success in Iraq and understands the threat from other quarters, the GOP should do well.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP must call Americans to set priorities without playing the “fear” card.



Factors Against:


1. Immigration Reform: Security mustbe first, but terms must be tight. If the GOP uses blanket terms (Immigrant, Hispanics, Illegals, etc), they will be quickly painted as racist. A party can’t win elections without votes from voters. Hispanics are a growing voting bloc. To electability influence the GOP must get wise in terms, policies and coalition building with Hispanics.

2. Ethic Scandals: Real and perceived moral fecklessness shipwrecked the GOP in 2006. Value votes won’t stand for it in 2008 either. Real failings must be disciplined. Perceived ethical lapses must be challenged.

3. Housing, Stock and Oil Turmoil: The economy is a great campaign platform for the GOP, but a still stagnant housing market, stock slumps and increasingly high oil prices, could rot this support. There is no magical inoculation against market volatility. The GOP must figure out how to trumpet financial conservatism without hanging its hat on every micro-indicator.

4. Health Care: The Dems will march with full force to the tune of Universal Healthcare. While the left-leaning media trumpets along with the handpicked results of selective polling. The facts and history are on the side of conservative principles, but this will be an uphill fight the entire way.

5. GOP Civil War: A debate between wings of the GOP is healthy and appropriate for the Primary process. But the wings must decide to unite behind the eventual nominee if the candidate has any chance at success.

On Principle Blog:

“On Principle Blog” is a website dedicated to analyzing the important topics of the day in the light of enduring principles. The site presents a definitively faith-filtered, yet untraditional viewpoint while unapologetically offering creative approaches, explanations and solutions to topics of interest.




Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Irresponsible Editorials

Irresponsible Editorials


From Fox News. I leave this to stand on its own merits. . .

Good News Is No news

When the government announced last week that the federal budget deficit had fallen to its lowest level in five years — it was big news. But apparently not big enough to make a big splash in The New York Times or Washington Post. The New York Times ran a wire story in the back of the "A" section Friday. The Post put a wire story on its Web site Thursday afternoon and nothing in the paper.

But in an editorial Friday — The New York Times wrote the concept that lower tax rates generate more tax revenues is "nonsense." "That theory has been tested and failed, leading to enormous deficits during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush."


But in both those administrations, tax revenues grew after tax rates were cut. Indeed, in fiscal year 2007 tax revenues grew 6.7 percent — to a record of more than $2.5 trillion — and the deficit has declined each of the past three years.



Emphasis mine



On Principle,

CBass




Saturday, October 13, 2007

Principle #1: People - Personalities, Pasts and Perspectives

In the coming weeks, I will be laying out some of the foundational principles by which I analyze news, politics and current events. The first of these principles is stunningly obvious, yet amazingly elusive in identification:


All politics, current events, scientific discovery, religious expression, foreign relations and news coverage is determined by the decisions and actions of people. These people make decisions and take actions based upon their perspectives which are shaped by their past experience and personalities.


In short: World events are driven my people who are guided by perspective shaped from past experience and personality.


A recent article in the Washington Post perfectly illustrates this principle in action - - When many American's think of the "Iraq War" or the "Global War on Terrorism" they instinctively think in terms persistently presented to them by influential people who interpret the world according to their own perspectives informed by a mixture of their own past experiences and personalities.


A few fascinating excerpts follow. Note the subtle manner by which most American's are lead to think of the defining struggle of modern civilization - through the combined perspectives of a few people which have been shaped by their own prejudices of personality and past experience:

Charlie Gibson is a product of the Vietnam War era. When he was a television reporter in Lynchburg, Va., he had driven to Washington on weekends to march in antiwar demonstrations. And he had lost friends in that jungle war. . . Through the routine decisions of daily journalism -- how prominently to play a story, what pictures to use, what voices to include -- the newscasts were sending an unmistakable message. And the message was that George W. Bush's war was a debacle. Administration officials regularly complained about the coverage as unduly negative, but to little avail. Other news organizations chronicled the deteriorating situation as well, but with a combined 25 million viewers, the evening newscasts had the biggest megaphone.

