The Noble Pundit

D.W.W.TV?

I'm rather stunned that there is actually a charge for driving while watching television.

That one just strikes me as bizarre. Who would have thought that we needed to explicitly outlaw driving an automobile while watching the boob tube?

Now this guy also managed to take the concept of driving while watching the boob tube to a new level by getting pulled over while watching porn. He was caught because the cops could see the film showing on the headrest mounted screens.

Maybe it's time to come up with a new charge for situations like this: driving while being undeniably stupid. It would certainly be easier than trying to make sure that you are charging with the use of the proper banned electronic device.

Driving while watching television. That is just too funny.

This Pretty Well Sums It Up

If this isn't reason enough for removing Gavin Newsom from office in San Francisco, I don't know what it:

Yet what really matters to Mayor Gavin Newsom is what they're saying in the neighborhoods of San Francisco - that his decision to buck California law and grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples makes him a hero. (emphasis mine)

"At the end of the day I sleep well, and in life there is nothing more important than that," Newsom said Saturday during an interview at City Hall, where nearly 3,200 same-sex couples have taken vows in the last 10 days. "What matters is doing the right thing and being true to yourself and standing up on principle." (emphasis mine again)

He claims to have based his decision "based on his reading of the California Constitution."

Now would this be the same Constitution that provided for a seperation of powers in the government? Would this be the same Constitution that he is essentially ignoring based on his view of "doing the right thing?"

Gay marriage is not on par with murder. Right and wrong is not as clear cut, no matter how much the extremists, like Mr. Newsom, might want us to believe. I'm sure that Mr. Newsom would complain vociferously about a marriage amendment being an imposition of someone else's morality, yet what he has done is to impose his vision of morality on his city. What makes his version better? What makes his vision superior to everyone elses?

Mr. Newsom needs to understand that there are ideals in our government that are more important than his status as a "hero." Our system of government is far more important than Mr. Newsom's ability to sleep better at night.

If he's willing to act the little tyrant for pride, then Mr. Newsom has no business being in office.

Right Idea, Wrong Time

So the city of San Francisco has decided that now it is time to sue the State of California in order to have the same sex marriage ban declared unconstitutional. I'll give the city credit for realizing how the process should have worked from day one, but it still doesn't make the actions of the mayor right.

Even if the law is declared unconstitutional, it doesn't change the fact that the mayor still willfully and knowingly violated it. It doesn't make the mayor right and it does not change the fact that I believe that the mayor should be removed from office for violating the law.

The mayor has a responsibility to enforce all the laws, not just the ones that he agrees with. If he disagrees with a particular law, he has the right to appeal to the court to have the law overturned - that is the essence of the system of checks and balances, two branches of government can overrule the third to keep power from investing itself in any one branch.

But the mayor did not use a legal recourse in approaching this matter. He instead chose civil disobedience. That is certainly his right, but he needs to acknowledge that violating the law, even as part of a peaceful protest, has consequences. If you're a politician in power, that should include involuntary removal from office.

It's nice that the city finally decided to act in a legal, responsible manner, but in my opinion, it is too little, too late to be able to save the mayor. He needs to be forced from office.

Random Fate Is Back

Just a quick note to let people know that Jack from Random Fate is back online after various domain problems. Go back over and pay him a visit!

The Presidential Sales Campaign

I don't often watch too many of the talking head shows, but for some reason tonight, I decided to watch a little bit of Hannity and Colmes on Fox. Their guests tonight were JC Watts, former Congressman from Oklahoma and Tony Coelho, former Congressman from California.

Normally I like listening to JC Watts. He has always struck me as being a very bright man for a Congressman. And for most of the show, he didn't disappoint. But towards the end of the debate, Alan Colmes asked a question about the President's recent prediction of 2.6 million new jobs. Now maybe Mr. Watts isn't the best person to direct that question to, but it is a valid question. But instead of answering the question, even with an "I don't know," JC tried to dodge, to spin, and to ignore the question, instead talking about other related issues, but never directly addressing a perfectly legitimate question. For what it's worth, I think that the question could be easily answered (if this is true) by saying that the President shot off with his mouth before making sure that the numbers he was throwing around were right. From the reactions of his economic advisors, I'm guessing that that is what happened. If so, it needs to be admitted, and then we can all move on.

