Recently, I was asked by someone why it was that i didn't like political correctness.  I thought I'd share my unusually brief and concise answer with you, and see what you all think of it.

Well, I can't see what there is to like. It is an idealogy very similar to that which brought about what is known as La Terreur in revolutionary France. In addition, it is anti-rational and its main product seems to be solipsistic emperors wearing no clothes whose main pre-occupation seems to be ensuring that no one points out this rather inconvenient fact.

I was reading the replies to the Wirs' column yesterday, but couldn't post due to technical glitches, so I'll pose my questions here.

As usual, many folks came down on the vote for the lesser of both evil sides, because of the one core conservative issue that McCain is generally viewed as having going for him: national defence.  Although quite frankly I find some of the doomsday scenarios with respect to Obama a bit far-fetched.  Would it be a good thing?  No, it would be a very bad thing.  But to read some posts, you'd think that after four years of Obama Arabic would become the new official language of the U.S., which is getting pretty far out there.  I mean honestly, the world won't come to an end, it just won't be as nice a place as it otherwise would.

Nevertheless, I personally like the idea of doing the fighting in their back yard, not your own.  So staying active in the Middle East is not the worst idea I've heard and taken in context McCain's comment about staying there for 100 years is of no consequence.   So McCain's willingness to continue to bring the fight to them is a good thing.

However, the direct threat posed by Muslim terrorists to most Americans, and where Americans are most vulnerable, is not over there, but here.  Isn't preventing them from arriving here an important part of national security in the war on terror?  Now if you think about how they can get here, what comes to mind?  The exceedingly porous Southern border that McCain has absolutely no desire to control.  Wasn't it the Fort Dix Six that were muslim terrorists who mostly entered the US from Mexico?   A dirty bomb or nuclear device smuglled across the border and detonated in the U.S. is a lot closer to being the end of the world type stuff, and can anyone honestly claim with a straight face that there is any kind of significant difference between McCain and Obama that would affect this?

Also, how many of the September 11th hijackers were here on fraudulant or expired visas?  How many would not have been around with a half-decent immigration control and enforcemnt system?    Another question: if you legalize millions of people through amnesty, or any other name that stinks the same, can you look the American people in the eye and swear that no terrorist in the U.S. illegally will be able to benefit from that?  McCain has demonstrated through proposed legislation, legislation bearing his name for crying out loud, that he has no intention of going there, either.  Another draw, as far as I'm concerned.

 Or, in the end, do we have to pretend that a secure border and immigration control are issues completely unrelated to national security in order to give McCain his one core conservative issue?

The reason I ask is because I think that calling the Republicans the Stupid Party is wholly inadequate. 

What brings about this latest round of Republican Party bashing you ask?  Well, I was reading the comments to Chuck Norris' recent column, and came across this comment by ted (# 67), regarding the performance of Congress since the Democrats took control in 2006.  Or rather the lack thereof.  I am going to copy it below, and, when you read it, bear in mind as I did that the Republicans are expected to suffer further losses in both Houses this year, a prediction I unfortunately agree with.

"Subject: Its Oil and the Economy Stupid

***
________US snapshot since DEMOCRAT CONTROL 06
________and Bush Lame Duck:

________GASOLINE PRICES DOUBLED AND CLIMBING
________ADAMENT REFUSAL TO TAP OUR OWN ___RESOURCES
________UNEMPLOYMENT RAMPANT AND GROWING
________NEW TAXES PROPOSED
________NEW SPENDING BILLS PROPOSED
________ENDLESS WHINING & COMPLAINING
________ENDLESS FINGER POINTING
________ENDLESS HEARINGS
________ABANDONED; THE BUSINESS OF THE PEOPLE
________labeled ; THE DO NOTHING DEMOCRATS

________CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL RATING
********************10%********************

________EXPECT MORE OF THE SAME"

So, although a three-legged lab-rat would win a race by several lengths against these jackasses, somehow the Republican Party can't even make itself competitive?  It is to weep.

And why do you suppose this is?  Could it be that maybe, just maybe, it's because a lot of the above was also true when the Republicans had the whole enchilada?  That adopting many of your opponents habits and positions is not the best strategy?

Perhaps it has something to do with the party's current chief spokesman, McCain, having even more in common with the Democrats than Bush does?   Here's a radical idea, why not field a candidate that distinguishes himself from his opponent on more than one major issue, while agreeing with the party's base on more than one major issue?  We here have plenty of solid ideas on issues and ideas, yet the RNC's brain-trust is apparently brain-dead because they apparently keep seeking advice from Teddy Kennedy and Wolf Blitzer.  It's enough to have you shout out your own Dean Scream.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/06/10/congress,_get_off_your_gas,_and_drill?page=full&comments=true

I was over at Rush's website today, and he and I agree on many things when it comes to how the conservative movement should be rebuilt.  Of course, what makes life more interesting is our little disagreements.