Katie Couric had always felt uncomfortable with the war, and that sometimes showed in the way she framed the story. When Bush had been marshaling support for the invasion, she felt, the country seemed to be swept up in a patriotic furor and a palpable sense of fear. There was a rush to war, no question about it. The CBS anchor could never quite figure out how Iraq had become Public Enemy No. 1, how the United States had wound up making many of the same mistakes as in Vietnam. . . Couric believed that many viewers were now suffering from Iraq fatigue. She tried not to lead with the conflict every night, unless there were significant developments. And when the day's Iraq events were too big to ignore, Couric made clear -- in starker terms than the other anchors -- her disgust with the whole enterprise. One night she led her CBS newscast, "With each death, with every passing day, so many of us ask, 'Is there any way out of this nightmare?' "


I encourage a read of the entire article for a stark, startling and educational exploration the first principle.


On Principle,

CBass




Friday, October 12, 2007

Surprised by CNN on Gore

Unless you travel via Horse and Carriage like our Amish friends or have been floating down the Amazon for the last week, you've heard the news that former Vice-President Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.


Pundits and Analysts across all media forms are dissecting this award along predictable lines:

  1. So what, look at past NPP winners
  2. What does Global Warming have to do with World Peace?
  3. What about nominee, seriously, Rush Limbaugh?
  4. What about Al's above average energy consumption?
  5. Despite his foibles, isn't this a worthy recognition of his exhaustive efforts?
  6. Is Al Gore's science even accurate?




I must confess that while expecting this sort of talk from "insiders", I was just bracing for yet another mass acceptance of propagandist intentions from liberal leaning, academic elites. Until I saw this headline:


"CNN.com readers sound off on Gore, Nobel Peace Prize".


Curious, yet instinctively dubious, I clicked through. Note a few key entries - from CNN, not FoxNews:


Roy Woodcock of Rochester, Washington

What a disgraceful choice. Al Gore has promoted bad science and dishonesty, but done nothing to promote peace. I must conclude that his selection is based on pure politics.


(Cbass Comment: Well, in fact, the Peace Prize is selected by Politicians. Unlike the Prizes for many other disciplines, such as Science and Medicine, it tends to be awarded to current leaders based on global perceptions of their current efforts. Other Nobel committees feature discipline specific academics and practitioners who review the PROVEN contribution OVER TIME of a particular idea, discovery or research finding. This Prize, while sometimes given to positive reformers, is intrinsically designed to be a political prize.)


Chris Smith of Bexley, Ohio

Al Gore? Nobel Peace Prize? Wow, that really degrades my image of that prize. Why not give it to Michael Moore while we're at it? How sad.


(Cbass Comment: Great and original comment! I think the burden falls to the Nobel Committee to show how Al Gore's work is much more than that of spokesman and polemicist. Perhaps Michael Moore could get the prize for Medicine. Oh wait, that's right, the prize for medicine goes to someone how has made a lasting impact upon the field.)


Phillip Bernard of La Grange, Illinois

The peace prize should be reserved for furthering peace in our world. The work Mr. Gore has done is conjectured quasi-science. His research does not employ a scientific method, otherwise it would have been considered for the prize for science.


(Cbass Commnet: Another good observation. Why isn't this the Prize for Science? Probably because it would never pass the first test outlined above. One really does need to show how this is related to Peace, however - and I mean something beyond the cliché, "In 100 years, the world will be so hot and so disrupted in weather that nations will battle for water and the few remaining stable environs". This sort of predictive award is a bit of reverse of the "wait and see" attitude of the other Prize Committees.)


Matthew Whitley of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Over the last decades, the Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly become a laughingstock. That Al Gore of all people should be honored this year is another nail in the Nobel Peace Prize's coffin of legitimacy and relevance. Much like the prize for literature, the peace prize is becoming nothing more than a political bauble awarded to some political insider advocating the cause of the week.