Now I thought that Sean asked probably the most important question that could be asked: what would the Johns do differently than the President? What differences would we see in the war? What differences would we see in economic policy? We keep hearing about how they hate Bush, but they still haven't really said how they would be different?

So far as I've been able to tell, about the only two positions in which the Johns seem to really have taken a stance against Bush: taxes and the war, they are trying to back away from their positions, claiming that they are misstatements.

As best as I can remember, both Johns have said that they would try to rollback the tax cuts. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that is tatamount to a tax hike. Maybe the phrase "rollback" sounds better, but the end effect is still that taxes will go up. If they believe that a tax hike is the best course of action, fine. I can live with that. I'd like to hear the reasoning, but it is an acceptable position (although not one that I would even consider voting for. Instant disqualifier for me). I just don't want to waste my time, or the nation's, in debating the semantic difference between a tax cut rollback and a tax increase.

I also seem to be under the impression that both Johns would be trying to bring our men home from Iraq as soon as possible after taking office. Both men seem to be backing away from that position.

Now if they disapproved of the action in Iraq (which John Kerry has been ever since his last vote supporting it), they need to be man enough to stand up and be counted for their beliefs. If they really think that thinks are being handled improperly, tell me what would be done differently under the Administration of John. So far, all I hear is "We disapprove! We're not happy about it! Something needs to change!" But no alternate course of action ever seems to be proposed.

There are really two things I want to hear from someone who wants my vote. I want to hear true, unwavering beliefs and I want to hear alternatives to the status quo. If you think the guy in power is doing a poor job, don't just tell me that you think he's doing a bad job, tell me you will do differently.

So far, I don't hear anything. I hear a lot of sniping and whining, but I don't hear anything I can hang my hat on. Politics is sales. In sales you identify a problem, propose a solution, explain the features, advantages, and benefits, and you must always be closing.

The Johns are identifying a "problem" (Bush's job performance, in their estimation) and they are constantly trying to close by pursuing my vote, but they are leaving out the whole sales part of the sales process. I have heard no features, advantages, or benefits to a government run by them.

Until those questions are answered, why should I even consider voting for anyone other than Bush - a known quantity?

I Do Love Irrational Pride

Got to love the Russians sometimes. Two days in a row they couldn't get an ICBM to launch and now they're out boasting about their new smart missile that can maneuver in flight, rendering our missile defense impotent.

Sorry, but I'm not real worried. I realize that the missiles they were trying to launch were older ones, but with the launches being that public, I find it hard to believe that they were just generic tests. Putin had to have believed that there was an excellent chance of success or else he would have put himself in such an embarassing position.

Plus there is a difference between being able to simply move around and being able to detect and react to an incoming threat. The first is simple, the second a much more difficult proposition and one which I find it hard to believe that the Russians, given their current economic state, would be willing to build into a one-time use vehicle.

Of course, maybe I'd feel a little different if they could get a missile that actually seemed to be able to fly straight. This almost sounds a bit like trying to sell a bug as a feature....

Jobless Claims Down

The Labor Department is reporting that for the week ending Feb.14 new jobless claims dropped significantly, posting their largest decline since November.

Now I'm not going to sit here this morning and analyze how this might fit into the overall ecnomic environment. There are enough other blogs, along with CNBC, MSNBC, FOXNews, CNN, and the major networks who will be doing that. Instead I'm going to take a different approach.

Let me begin by stating that I believe that the job market is starting to improve - just a little bit. Many of my longtime readers may recall that back around July of last year I started looking for a new job. It wasn't until Mid-November that I was able to find anything that was a step up. It essentially took me nearly 5 moths to find a new job - and I was employed at the time, which supposedly makes it easier to get a new job.

Now since November, I've received another job offer, for significantly more money and better benefits, and was felt out about yet another. Since last July, I have gone from being extraordinarily unlucky to extraordinarily lucky. Nothing has really changed in my approach (although I have not actively sought a new job since November). But something has begun to change in the job market.

