Are politicians really liars? Well, yes.

In his recent post, my colleague Sean Mullins explains the etiology of the distrust he feels for politicians, and I have to say that for the most part I agree with him. While it is true that most, if not all, persons in elected office have stretched the truth at one time or another, I feel that it isn't voter turnout that will demonstrate frustration with untruths. Lying lays at the root of our current culture and unless there is some radical shift in public thought, I see no reason why we should expect more out of our elected officials than we are willing to commit to in our daily lives. If they are truly our representatives then shouldn't they behave as we do? Why shouldn't they fib on their taxes and watch reality TV where everyone behaves badly? Why shouldn't they endorse 'equal' healthcare for all Americans, as long as they can have a separate system?

I say this tongue-in-cheek of course, because I do believe that they should be held accountable for the decisions they make. They should be responsible enough to enact the policies they so vigorously run on and then have the pride of accomplishing what they set out to do. That's what I do every day. I work hard and then can enjoy the benefits of the labor I have put in. That is the type of representative that I will vote for, the man or woman that can point to what they have accomplished in business, medicine, or previous government service and demonstrate results. Do I value people that tell the truth? Of course, anyone that doesn't isn't rational. I want to be able to trust the candidates I vote for. But more to the point, I want to be able to trust their actions. Character is defined more by actions over time than by words uttered during a campaign speech. So I value the truth as spoken by representatives, but I value the truth of their actions more.

http://www.politicaltruthserum.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-newell/the-sad-truth-about-truth_b_1420062.html

Vaccine requirements: Time to close the loopholes

Vaccine Requirements for Children

Recently there has been much attention focused on the topic of vaccines and what should be required for children. State governments have been making their own laws for some time based on the recommendations of the CDC and the physicians associated with that organization and that system has worked to lower both the incidence and prevalence of pneumococcal pneumonia and meningitis, Haemophilus influenzae pneumonia and Neisseria species meningitis. Of course, prior to that the health care community saw the eradication of smallpox and near eradication of polio worldwide, so it has been clearly demonstrated that vaccines are effective in preventing disease, but that only holds true if people get vaccinated. More importantly, it holds true if parents get their kids vaccinated.

Vaccines work by exposing the body to a minuscule amount of a specific pathogen and is occasionally linked to a protein to stimulate the body to produce antibodies. This then creates a humoral memory in a way and the body will have ammunition to fight the foreign invader the next time it sees it. The principle of mass vaccination is based on ‘herd immunity’ and assumes that while not everyone will receive a dose, enough of the population will develop immunities so as to prevent the spread of disease from one end of the population to the other. If pockets of unvaccinated people exist though, there will not be enough population immunity to prevent outbreaks as was demonstrated with recent pertussis and mumps cases in California and the Northeast respectively.

Texas has a list of what is required for a child to enter school or daycare, and that follows the annual CDC guidelines for the most part. Other states differ a little in what vaccines are required for school entry, or when the vaccines have to be given by. But what is inconsistent is the ability to opt out of vaccine administration for various reasons. There is a portion of the population that is unable to be vaccinated for health reasons, and some that are opposed religiously. I don’t disagree with these groups. The philosophical objections on the other hand concern me greatly.  If you have a reason you don’t want your child vaccinated, that’s fine. But I don’t want  my children exposed to a preventable disease at school because of a statement made by an anti-vaccine group or something that Dr. Phil said last week. Medical science proved conclusively many years ago that safe and effective vaccine administration can prevent disease and save lives and in addition provide huge health care cost savings.

As a conservative I believe that personal freedom is the greatest thing about being an American. But with that freedom comes responsibility and putting others at risk of preventable disease by one individual’s decision is where that freedom must yield to the benefits of the nation. I am not advocating for a new government agency to be created, or a Congressional task force to be created. I just think that the state governments should limit the ability of uninformed parents to put others at risk. Strengthen the vaccination requirements nationally and help to educate everyone to the benefits that can be garnered by majority participation.