Al Gore has been "working" for climate change for an enormous period of four whole years, coincidentally discovering this new passion right when his political career was slouching to its end. The Nobel Committee actually expects us to believe that, out of all human organizations working for peace and the improvement of the human condition, Al Gore's paltry four-year media circus of climate change advocacy is the most significant achievement we have to show for ourselves?


How ridiculous. I'm embarrassed for the legacy of the Nobel Prizes, I'm embarrassed for my country, and, if I were Al Gore, I'd be embarrassed to stand in front of the world claiming to be a worthy, legitimate recipient of the peace prize.


(Cbass Comment: Pretty much stands on it's own.)


Michael Chiu of ??

The Nobel Peace Prize should have gone to the Monks in Myanmar. I guess leading peaceful demonstrations for freedom and democracy and consequently suffering arrests, torture, and death is not enough though.


(Cbass Comment: But they have personal motivations. . .)

Just when I think we've all gone crazy - I see some glimmerings of hope in sanity.

On Principle,

CBass



Sunday, October 7, 2007

Costa Rica Gets It

It's beautiful to see democratic voices in action.

There are many reasons for Central American countries, modern 2nd world players in the World economy, to resent the USA as a superpower. Yet, there are also at least as many reasons to for them to thank God for the generosity and stability of the the USA.

Weighing the Pro's and Con's of this relationship are on the ballot in Costa Rica today. No matter the result, the healthy outpouring of democratic participation should be an encouraging sign for us in the US.

Through our left-leaning media, we see repeated glorification of Hugo Chavez and his Communist, militarized, fascist government blitzkrieg over the welcoming political terrain of South and Central America. But as we see in Costa Rica today, this just isn't a holistic view of the current state of affairs and opinions of our southern friends.

An interesting summary of opinion from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey appeared in a recent Weekly Standard:
Of the seven Latin American nations polled, large majorities of Chileans (75 percent), Brazilians (74 percent), Peruvians (70 percent), Mexicans (66 percent), and Bolivians (59 percent) express little or no confidence in Chávez "to do the right thing regarding world affairs." As Pew puts it, "He is widely recognized--and widely mistrusted--throughout Latin America." Even in Argentina, perhaps the most anti-American country in the region, a full 43 percent of respondents have little or no confidence in Chávez.

That's not all. Majorities in Brazil (65 percent), Chile (60 percent), Mexico (55 percent), and Bolivia (53 percent), along with a plurality in Peru (47 percent), agree that "most people are better off in a free market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor." Indeed, a whopping 72 percent of Venezuelans agree with that statement. "There is broad support for free-market economic policies across Latin America," Pew reports, "despite the election in the past decade of leftist leaders."


Just when the US seems to have discounted our President, our economy and our standing in foreign affairs - citizens in nations like Costa Rica stand in line for hours to express their voices in the the great decision of aligning with us in the march toward a collaborative future.

It seems the truths of our Declaration truly are universal and self-evident. . .

On Principle,
CBass


Thursday, October 4, 2007

Evolving Evolutionary Debate

Interesting post on some new fossil findings which is casting new light on outdated Evolutionary theories.


The post is relatively short and written for novices as myself. Some key excerpts:


The recent analysis of H. habilis and H. erectus fossils recovered near Lake Turkana, Kenya, in 2000 muddies the place of H. habilis in human evolutionary scenarios and widens the gap between H. erectus and modern humans.

This conclusion spawned headlines in a number of popular media outlets that challenged the validity of human evolution. (For example see here and here.) As is often the case, the headlines exaggerated and sensationalized the implications of these fossil finds.

For human evolution to be declared a fact, anthropologists must define the evolutionary route that transformed an ape-like creature into modern humans—replete with a progression of intermediate forms. The insight gained from this recent work highlights how far evolutionary biologists are from establishing this requisite understanding.

Just goes to show, scientific advance is a much more complicated, step-wise route of progress and what high school text books, the media and popular culture would simplistically assume.