I think that right now what we're beginning to see is a move towards bringing in new people in the revenue producing segments of businesses. Salespeople, manufacturing people, and customer service positions all seem to be in a little bit of demand right now.

This is great and wonderful, but most of the unemployed at the moment seem to be from support positions, IT particularly. Those types of positions are not being created just yet. So support staff candidates are going without offers.

Now some will argue that the job that are being created now are the low eage positions. And that, by and large, is true. But in order for there to be a need for support staff, there needs to be a staff to support.

I think that a lot of companies learned a very tough lesson back in the late '90s. The last brokerage firm I worked for went on a hiring spree from 1996-1999 and more than quadrupled the size of the company - and then from 2001-2003 they let go basically everyone they hired, plus some. It was a painful lesson for them. And I think that right now, there are a number of companies that are trying to take too much away from that experience. In an effort to make sure they won't have to let people go, they are foregoing revenue and profits to avoid hiring people.

In the late '90s the hiring pendulum was at one extreme, where anybody could get a job in very short order, regardless of anything. In the last 2 or 3 years, we've been at the other extreme, where very few could get a job, no matter how well qualified they might be. At both extremes, the job market was operating very inefficiently and companies have paid a price, either in realized layoffs or unrealized profits.

My sense, and I have nothing really to back it up with it is just a gut feeling, is that things are starting to return to a more normal state. It should be interesting to see how long it takes for hiring to really return to normal.

Edwards Campiagn Posters That Didn't Quite Make The Cut

Allah the Most Merciful (except when it comes to this) has granted us kufr a rare opportunity to view some of the potential campaign posters of John Edwards.

Before heading over there, do realize that beyond the first poster, most of them are not exactly family friendly. But then again, did we really expect any less from Allah?

Iran Calls For Muslim Common Market

This is lovely. At the opening of the D-8 Summit of Developing Muslim nations, Iran has gone and called for a common market and also common foreign investment rules for the group. The nations in the D-8? Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Nigeria.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty much all those nations, with the exception of Turkey, are not exactly what the average person would view as nations hostile to terrorists.

The idea itself of a common market is great and all, but what are they really going to trade? Oil? Sand? Terrorists? Weapons? Bomb-making techniques?

Look at the nations involved. Turkey and Pakistan are the two most economically advanced in the group, as such they have the least need for the group. Malaysia and Indonesia, if they could ever get the extremeists under control, would be in a similar situation. Egypt is mainly a tourist economy now, much to the chargrin of the fundamentalists. Nigeria seems to excel in fraud better than anything else (I found out today that the scam-mails they send out have an autoresponder that asks for more information. I have an autoresponder set up for the email for this site and I got an autoresponse to my autoresponse. But they obviously don't read too far as they think my name is "blog.")

Iran, I'm guessing, is simply looking for a common weapons market. It's getting tougher to smuggle in all that stuff needed to build the Bomb. Besides, Iran, more than any of the other nations, has a very limited export potential to their economy: oil, sand, or revolutionary extremeists. I'm guessing that Iran is simply looking to lower the tarriffs on imports so that they can free up more hard currency for their North Korean nuke techology.

And I'm not really sure how Bangladesh might fit into all this. I honestly don't know enough about the country to have any idea as to what they might produce or need, and therefore can't really determine how they might fit into a common Muslim market.

Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical about this. Maybe I should look for the positive, that Iran is making some of sort of attempt to act in a normal, responsible manner. But I look at the news that has been coming out of these nations over the last few years and I really have to wonder....

Looks Like The Cold War Isn't About To Heat Up Again - Yet...

The military manoeuvres are said to be the biggest to take place in the post-Soviet period.

You know, in a way this should make me happy, given recent events in my life. A return to an arms race like we had particularly during the Reagan years would be extremely beneficial to me.

But instead, I'm feeling a little bit of relief that the Russians can't get their sub launched ICBMs to fire right with now a second misfire in as many days.