References:

Omer SB et al. Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1981-1988

National Network for Immunization Information. http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines/state-requirements/texas. Accessed 4/17/12

CDC guidelines for Vaccinations for Children Birth through Age 6.http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf. Accessed 4/18/12

Kellner J. Update on the success of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Paedeatric Child Health 2011; Apr;16(4):233-40.

Davis MM et al. Associations of daycare and school entry vaccination requirements with varicella immunization rates. Vaccine 2005; 23:3053–3060

Editorial comment on Ms. Sexton's article

In her recent post, Give Justice a Chance, my colleague Ms. Sexton discusses the Trevon Martin shooting in Florida and the media storm that has surrounded this issue. She eloquently lays out the main players in the story and describes the environment that each is trying to create. Being born after the Civil Rights movement, I have always wondered what it must have been like for minorities at lunch counters and at sit-ins across the country. What strength and courage it must have taken to stand up to the avalanche of repression that was present at that time and how committed those men and women were to achieve what they did.

The Civil Rights movement also served to bring race to the forefront of everyone’s mind, forcing everyone to choose where they stood ideologically on the issue. In very few occasions has there been such a polarizing force on our national stage. Those ripples are still being felt today, as evidenced by the media circus that has erupted around the Martin case. No time was wasted by many news outlets to paint this as a case of racial violence perpetrated by a white man on black, and there was no shortage of listeners. Radio talk shows, morning shows, newspapers and of course fringe elements on the web clamored to have a new angle or to excise some salient point that would set them apart and the truth was trampled somewhere in that stampede. Did a white man kill a black man? Yes, as far as I understand. Was the black man armed? No. Does that make this case racially motivated? That is unknown at this time. We may never know that answer. How do you measure intent? Would Zimmerman have been suspicious of Martin wandering the streets if he were a white kid? Or a Latino? Or Asian? That is the question to which we will probably never have an answer. Ms. Sexton accurately points out that the media hasn’t stopped to find that piece of information yet, and most likely because it isn’t as exciting as conjecture and sensationalism.

I think that racial issues have been blown out of proportion recently and this may be another example. Given the recent police shooting in Austin and the recent post on ESPN regarding Jeremy Lin that got 3 staff members fired, it seems that many including Rep. Chu want to keep race in the spotlight. Was that the intent of the civil rights movement though? Or was it more about moving race to the background, so that what a man or woman did and said mattered more than their skin color? I think that as long as media and others continue to remind us of our differences in a negative light, that dream will continue to be put on hold.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/One-dead-in-East-Austin-officer-involved-shooting-146438045.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73077.html

Gas Prices - what's the deal with supply and demand?

There have been many recent questions about the ever-rising cost of gas and few, if any answers. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have blamed the other for lack of cooperation and state that there is a general sense of discordance within the opposition party. If that doesn't hit the nail on the head, I don't know what does. Everyone wants to take credit for any seeming victory on the consumer front, and is ready to lambast the other side for any downturn in the economy or a dip in the housing market. The right blames the left for its inability to control spending, and the left thinks the right is only interested in helping millionaires make more money. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the middle.

On the issue of rising fuel costs, it has been stated by the current administration that supply is not an issue that effects price. In other words, increasing the supply of crude oil in this country, or in others for that matter will not change what we are paying at the pump. That has been the argument for not increasing the domestic production of oil in the last couple of years. There are numbers to suggest that domestic production has in fact increased, based on the number of operating leases today versus when President Obama took office, and I believe that is the case. But it is my understanding that many of those newer leases were in fact approved by President Bush and are just now coming into effect. But if our ability to harvest our own oil reserves has improved and prices are still rising, then that might support the administration's claims.