This post if from Reasons to Believe. A ministry, headed by Astrophysicist Hugh Ross , dedicated to exploring and "providing powerful new reasons from science to believe in Jesus Christ". I've found the majority of their research to be well founded, clearly presented and consistently faithful to the Bible.


In a nutshell, this ministry adheres to all basic tenets of the Christian faith - including the inerrancy of Scripture. Stemming from the words of the Bible, they also believe that creation depicts the nature and character of the Creator. Thus, they purport that a truthful study of nature should align with a faithful exegesis of Scripture.


Specifically, RTB promulgates, among other findings:

  1. A testable, Scientific model for Creationism - one which support an old Universe/old Earth view. (I may write more on this later.)


  1. That the Earth was populated with advanced (multi-cellular) life forms through carefully controlled miraculous intervention by the creator.


  1. That fossils of early hominids are real, but that these creatures were animals similar to modern apes, lacking the unique capacities of human spirituality and sophisticated intellectual, physical, artistic and social capacity.


I highly and heartily recommend subscribing to the "Today's New Reason to Believe" email.


On Principle,

Christian




Sunday, September 23, 2007

Scary Info Available

I just ran across this tool tonight. It is a map of the world with flashing symbols highlighting various incidents across the globe.

Upon my first perusal of the tool, I found a flashing symbol near my home. Through a single click, I found that bomb material had been found just a few miles from my home and literally half a mile from the coffee shop I'll frequent tomorrow morning.

It's funny to think about what takes place around us of which we are normally, blissfully aware. It is also humbling to question, what if no one had found these materials? What would they have been used for? Praise the Lord for a general hand of protection over lives.

I hope it remains.


On Principle,
CBass


Iraq Metric #4: Hearts and Minds Won

Iraq Metric #4: Hearts & Minds Won:


This latest post exploring ways to judge success in Iraq build upon:

  1. The 3 levels of our war on terror
  2. An overview of how to measure success in Iraq
  3. Metric #1: Combatant Eradicated
  4. Metric #2: Accelerants to Violence Seized
  5. Metric #3: Populations Freed




The basest assumption upon which the Global Long War on Terrorism is executed is that every human heart yearns for liberty, opportunity and self-determination. Yet, in Iraq we have encountered not a population welcoming Coalition troops with open arms, but an insurgency lead by mostly foreigners, but very much trooped by Iraqi people. To the average American, this reality has been perplexing, frustrating and frightening. If they don’t love us, WHO in the world DO they love? And what are the implications?




The Question:

After 9/11, most Americans (though not, it seems, the current Democratic leadership, the Liberal Bogs and much of the left leaning media) have no trouble understanding that Al Qaeda is committed to global Jihad and will stop at nothing to see America and other Western/free nations lose popularity, power, prestige and people. So, why is it that average Iraqi’s seem to distrust us and resist actively supporting our efforts to stabilize THEIR country?




Siding with Winners:

The answer is simultaneously simple and deeply profound. It’s implications cut to the heart of both our military strategy and our domestic politics.


Embattled Iraqi citizens aren’t stupid and Al Qaeda isn’t lazy.


The core to terrorism’s effectiveness is its ability to cower an entire population before relatively few oppressors. In this sense, terrorism can be a powerful force multiplier. The Jihadists in Iraq know this and are very vigilant in maintaining the necessary rhythm of attacks to imprison Iraqi mothers and fathers within stockades of internalized fear. These terrorist Overlords wickedly seek control through making examples out of the irreligious, rebellious and “traitorous”.


Iraqis have watched America establish a pattern of stirring up a mess and leaving the locals to clean it up. This is what happened during the US-encouraged Shiite uprising in the 1990’s which Saddam brutally suppressed while America watched. This is what occurred for 3 years across Iraq as Coalition forces cleared cities from terrorists but retreated back to their heavily fortified bases and watched as terror leaders filtered back into the population and meted out vengeance.