I really kind of grew up during the Reagan years, the end of the Cold War. I remember, as a kid, looking to the sky and wondering if the missiles were already in flight (I thought about a lot of weird things for a kid. Many of them were probably weird for an adult to, but that's beside the point). I remember the first time I saw the B-1B bomber and the pilot was boasting that his plane was the reason we could sleep soundly at night. I remember quite a bit about the fear that the Cold War could instill in an impressionable kid.

I don't want that for my kids.

I don't want them to fear MAD (I only want them to fear me when I'm mad). I don't want them to truly understand the book Alas, Babylon. I don't want them to know what it is like to live knowing that another nation has enough nuclear warheads pointed at you to annihilate your country 10 times over.

I don't want them to know another Cold War.

What concerns me is that the Russians seem to be thinking that they might be able to play a bit of catch-up here. It almost seems as though they think the technological gap is small enough that they might be able to close it. That's not good.

That is the effect of the massive defense cuts we've had. That's the effect of our not continuing to push the envelope. Reagan proposed a 600 ship Navy; we're now on the brink of having less than 300 ships at sea. The Army, the Marines, the Air Force: they're all stretched to their limits also. Our front line fighter jet, the F-15, is Vietnam Era technology. Our premier standoff weapon, the Tomahawk cruise missile, is old enough to have played a role in Tom Clancy's book Red Storm Rising (a book copyrighted in 1986).

It may be too late, but we need to make a more serious commitment to our national defense. Our greatest advantage is the technology gap we've created. It must be maintained. Our soldiers are the best in the world. Don't they deserve the best weapons we can give them?

How Many Different Laws Are There?

First we had the violations of international law. And we had war crimes violations (which implies a law of war). Now we have the Red Cross trotting out violations of "humanitarian law" as a way of trying to force Israel to tear down the West Bank Wall.

Funny, but I don't remember having studied about the humanitarian violations of the Berlin Wall. I don't remember reading about the UN General Assembly taking the Soviet Union to the International Court in the Hague to gain a non-binding resolution that the Iron Curtain should come down. So why does this seem that it is just some fabricated appeal to the utopians who believe that the law should exist and is required to be followed, regardless of its existence.

But probably the most offensive part of the whole article was this:

The ICRC said it recognized the right of Israel -- which says the barrier is meant to stop suicide bombers and has already thwarted dozens of attacks -- to take measures to defend the security of its own population.

And ICRC official Balthasar Staehelin said that if the barrier were moved back to the Green Line -- the boundary before Israel seized the West Bank in the 1967 Middle East War -- "that would solve many of the problems as far as we are concerned."

Has this man got no clue? Does he not comprehend the stated goal of most of the terrorist governmental and chartiable organizations over there, to throw the nation of Israel back into the sea? Moving back to the Green Line would solve many of the ICRC's problems, but certainly wouldn't make anything any better for Israel. In fact, it would only serve to make the country less defensible.

Plus, that offer was basically already made by Israel. It was the Palestinians who rejected it. It was the Israelis who have made every serious overture, most of the unilaterally, for peace. It is the Palestinians who keep the human bomb factories running day and night.

The Red Cross is supposed to be a neutral organization, but it is starting to act otherwise. If they are not careful, the ICRC is going to squander their facade of humanitarianism to become nothing more than another politically motivated entity.

And So The End Begins

It's Tuesday, February 17, the day that will very likely mark the end for Howard Dean as a candidate for President of the United States. Today the voters in the Wisconsin Democratic primaries go to the polls, and if the early polls are any indication, they plan on handing Howie another stinging defeat.

It's been a long strange trip for Mr. Dean, but one that is coming to an end. It really is time for Dean to bow out gracefully. Failure to do so will relegate him to Sharpton/Kucinich laughingstock fodder - just like the Iowa speech did.

How concerned is current front-runner John Kerry about the other Dems? Not very. He apparently took one of the lamest shots at the President I have ever seen:

Chiding Bush for taking time out Sunday to attend the Daytona 500, the Massachusetts senator said the country was bleeding jobs while the president posed for a "photo opportunity." Bush had donned a racing jacket to officially open NASCAR's most prestigious event in front of some 180,000 fans.