Rush:  I have a fear that John McCain secretly wants to destroy the Republican Party.  After he gets the election, if he does, he's going to take out after conservatives.  I just think he's going to come after conservatives as much as any liberals would. Where we are is we have squandered every victory we had since 1993, 1994, the House Republican freshman class taking over Bush winning in 2000 and 2004 with a majority Republican Congress for much of his two terms, we squandered it.

Me: That's an understatement.

Rush: The first midterm election is the target here.  Not 2012, but 2010.

Me:  Again, correct.  We need a new wave of conservative lawmakers akin to those elected under the Contract With America.

Rush: The first order of business, regardless who wins the presidency, 'cause it's not going to matter, the first order of business will be to continue to discredit liberalism in the eyes of as many people as possible.  They, liberals and liberalism, must and will be the continued target, because they're moving the agenda that our side is accepting.

Me: Sure, and between Rush, GunnyG and the Crawfish we've got that pretty much covered.

Rush: Well, there's a second reason for voting for McCain -- I hate to say makes sense -- but there's another reason to put in that column, let me put it that way, and that is taxes. (The first was foreign policy, identified by a caller)

Me: While Rush is hardly endorsing McCain, I personally have a strong belief that who the next President is does matter because a McCain Presidency is antithetical to the goal of rebuilding the conservative movement through the election of conservative representatives.

First of all, one of the reasons why the House Republican freshman class was successful was because they had Bubba to run against.   There’s no Contract With America if the sitting President had been a Republican.  How can there be a Republican revolution in Congress if the President is also a Republican (even if he really should be a Democrat)?  Also, the reason they were able to continue to be successful, both in terms of  what was accomplished legislatively and in the following elections was there ability to define and fight for who they were and against who they weren't , i.e. Bubba and the Dems.  

Once Bush was electing he did the defining of who the Repuclicans were, which turned out not to be very conservative, and they couldn 't/wouldn't fight against Bush when he wasn't being conservative.  How would that be any different for elected members of the Houses under McCain?

Secondly, by virtue of his becoming President, McCain redefines the image of the party, both publicly and in terms of its internal machinery.  Also, the term conservative gets to be further redefined by McCain and more significantly the media.  It’s hard enough to be conservative now, how many of us would still wish to be called conservative when it means being like him? 

This is the greatest of all potential disasters.  I give you two words, Brian Mulroney.  He was a Conservative Party Prime Minister in Canada for two terms (1985-1993), and when he was elected for his first term led the largest majority government in Candian history. 

However, by the end of his second term his image was so tarnished that in the following election his party was reduced to just two seats from 151 in the House of Commons, two out of just under 300.  Things were so bad that a second ‘conservative’ party was formed and had a member elected even before the general election in 1993.  Yep, those votes were sure thrown away.  And the Conservative party was effectively banished to the wilderness for 13 years, not returning to power until 2006, and then only with a minority government.

So to all those who say Obama must be stopped at all costs so hold your nose, with both hands if necessary, and vote McCain, I say the following.  We all know that Obama will only have one term, well unless the stupid party manages to help re-elect him.  The same is likely true of McCain.  And it is also probably true that Obama will inflict slightly more damage to the country than McCain over the course of that term.  However what is worse, the incremental damage from Obama for one term or the damage done by the raft of successive Democrat Presidents and Congressional majorities that a McCain Presidency would be very likely to engender?

Health care is a perennial campaign issue in the U.S., and one in which Republicans consistently take it in the shorts according to opinion polls.  It’s basically a major issue that the Democrats can take for granted and the Republicans have conceded, ideologically at least. 

Being an analyst by trade and nature, I thought I’d examine the facts concerning this issue a bit to see where things stand.  The numbers I found were quite surprising.  Shocking, actually, as far as I’m concerned.  The results raise a number of questions, and I’d appreciate your contributions on the subject.  I’ll try to provide some answers in a follow-up post.

We all know that total healthcare expenses are greatest in the U.S. than in other countries, which is not shocking given its wealth and the ability of its citizens to purchase health care with said wealth.  But did you know that per capita public spending on health care is higher and has been growing at a faster rate in the U.S. than in 8 in 9 other OECD countries?  And these are figures that predate Bush’s drug plan! 