Iraqi’s aren’t stupid. They are not going to continue to stand with America if America isn’t going to stand firm with them. The price for our fickleness is paid in blood by them and their families.


This is why the Surge strategy was so important. It marked a change in our troop deployment from entrenchment within fortified bases to distributed neighborhood presence. It changed our focus from clearing territory to holding local populations. As we proved our determination to this strategy in the Spring, local Iraqi leaders started to warily assent that we had finally determined to win. These Iraqi’s decided they want to side with the winners. Slowly, in freed population after freed population, Tribe Amerikani is finally being embraced as liberators and “arbiters of Justice” – because we finally demonstrated some resolve to be more determined, more vigilant and more powerful than the terrorists.




The Alternative:

The alternative to demonstrating commitment to our cause is to look for ways to cut our investment, lessen our exposure and leave Iraq to the Iraqis. There is much about this notion that is indeed tempting. Yet, the stronger these voices become, the stronger Iraqi leaders must question our commitment and the riskier it becomes for them to support us by pointing out terrorists, taking up arms themselves, notifying us of IED’s and booby trapped buildings, etc.


Iraqis know the terrible price which they and their families will pay if we retreat. They have lived through the Hellish death squads Al Qaeda unleashes on recalcitrant villages.


Some American thought leaders (from both the Left and the Right) are starting to recognize this difficult truth. While Americans are being killed and are killing (both are horrible and ugly), the stronger is their presence on the ground, the safer are 25 million Iraqis. The liberal-leaning Brookings Institution concludes:

"The only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into a Lebanon- or Bosnia-like maelstrom," a new report from the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution concludes, "is 135,000 American troops." Rapid withdrawal, the report says, could bring "a humanitarian nightmare" in which we should expect "hundreds of thousands (conceivably even millions) of people to die." (emphasis mine)




Love Breeds Hope:

Iraqis have been hunkered in battle, resistant to starvation, imperiled by a police state, confronted by chemical weapons and terrorized by tyrants. All of these villains have demonstrated a commitment and constancy to their cause. So while changing our tactics and our dialogue to convey commitment is key, we must also continue to demonstrate the vitality and constancy of American charity.


The list of ways in which our troops are serving the Iraqi people is too lengthy to summarize and doesn’t do justice to the personalized outpouring of care and concern from our troops to each freed population. These acts of servant leadership rebuild the desolate hopes of Iraqis and hasten the turning of their hearts to assisting our cause.


Moreover, this support is very practical in nature. Left completely devoid of savings, economy, education and the like – Iraqis need our assistance to meet their basic needs. This is Maslow’s Hierarchy in action. Only after the ability for their families to subsist and rest at peace has been confirmed, can a responsible Iraqi father even think of accepting the risk of assisting Coalition troops. Thus, the faster we supply these needs, the faster we open new doors of insight into the terrorists, garner new sources of critical intelligence and join with new allies in our fight.




Hope Breeds Resolve:

Once hope is rekindled in these hearts darkened by terror, Iraqis grasp the resolve to fan these first warming flames. The last 4 months have been filled with stories of Iraqi’s taking up arms to protect them selves, encouraging young men to join in the Iraqi Police Force, mobilizing neighborhood watch units, informing on the terrorists, etc. At latest estimate, as many as 30,000 former insurgents are now siding with the Coalition, turning on Al Qaeda and submitting to the direction of the central Iraqi government.


These actions stem directly from our demonstration of both power and resolve. In response, freed populations are demonstrating the resolve to both hold their area and assist in the freeing of other populations.


This is how critical mass turns the tide. This is how lowly, imprecise metrics of combatants eradicated and accelerants to violence seized multiply into Iraqi hearts and minds won and united in the fight for freedom.


Each heart emboldened behind a mind united with us is a ratio multiplier. It means fewer suppliers of accelerants to violence. It means fewer recruits. It mean more eyes, ears, experience and support for freedom. It means former insurgents turning from violence to supporting the central government and Coalition efforts.