"We don't need a president who just says, 'Gentlemen start your engines,"' Kerry said. "We need a president who says, 'America, let's start our economy and put people back to work."'

"America, let's start our economy and put people back to work"? When it comes to lame slogans that has to rank right up there with the worst of them.

I can understand Kerry's aversion to the President going out on the campaign trail. I can understand Kerry's concern that Bush might actually have a good time at the race - which would help him to connect with the NASCAR Dad.

But what action, what critical decision, does Kerry think that Bush missed while spending two hours at Daytona International Speedway? The slogan is lame, but where is the alternative idea from Kerry? It's nice to say things are wrong, but where is the idea to fix them?

Communism should have proved once and for all that government by sloganeering doesn't work. When things aren't working, a pithy saying won't fix them.

And so today, the tone of the Democratic debate turns from rage and anger to whining and complaining. I've heard a lot from Kerry about everything he thinks Bush has done wrong. But I still have yet to hear, outside of taxing us into prosperity, what John Kerry would do different.

Are We A Modern Day Rome?

(This is actually my second attempt at writing this as my computer turned itself off right as I got ready to post the original. I'm not as happy with this version as I was with the first but I can't find any temp file of it on the computer. If I ever happen to find the original, I'll be sure to post it.)

I know that this is going to old news for most of you, but I thought that I wanted to comment on it anyway.

Charles Krauthammer recently gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in which he asserted that the Roman Empire is not an accurate model for modern America.

Now I've commented on some of the parallels between America and Rome here and here.

In the past I have looked at some of the parallels between ancient Rome and modern America, specifically where the issue of the welfare state is involved. But I have never explicitly expressed the belief that the parallels of empire are weak at best.

Ever since the time that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon on his way back to Rome, the Roman Empire was a dictatorship. The Caesars did pay homage to the Republican origins of Rome, accepting such Senatorial platitudes as Imperator, Consul, Augustus, and countless others.

But how did power in the Roman Empire actually work? It was really pretty simple. The man wearing the purple robes was it. He held dominion over life and death for anyone within the Empire. He could execute, pardon, enslave, emancipate, pillage or plunder without having to worry about Amnesty International or the ACLU complaining about every perceived violation of the rules of civilized warfare. His word was absolute law.

His power wasn't maintained by pleasing the people. It was gathered and maintained by brute force, Machiavellian action, and bribes of the Praetorian Guard.

The Roman Empire at its peak stretched from the Isle of Britain to the Caspian Sea. Towards the end of his reign, the emperor Trajan conquered and annexed Mesopotamia.

Now why did Trajan do this? Was it out of self-defense? Was it to gain additional food for the restless rabble of Rome? For the additional taxes and donatives of the residents of the region? Pride?

Did Trajan hinge his decision on the consent of the Senate? Did he wait for approval from the ancient UN? Did he try to gain the approval of the Gauls' for the invasion of Mesopotamia? Or did he simply go and add the ancient, even at that time, city of Babylon to the Empire - because he wanted to?

Trajan wanted Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, as part of the Roman Empire. It was his wish, and it was so.

Trajan's successor, Hadrian, did not want the province of Mesopotamia. So he pulled out and abandoned it.

The sacrifices made in acquiring the province? Not important.

Was there a local government in place when the Romans left? Not his concern.

Did the people of Babylon have enough food to eat? They'd figure it out - or starve.

Hadrian's wish was to pull out of Mesopotamia, and it was so. There was no public debate. There was no nation building or reconstruction. They Romans wanted to leave, so they left.

That was the way that it was in the Roman Empire. What Caesar wanted, Caesar got. The Senate was a rubber stamp, a facade hearkening back to a government that by the time of Hadrian hadn't existed for almost 200 years. So long as the citizens of Rome, the city, were kept with bread and circus, the people wouldn't revolt. The legions were controlled by fear of the Praetorians, and the Praetorians were controlled by donatives from the emperor. The only person capable of controlling the emperor was the emperor. He was a man with absolute power.