 Comparing Real Levels and Real Growth Rates of Per Capita Government Healthcare Expenditures

 

	1970 Per Capita Expenditure	2002 Per Capita Expenditure	Annualized Growth Rate
Australia	$362	$1,323	4.13%
Austria	$393	$1,375	3.99%
Canada	$589	$1,552	3.08%
Germany	$663	$2,066	3.62%
Japan	$457	$2,082	4.85%
Norway	$645	$3,366	5.30%
Spain	$175	$855	5.08%
Sweden	$940	$2,128	2.59%
UK	$528	$1,694	3.71%
US	$481	$2,364	5.10%
Average	$523	$1,880	4.14%

Who is going Broke, August 29, 2006.pdf (application/pdf Object)

 
In addition, virtually all of these other countries offer some sort of universal coverage whereas the vast majority of public healthcare spending in the U.S. is on two programs, Medicare and Medicaid.  I’m not endorsing universal coverage here, but these numbers beggar the following questions:

How is it that these countries can provide universal coverage at a cost that is less than the amount the U.S. spends to provide service to essentially the poor and the elderly? 

Or do Medicare and Medicaid provide a much higher quality of service than I thought?

How vast would the sums have to be in order to provide universal health care, given the large number of additional people that would have to be covered by government provided health care? 

And given the very little bang for the buck that Medicare and Medicaid appear to provide, why in the world throw so much more good money after bad?

Furthermore, if the government spends so much in the U.S., why is it that Americans have to spend so much more on private health care?  In 2003 per capita health care in the U.S. was 55.6% ($ 3,133) private and 44.4% ($ 2,502) public.  Compare this to Canada, at 29.8% ($ 895) private and 70.2% ($ 2,108) public. (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0289.htm)   

And yet, despite all of this spending, the United States had shorter-than-average life expectancy and higher-than-average mortality rates among OECD countries in 2004.  The report I read cites lifestyles as a major culprit here, with the U.S. having both the highest obesity and HIV infection rates of the countries in question, for example.  And I would add that these two facts would also indicate why there is a greater need for healthcare spending in the U.S. (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf)  

 The final figures I’m going to look at were the ones I found most startling, and go to the heart of the traditional conservative argument that the market is the best and most efficient means of delivering healthcare:

•  "U.S. administrative costs totalled at least $294.3 billion in 1999, $1,059 per capita, versus $9.4 billion, $307 per capita, in Canada; these costs accounted for 31 percent of health care spending in the U.S. versus 16.7 percent in Canada."

• Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent. Canada's private insurers had higher overhead (13.2 percent) than U.S. insurers (11.7 percent) did. Overhead of U.S. insurers was higher than that of Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent). Overall, public (Medicare and Medicaid) and private insurance overhead in the United States totalled $72 billion, 5.9 percent of total U.S. health spending, $259 per capita. Insurance overhead in Canada was 1.9 percent of health spending, $47 per capita.

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/036617.htm#FINDINGS

Now I’d like to see the details as to where these numbers came from and how they were calculated, as they seem counter-intuitive.  Although given the number of commercials I see on TV for insurance, if these figures include sales and promotion expenses for private insurers, I might be tempted to believe them.  Assuming that they are relatively accurate, it then becomes rather difficult to argue against public health care on grounds of efficiency. 

While Townhall provides a wonderful forum for us conservatives, unfortunately it does tend to be somewhat limited technically.  One limitation I find most annoying is that we don't have an e-mail linked to our Townhall accounts that we can use to send messages to each other.  Therefore I have created this post to be my in-basket, for anyone who wishes to drop me a line, plug their newest blog entry, remind me that I haven't responded to them on their blog, etc.

Since I've pulled a bit of a Cynewulf and disappeared for a while, I thought I'd like to apologize for my unexplained absence and let you all know the reasons thereof. 

One month ago today I underwent relatively major surgery on my right hand (I'm right-handed don't you know) to have a rather large growth removed.  Having my hand in a cocoon for 10 days (and bandaged up for two weeks thereafter) limited my desire and ability to do a great many things, in particular computer-related ones such as participating at forums such as Townhall.  I also was changing jobs (within the same organization) and arranged to leave my old job the day before surgery and start the new one when I had the doc's OK.  I managed to score about three weeks off, and really took it off (to the extent you can as a single parent). 

And then last week I learned that unfortunately the growth in my hand was not benign, as the doctor had thought, but rather a freakishly rare form of cancer, sinovial sarcoma is its medical name.  Assuming it hasn't spread (and I get tested next week to see if it has), it should be treatable (likely chemo, yip-yip-yahoo), but nevertheless as a 35 year-old single parent of 8 and 4 year old children I hope that you can understand that this was not exactly welcome news.

Since I wish to avoid having to repeat this explanation on the many blogs I frequent (you know who you are, I'll be back, you've been warned), I figured this would be as good an excuse as any to start my own blog, something I've been wanting to do but have been putting off.  Given recent developments, however, I've concluded that I'm better not putting things off, since I might well never have the chance to get round to them.

To the extent this is a pity post (and I must admit I am a bit down, any and all encouragement is most welcome), this is the only one I'll allow myself with respect to my condition.  After all, as my son (the 4 year old) says, boys are tough, rough and buff.

I appreciate your patience and understanding in this matter, and look forward to returning to my old prolific and cantankerous form.

All my best,

Paul