Locals Protect Themselves:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13216&Itemid=128


Al Qeda informing on themselves. . .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2121006.ece



Anatomy of the Tribal Revolt Against Al Qaida:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/anatomy-of-a-tribal-revolt/


Tribe Amerikani:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGRmYWI2Njk5MWFkYzYzYWY4OWY5NzJjMGRkZTlhY2Q=


American Arbitors of Justice:

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm


Brookings = Millions die If US Leaves:

Pasted from <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg24jul24,0,5797195.story?coll=la-opinion-center>

On Principle,

Cbass




Our Faitfhful Friend, Japan

Japan has a new Prime Minister and, perhaps more importantly, the Free World is reminded it has a faithful friend.



The results are in. Yasuo Fukuda has won a very lopsided win over his rival Taro Aso. The two men both represent the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which in Japan is actually a group closely aligned with George W. Bush conservatism.


Most Americans would remember the LDP's most colorful leader, Junichiro Koizumi; the Elvis loving, staunch ally of the US and personal friend of President Bush.


What's important about this election is definitely something about who won, but it's more about their shared position on policies which most American's would assume to separate the two rivals - Japan's continued support for coalition efforts in the Middle East.

After a full week of campaigning, there were few policy differences between the two candidates on many important issues. . . both have also inherited Abe's insistence on continuing Japan's support of coalition forces in Afghanistan through its refueling operations in the Indian Ocean.

Students of history will remember that Japan acquiesced to a humiliating surrender in the face of America's nuclear arsenal. Since those days, Japan's constitution, both its written document of governance and its wounded national psyche, has forbidden the nation to raise and launch an offensive military force for over 60 years. In this light, it was amazing to see Japanese soldiers involved in the coalition of nations who fought to overthrow Saddam and wrest control in Iraq. After several years of struggle, Japanese soldiers left the theater of Iraq, but the Japanese military has been continuously supporting the Coalition forces in the Middle East theater ever since.


Say what we will about how Pres. Bush has "supposedly" lost all international support, Japan will be a key player in a world of power which is shifting the Pacific.




It's nice to have faithful friends.




On Principle,

CBass




Thursday, September 20, 2007

Burn it Like Beckham

You've gotta love this. . .

Discovery Channel :: News - Health :: Soccer Burns More Fat Than Jogging: "Sept. 20, 2007 — There's a new slogan for weight-watchers: Burn it like Beckham.

A friendly game of soccer, a new study has found, works off more fat and builds up more muscle than jogging.

Danish scientists, who conducted their research on 37 men, also found the soccer players felt less tired after exercising than the joggers because they were having more fun."


Sunday, September 2, 2007

Why '08 is a GOP Victory

I know many folks on the electoral front lines who are dispirited about Republican chances in the 2008 election cycle. Whenever we discuss their ennui, I always share my high spirits, optimism and expectation toward 2008. After one such conversation, a wise friend challenged me to give her 5 bulleted talking points as to why I think a Republican probably will win the Presidency of the United States in 2008. Here are those talking points:


  1. The Democratic Line-up: The GOP's greatest strength in the general election will be the Democratic opposition. No matter who the Dem's select, they will be no match in terms of experience for the Republican selection. Further, some Dem's carry even more baggage than others. I look forward to seeing the GOP draw those comparisons.


  1. The Republican Line-up: By any standard, the Republican field is impressive. Especially when compared to the utter lack of experience of the Democratic field. The Republicans all have high Executive or Legislative experience and none of them carry any baggage from the current Administration. They are in a great position to constantly contrast themselves with the Democrats on important issues.


  1. Mobilizing a Wider Base: In a tight election cycle, there are two keys to winning: 1) Draw in moderate centrist voters and 2) mobilize the base. Two of the GOP front runners (Mitt Romney and Giuliani) and very well positioned to draw in moderates. Fred Thompson is riding a wave of Base excitement and has high name recognition among moderates. When compared to the likely Dem nominee (Hillary), all 3 should be able to excite the base and capitalize on the moderates' displeasure with the Dem.