Now in a parallel with ancient Rome, modern America did invade and conquer part of ancient Mesopotamia, modern day Iraq.

But did George W. Bush act without Congressional approval? Did he not send Colin Powell to the UN to present the case for the invasion to try to gain international support? Were there not 12 years worth of previous UN resolutions that provided legitimacy that we made an effort to negotiate?

Did we simply depose Saddam and leave Iraq to suffer anarchy? Did we conquer Iraq and send their food supply back to Washington D.C. to feed the masses on welfare? Did we conquer Iraq to expand our tax base to pay for more spending in the United States?

Did Trajan have to concern himself with Senator Kerryus declaring that his vote for war was based on a different intention for the prosecution of the war? Did he have to worry of Proconsul Deanus declaring that the war against the Mesopotamians was ill advised and wrong?

The answer to all these questions is, of course, no.

Both ancient Rome and modern America invaded and conquered the lands of ancient Mesopotamia. And about the only consistent parallel is that the French probably didn't approve of either invasion.

Krauthammer is right: we are an accidental empire. We don't go out with the intention of claiming new land for God and country. Rome did.

Ancient Rome was an empire based around the superiority of one people over everyone else. Modern America is based on the idea of equality of man.

Rome demanded tribute and food from the conquered. America helps to feed and rebuild.

Rome would oppress and enslave the people. America frees them from oppression and slavery.

Rome was a military power first, commercial power second. America is a commercial power first, military power second.

Rome was founded on the strength of its legions. America was founded on the strength of its ideals.

This isn't to deny that there aren't some lessons that we can't take away from ancient Rome. The lessons from the repetition of history can be very powerful lessons, indeed.

I believe that there are some very valuable lessons of ancient Rome in the bread and circus welfare state.

I also believe that politically there are no really valuable parallels as our two governments are completely different, as are the goals of the government.

There are many parallels between the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy also, but that does not necessarily mean the two events are somehow linked, or that the second could have been predicted. Similarities and coincidences are not proof of a linkage. The lesson of each parallel needs to be examined on a case by case basis to see if it has any validity in a different set of circumstances. Comparing the militaristic, expansionist Roman Empire to the accidental and unwilling American one means that many of the lessons simply have no carryover validity.

As America moves forward in the new world in which we are the only superpower, we need to keep in mind the fact that we are actually charting a new course in uncharted waters. History is important, but we need to remember that for many things we will encounter there will be no parallel.

There is no parallel between the power of the Roman sword and the power of the American idea.

America is not the Roman Empire redux.

Move Along! Nothing To See Here

In another fit of "everything is going just peachy and we intend to keep fighting" Howard Dean has expressed his confidence in his campaign staff by canning his national chairman.

Doesn't strike me as a real confidence inspiring move. Actually seems to smack of a bit of desperation on Dean's part. If things really are still viable, why make the change?

Watching the death throes of the Dean campaign is becoming really painful. Ever since the meltdown after Iowa, Dean has been an also-ran. He is not really contributing to the debate. He is not really driving any positions. He's just simply there, standing around looking all wooden and Al Gore-like.

I think it's time for Dean to bow out gracefully. He has already helped the Republican cause as much as he possibly can by defining the issues of the Democratic primaries and debates in terms that heavily favor George W. Bush.

Dean is not going to win Wisconsin. He is not going to win California. He will not win Florida. At this point, he may not even win Vermont. It's time for Howard Dean to face the truth: this is not the year of anger.

It's time for Howard Dean to bow out gracefully instead of continuing this charade.

Some Good Morning Humor

For those of you who like to link politics and sports, here is an excellent parody of what could have been yesterday in the Daytona 500 had the DNC entered their candidates.

It just about had me on the floor.

NASCAR Dads

Over the last few days, particularly since the run-up to the Daytona 500 today, I've been seeing more and more articles in the political realm that refer to the looming importance of the NASCAR Dad in the upcoming election. For the uninitiated, the NASCAR Dad is a white male who generally votes Republican, but can be convinced to vote Democrat depending on the issues and positions. NASCAR Dads are most prevelent in the South and the Midwest.