Let's look at the theory behind the claim though, and see if that really is sound. I will not lecture on the benefits of supply-side economics or extoll the virtues of free markets partially because it's beyond the scope of this blog, and beyond the understanding of its author. But the basics are something I can grasp. Suppose that you had in your possession a half-gallon of Blue Bell ice cream. I don't do a lot of shopping, but I think that goes for about $5 at the store. Now also suppose you grabbed the last of the mint chocolate chip (my favorite) and there are suddenly 3 people behind you that also came into the store to buy that ice cream. They all have great stories, kid's birthdays or a sick relative, so you can't be swayed by one individual story. One of them offers you $6. You are thinking you're pretty happy with just going home with your ice cream. Then another offers you $7. $8. $10 and so on until you are compelled to sell to the highest bidder because the offer is too good to pass up. If there had been a significant supply of ice cream in the store, the price would have remained $5. Or even better, if they had ordered too much, they might have had to sell it at a lower price to get it to sell before it expired. In this way, supply and demand are linked. This is just looking at the supply side of things, and there is a demand component as well, but for simplicity let's just look at supply.

If this makes sense to you, then that means that the current administration hasn't done a good enough job selling it's side of the story. Increasing oil production in this country will in fact help to keep the price of fuel lower than it might be otherwise. I will freely admit that I have oversimplified things in this example, national politics and nuclear arms do not often affect the price of Blue Bell, although if I wasn't able to get my hands on some I might make a scene. But it certainly is food for thought the next time you are at the pump. Do I believe what I am hearing from our elected representatives? Or do I believe what makes logical sense?

Ann Coulter may have a point

Much has been made about the upcoming Republican nomination for President and the gentlemen involved in the race. Gingrich has the experience that will serve him well if he were nominated, while Paul has the budget sense this nation needs. Santorum is a solid choice for the social conservative, and Romney is a really nice guy. But is that all that we need to know? Of the four mentioned, Santorum and Romney have clearly distanced themselves from the pack and will in all likelihood divide the remaining delegates between them. So what does that mean for the current issue of the budget? Should we be concerned that Romney is all nice guy and won't have the sand to make the hard decisions to make this country fiscally solvent? In her blog from today, Ann Coulter discusses Romney's record as the head of state of North Korea, I mean Massachusetts and how he can help with our national spending problem.

This is a timely article in that it addresses one of the hot buttons for the upcoming election, the national budget. I mentioned in a previous that I lean towards the right and find myself agreeing with more conservative ideals, particularly from a fiscal standpoint, so I was interested to read how one of the Republican candidates for president might be able to get the US towards a balanced budget. Now, I don't think that Coulter means to say that based on his record we will definitely balance the budget, but he has a better track record as governor than Ronald Reagan does, and that is saying something. Coulter is usually addressing the conservative audience when she updates her blog or weighs in on national television programs and that is probably the case here. I have not independently verified her facts, but again she is syndicated nationally and has a good reputation in the journalist community on both the left and the right. While not going so far as to endorse Romney, she is highlighting how he can help with balancing the budget. Since she compares Romney with Santorum and even Reagan as governor of California, and how Romney was able to balance the budget in one of the bluest (most liberal) of states while it was largely controlled by democrats. Not only did he balance the budget, he cut taxes and tripled the size of the rainy day fund. It seems that he did this by increasing user fees for certain services such as hunting licenses, taking the bar, and court filings. He also created tax free holidays that increased spending in the private sector and shrunk the Health and Human Services department from 13 divisions to 4. It seems like all of these acts would translate to a national level and could really help our debt crisis. I am certainly no economist, but these plans do sound like fiscal policies I could get behind. Her assessment of his predicted course of action seems well thought out and very reasonable.

In her blog, Coulter states that we need Lizzie Borden in the White House. While I don't care for the comparison, I agree with her reasoning that based on his record as governor, Romney could very well be the man we need in Washington to work on the budget and rein in government spending. He has worked against a state assembly that didn't hold his views and that demonstrates to me that he can reach across the aisle, so to speak. She convinces me that from a budget standpoint, Romney is a very good choice for the Republican nomination for president.