  1. It's the Economy: By all measures, this economy is fantastic. It is hitting some hiccups now, but some action from the current Administration and the Fed will likely keep it on the growth track. Even moderate growth over the next 12 months will result in a reduced deficit, high wages, an enlarged GDP, record highs in stocks, historic lows in unemployment and interest rates and a stabilized housing sector. Any decent candidate should do well with this message.


  1. The War on Terrorism: It's hard to say which direction this war will go, but Iraq is clearly on the right military track and we know the Surge will be drawing down next Spring. Thus, the GOP candidate can probably point to some positive signs in Iraq, praise the draw down in troops and constantly focus on the real threats of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. If the electorate sees some success in Iraq and understands the threat from other quarters, the GOP should do well.




Now, in a bit more detail:


  1. The Democratic Line-up:

Possibly the greatest strength for the GOP this election cycle is the Democratic field of candidates and their complete dearth of true experience (Executive, International or even Legislative):


  1. There is no serious candidate with any real depth of experience in Government or in running a large, competitive organization. This will be an easy contrast to make in the general election. Hillary can reference her years in the White House, but not without making the Clinton years fair game for the campaign. This was the saving grace for the GOP in John Kerry's "Reporting for Duty" speech at the Democratic National Convention; once he introduced it into the campaign, his military service and political activities just afterward became the championed target of conservative activists.


  1. Hillary is far and away the most likely contender for the position of lead Donkey. Her negatives are among the highest of any candidate to enter the Presidential race (not necessarily the absolute highest). Most candidates with Negatives in the upper 40's have "earned" them through making the tough decisions inherent in leadership. Hillary, by contrast, has earned them by being Hillary. Remember, she's not a new face to most Americans. She's been a household name and media personality for 16 years. If 49% of likely voters dislike her, having known her for 16 years, it's difficult to move those numbers. Possible, but extremely difficult.


  1. And what if Obama is selected as the Dem nominee? Well, first, that would be Barack HUSSEIN Obama. The man who has held a serious, elected Federal office for all of 2 years. The man who has attended an Islamic school, bears an Islamic name and who has stated he would love to meet - without condition - the worse human rights abusers on the planet. While he could run a perfect campaign from this point forward, surprisingly sweep the Dem nomination and run tightly with the GOP - if he does all of this, his seriously erratic statements regarding national security (civil liberties in Iraq aren't worth defending, willingness to unconditionally meet with tyrants, desire to bomb an nuclear-armed ally, etc) will make for excruciating footage in the general election.




  1. The Republican Line-up:

Any comparison of the GOP candidates, whomever wins the nomination nod, is a favorable one to the Dems. They are all polling highly, have impressive experience and don't fit the mold of the current Administration.:

  1. All Republican candidates can boast of leadership experience which runs rings any of the leading Dems about 10 times. The least experienced lead GOP contender has 10 years in the summit and makes the Dem's look like kids. In an age of Terrorism, the distinction between maturity and juvenility should make for easy positioning. Further, none of the current front runners is a shill for the current Administration. This allows all of the front runners to distance themselves from all the perceived weaknesses of the current Administration while embracing the popular attributes.


  1. If Giuliani wins the nomination, he can cash in national name recognition, storied success in leading one of the World's leading cities (a city larger than many countries), respected performance in a time of national crisis, and historic experience prosecuting terrorists. Now, let's compare that with the Dem's above. To top it off, he has the moderate social values to win the middle and some Dems (ala Reagan Democrats) and the national security chops to probably maintain the base in an age of conflict.


  1. If Romney wins the nomination, he can cash in on being the newest "Come back kid", storied success in business and international Olympics and arguably impressive performance in Governing a tough, liberal state. His "flips" on social policy should enable him to snag some Dems. If Hillary is the opposing candidate, his solidly conservative policy pronouncements are likely to enable him to count on an active base, if not for excitement, then due to her negatives.