Alright we have a nice clinical definition of the NASCAR Dad, but why is he going to be so important and every bit as importantly, is he recognized by both sides?

To answer the second question first, he has been recognized by both parties. Bush has obviously recognized the NASCAR Dad with his show at the Daytona 500 today. Circling the track with Air Force One; having his motorcade drive along the track; spending 2 hours at the race. Bush's trip was meant as much to watch the race as it was to reinforce to the NASCAR Dad just how in tune the President's beliefs are with his own.

Howard Dean also made an obtuse sort of reference to the NASCAR Dad when he suggested that he wanted to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags and gun racks in their pickup trucks. He was attempting to reach out to NASCAR Dad, but at the same demostrated a complete lack of understanding about what makes him tick. And with his backtracking and waffling on his statement, Dean completely lost any hope of garnering the vote of the NASCAR Dad.

What the Democrats seem to be missing about the NASCAR Dad is that issues really are important. Schtick, like Dean's anger streak, is seen as being transparent. Defense is important. Integrity is important. Being plain spoken is important. Patriotism, fiscal responsibility, and decision making are all important.

But while the NASCAR Dad likes a leader who can make a quick, difficult decision and then stick to it, even in the face of consequences, he will not make a snap decision of his own about who his choice for President will be. I believe that one of the reasons that we are still seeing such a large undecided component in the polls is because of the importance of the NASCAR Dad this election. He is not willing to commit to any candidate until he's heard all the positions and all the issues.

Now just because Bush seems to fare well in all the important issues to the NASCAR Dad does not mean that the President will automatically get his vote. The NASCAR Dad has concerns about Bush, particularly when it comes to the budgets that have been proposed. The tax cuts were a good idea and helped to stimulate the economy. But then Bush went a massive spending spree, chock full of questionable spending items. And that fiscal irresponsibility has made put the NASCAR Dad vote for Bush in question.

But how would the Democratic contenders stack up?

Kerry wouldn't fare too well with the NASCAR Dad. His military record would be a neutral item. His commitment to defense can be legitimately questioned based on his voting record. His integrity is questionable, again based on his voting record, too many flip-flops. Straight talking? Uh-uh. But given the right issues that have yet to emerge in this election, he still has an outside chance of garnering a decent portion of the NASCAR Dad vote - which might be all he needs.

Edwards would probably connect best with the NASCAR Dad crowd. Edwards is from the same stock as most NDs. He doesn't have the voting record of Kerry to search for inconsistencies. Being a trial lawyer works against him, but he may be able to make enough of a personal level connection to nullify the President's advantages.

Dean really has no hope with the NASCAR Dad crowd. It was Howard Dean that really invoked the NASCAR Dad and it was he that showed the least in the way of character traits that might be desirable to the ND. His anger seems to be a charade, designed to tap into the resentment against political correctness felt by the average white male. His positions were about as far out of line with the NASCAR Dad's as was possible.

So while Bush hasn't sewn it up, the odds don't look all too hot for the other guys either. Like the soccer moms who helped to elect Bill Clinton, it will be the NASCAR Dads who elect or re-elect the winner of this next election.

Bush made the first real attempt of reaching out to the NASCAR Dads today and I'm guessing that it will pay dividends for him down the road. Whereas Kerry comes off as an aloof elitest, and Edwards as a slick trial lawyer, Bush can actually end up coming off as a man not all that dissimilar to the NASCAR Dad.

But ultimately it will still come down to issues and leadership. Being a man of the people is not the same as being a leader of the people. Talking like the people want to hear is useless unless you act in a similar vein.

Today in Daytona they ran The Great American Race, but another great race also started today - the race for the votes of the NASCAR Dad. How will the father/son parallel play out in the election? Earnhardt, Jr. followed in his father's footsteps by winning the 500. Will Bush chalk up another victory? Or will he become a one-termer like his father?

It's looking more and more like the NASCAR Dad will decide.

The Daytona 500

Congratulations to Dale Earnhardt, Jr. for winning the Daytona 500. I was at the track the day his Dad won and was pretty emotionally charged to see Jr. pull it off even just watching it on TV. It reminded me of just how special that race 6 years ago was.