Editorial critique of an article - The GOP’s gasoline alley

I an article today in the Washington Post, Dana Milbank discusses the Republican efforts to steer blame towards the Obama administration for rising fuel costs across the nation. This is a column labelled left-leaning by the paper and it is clear that Mr. Milbank is directing his comments to those that tend to be more liberal than conservative. I initially began reading this article because like all Americans I have been forced to pay a little more at the pump in recent months, although I have to admit life as it is for me currently dictates that I am not able to change driving habits as much as I might otherwise do. But I was a little disappointed in his explanation of the issues at hand and the lack of actual information he was providing. I know this is supposed to be an editorial Mr. Milbank, but there should be a little substance, don't you think? I agree that the issue of rising gas prices has been highly politicized, but that is certainly nothing new. I remember when H. Ross Perot was running for office in the 90's and he was vilified for his discussion of increasing gas prices to over $2/gallon to help offset government spending. All Mr. Milbank discusses is essentially how ludicrous Republicans are for blaming the current administration for higher prices at the pump. He describes that oil output has increased since 2008, and from what I understand that is the truth, largely due to the increase in active oil leases in the U.S. in that time period. What he fails to mention is that the majority (if not all - I can't find definitive information) of these new oil leases were approved by the Bush administration and have just gone into effect in the last few years.

Mr. Milbank also discusses the hypothetical situation of the U.S. shutting down production totally, and the effect that would have on the price of gas nationwide. Apparently, Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) put this question to Charles Drevna of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and used that as a platform to smear Democratic leadership, accusing them of actually wanting higher gas prices. When pressed, Drevna said that prices could tip $10/gallon at the pump. While I don't believe anyone actually wants higher prices, other than the backbone of OPEC nations, I do find it interesting that the current administration has been reluctant to approve the Keystone Pipeline, a project that would increase our oil producing capability significantly. 

The most disappointing point Mr. Milbank makes, however is the comment that follows, intimating that even if we, the 3rd largest producer of oil at 9.1 million barrels/day, shut down production completely we might not see prices similar to Europe, which range from $3.42-6.48 according to CNN. Not only does that display a lack of basic economic theory, it demonstrates that he is more intent on inflaming the issue than rationally looking for a solution. But he's a columnist, and opinions are his bread and butter. As he says in the closing lines of his piece, "In this fight, the facts don’t matter." Well said sir.

Embedded link to article

Gingrich: Obama is most dangerous president in American history


This article on Fox News highlights an issue that many see as central to the coming election. The security of the United States is being undermined by Barack Obama, according to GOP candidate Newt Gingrich. He criticizes the Obama administration's continuing pursuit of political correctness, even if it affects the security of the country in a negative manner. I have heard others make statements like this in recent months, and I worry that there may be some truth to them. The article mentions a recent suicide bombing attempt foiled by the FBI and the Ft. Hood shootings from last year and notes that the administration fervently avoids citing any religious involvement with either of these two events. Is it true that both of these events had nothing to do with religion? Possibly. I am sure that I cannot see into the minds of these criminals. But to avoid talking about the possibility to spare feelings is a dangerous road to go down. If there was no religious involvement, then that's fine, but it is important that the dangers associated with religious extremism, regardless of affiliation, are discussed and dealt with. 


I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. But I do want our elected officials to keep us safe.

Beginning at the beginning

I initially got interested in politics when I was very young. That is to say that I became aware of people debating issues and coming to terms when I was young. I remember when Ronald Reagan was elected I was devastated, but I didn't know why. I just couldn't believe it, my whole world was about to change. I was 4.

Looking back on Reagan's presidency, I feel that he did a pretty good job. By pretty good of course, I mean that he was one of the best presidents we have had. He ended the cold war, engineered an economic boom, and made America great again. Not that we hadn't been great, I feel that he just raised the bar. Most of my political ideology then comes from this time in my life. I remember the 80's being a wonderful time as a child, and I'm sure that contributes to my feelings as well.

I also remember loving the political cartoons of the time, especially Bloom County. I didn't understand everything that was discussed, but I sure was entertained. I go back and read those again now and still get enjoyment out of them, but of course now they make sense.

All that to say, I am a child of the 80's, I'm pretty conservative, and I look forward to learning more about our great country in these next several weeks!