  1. Fred Thompson, if he were to win the GOP nomination, can cash in his household face and experience delivering before a camera, 10 years of senate experience, an impressive performance moving Chief Justice John Roberts through a stubbornly opposed Congress and a ground swell of base support. If communicated correctly, Thompson's commitment to Federalism, keeping government out of legislating coercive morality, may just keep the moderates at home on election day - if not turning up to vote for him.




  1. Mobilizing a Wider Base:

In a close election, there are two factors to victory, drawing in moderates and mobilizing the base. And the base can always be mobilized in greater numbers than the moderates can be drawn in.

  1. In a contest against Hillary, her negatives (49%) are higher than the percentage of self-identified Republicans (31.9%). In such a contest, she may actually manage help the GOP contender do both, rally the base and draw in moderates.


  1. With a highly mobilized base, as Hillary's entrenched negatives may yield, GOP candidates would reap unusually high support down the ticket - in Senate and House races and in volatile State races.




  1. It’s the Economy:

It's hard to lose an election with a strong economy. Al Gore proved it could happen, but in this election cycle, the GOP has some powerful messages to clearly parlay.

  1. When Bush's tax cuts were first passed through Congress, powerful Dems insisted they be limited to 2010, after which they expire. Bush and his advisers agreed to this because the expiration of the tax cuts would allow for an incredibly clear and easy political battle 2008. Normally, conservatives run against the unclear (and thus somewhat uncertain) specter of a numberless possible tax hike by the Dem's. In 2008, the GOP nominee will be able to clearly communicate the EXACT amount of the tax increase in 2011 and EXACTLY what that will mean to families. This is the clearest economic message I've ever seen in an election cycle.


  1. The stock market has hit new record highs, home ownership is at all time highs, salaries are increasing, unemployment is at historical lows, interest rates are at historical lows, job creation is very high and GDP growth is impressive, the Federal deficit is being cut quicker than originally forecasted. No one knows how the economy will fair 12 months from now, but it is likely the Fed will cut rates even lower, the housing market will at least stabilize (if not rise), the stock market is showing really strong core strength and is likely to continue to rise, jobs will continue to increase, salaries will probably continue to increase, inflation will probably stay low. If all projections hold,




  1. The War on Terrorism:

No one knows how the long, global War on Terrorism will trend in the next year. But there is much to commend the GOP in this conflict:

  1. There is virtually no one who doesn't agree that the military progress in Iraq is trending favorably for stability and US interests. The surge will end, by necessity, in the Spring. So during the heat of the general election, troop levels will be reducing, violence in general may be down and political progress may be moving forward. Suddenly, the Iraq anchor may actually be a selling point. Not definitely, but very possibly.


  1. No matter what happens in Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Russia, Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan and possibly even Venezuela may be hot security topics. Who among the Democrats is a serious contender on national security issues? Of them all, Hillary is the only candidate who even sounds serious in terms of national security. In light of all the negatives she brings to the race, most observers see this topic as a GOP advantage - especially, again, if Iraq continues to stabilize.




A Brief Note of Some Humility:

All of these prognostications are just that - they are educated guesses based upon current events and trends. In politics, one (1) week can feel like a eternity of news, breaking scandals and international events. In addition, each of these points is built from a substrate of assumptions regarding who is selected from each campaign. For example, if the GOP nominee is Mitt Romney, a small-state Governor with no military experience, I may assume the "War on Terrorism" to be less of an asset than if the nominee is Giuliani. These projections also don't take into account the "Newt" factor in the GOP race - which could be a seismic change in the current field.




Why Won't a Republican Win:

Just as I outline above the reasons I foresee a serious advantage for the GOP in the Presidential cycle, there are other developments which could spell the ruin of the GOP:

  1. Immigration Reform
  2. Ethic Scandals
  3. Housing and Stock Turmoil
  4. Collapse of Stability in Iraq
  5. Oil Inflation which Cripples the Economy

On Principle,

CBass