I don't like the new scoring system - or the change from Winston Cup to Nextel Cup - but, if NASCAR keeps having races like the 500, it'll be a pretty good year.

Pro-Market Vs. Pro-Business

Via the Flemish Beerdrinker

Bruce Bartlett over at Townhall.com has written an excellent article that points out that the normal conservative reflex of pro-business is not always pro-market. As similar as the two terms sound, they are not the same. In fact, many times they end up opposed to each other.

Now Ivan over at the Flemish Beerdrinker does a pretty good job of looking at the relationship between pro-business and pro-market over the last decade (I don't appear to be able to link directly to the article so look for the one datestamped 14/02/2004 - 14:42:13 and titled: Is being pro-market conservative?).

I believe that the lessons of pro-market vs. pro-business can be best illustrated by one of my favorite industries - the airline industry.

From it's earlier beginnings the airline industry was largely unregulated. The barriers to entry were simply buying an airplane, getting a pilot's license, and finding some passenger that wanted to fly from point A to point B. Some folks managed to do well and were buying bigger, faster airplanes and were building mini-aeronautical empires, but by and large, the industry was very much pro-market.

Right on up until 1934 and the Spoils Conference of Postmaster Walter Folger Brown. Brown was a man who hated disorder and inefficiency, so he organized a meeting between the airline chiefteins in which they swapped mail routes, with the Big Four: American, United, TWA, and Eastern organizing with the first three being east/west airlines and Eastern flying north/south.

Brown was happy, as were the heads of the Big Four, but the public was outraged. Pro-business was the watchword of the day. Overnight the airlines had gone from one extreme to the other.

Now, as a reaction to the Spoils Conference, the airmail contracts were reawarded, with the Big Four maintaining most of the contracts, although a few other smaller airlines: Delta, Continental, Braniff and Northwest notably, picking up a few of the routes. But the die had already been cast. Brown had effectively set up significant governmental barriers to entry as mail was the most significant profit cargo for the early airlines.

Another pro-business, anti-market institution that was formed around the same time, at the behest as the airlines, was the Civil Aeronautics Board or CAB. The CAB became quite literally the biggest barrier to entry in the airline industry as it approved new routes and new pricing. The only way for an airline to form without the explicit approval of the CAB was to become an intrastate carrier. Since there were few states (California, Texas and Florida were the real exceptions) that could support an intrastate carrier, there was no real way to enter the market.

The CAB was the ultimate pro-business, anti-market entity. It maintained the competitive positions of the Big Four. It set pricing so that the weakest airline in a market made money. The CAB wasn't interested in allowing the market to work. It was interested in maintaining the status quo.

Now the CAB was sunsetted out of existence, one of the few governmental organizations to have actually disappeared. And once it went away, along with its barriers to entry, competition exploded in the industry. It became even safer to fly, more passengers fly and at lower prices than under government regulation. In short we have gone back to a more pro-market environment in the industry, and while everything is not perfect, it is certainly better than it was in the 1970s.

So what's the lesson to take away from the experience of the airline industry? A pro-market economic environment responds better to the needs of the marketplace than does a regulated pro-business one. Pro-market is best for the consumer and the nascent business; pro-business is the desire and wish of the existing businesses. The two are not the same.

Generally, the convential wisdom is backwards. The Democrats, preferring regulation to market pressure, tend to take more true pro-business positions. Republicans tend to be more pro-market. The Bush Administration, though, tends to take a more true pro-business stance than most Republican administrations (although it can also be argued that what they are doing is simply a continuation of the path started down by the previous administration), which is a bit disappointing, but still much better than the alternatives being proposed by the Democratic candidates.

We really need to start swinging the pendulum back towards the pro-market side of the spectrum. When the market is relatively unfettered is when our economy performs best. We have the most innovation and the best profitability (along with generally the highest employment) during periods of laissez-faire policy by the government.

All in all, I thought the article by Bartlett was pretty interesting. Definitely well worth the read.