Wall Street Journal Polling Data

This is a great glimpse of how the candidates are faring among different demographic and geographic groups.

10 New Year's Wishes for 2008

1) No Hillary
2) No Obama
3) A New York Giants Super Bowl Victory
4) Status Quo on Health Care (if there’s a Democratic President and Congress)
5) Major comprehensive Health Care Reform (if the Republicans make a sweep)
6) A New York Yankees World Series Victory
7) A doubling of my blog’s readership (this will bring total eyeballs to 8. For any Democrats reading this, that’s 4 people)
8) Catch Osama
9) No nukes for Iran
10) A New York Times cease fire on Rudy

Can U.S. Troops Leave Iraq Anytime Soon?

After watching this video of American soldiers training Iraqi soldiers, the clear answer is: No, we're screwed.

Newt Gingrich On The Free Market vs. Government Bureaucracy

Newt makes his first appearance on The East Village Republican.

Are U.S. Sugar Quotas Making Us Fat?

This week WebMD reported that we are “Drinking ourselves to obesity -- Americans now get nearly twice as many calories from beverages as they did in the 1960s.” This isn’t surprising. Obesity rates have ballooned to over 30% of the adult population – double what they were in the early 1980s. But what’s changed about our beverages?

High Fructose Corn Syrup
Around the same time these obesity rates began to rise, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) started finding its way into many of our favorite food and drink products. Its critics call it the “Devil’s Candy” and it is thought of as one of the natural food movement’s evil-doers, along with MSG, Trans Fats, and Partially Hydrogenated Oil. HFCS sweetens obvious favorites like Coke, Pepsi, and Snapple iced tea, but it also lurks in unexpected places like Ritz crackers, Wonder bread, and Campbell’s tomato soup.

How Protectionism Brought Us HFCS
In the book, “Fat Land,” journalist Greg Critser makes the case that U.S. policies that aimed to stabilize food prices and support corn production in the 1970s led to a glut of corn and then HFCS. Anti free market trade legislation sought to protect domestic sugar producers from international markets, which in turn drove up the cost of sugar and made alternatives like corn-derived sweeteners very attractive to food and beverage makers. An article in the Economist summed up the situation well: "Outrageous import quotas keep the domestic price of sugar at double that of the world price."

This is clearly a case of protectionism for the benefit of powerful domestic producers and is simply bad policy. U.S. steel quotas illustrates the issue well. When the government protected the steel industry from foreign competition, the price of steel skyrocketed. Shielded by this false market mechanism, the steel business appeared healthy and employment grew. But trade restrictions neither create nor destroy jobs; they reallocate them. Employment in businesses using steel, like auto and appliance manufacturers, paid higher prices and lost their ability to compete in international markets. For the American consumer, the cost of a Chevy was now more expensive (or lower quality) due to the higher prices that General Motors had to pay for steel. A cheaper, higher quality Toyota suddenly became a very attractive option. Ultimately, output and employment shrank in the U.S. automobile business and offset any gains in the steel industry.

But how did bad trade policy drive American obesity rates?

No simple explanation
The answer is a bit tricky. Like everyone else, I’ve been hearing all the bad things about HFCS. The story goes like this:

1. Its introduction strongly correlates with obesity rates
2. The body processes the fructose differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to deliver more fat into the bloodstream.

But according to an article in the NY Times,

“the name "high-fructose corn syrup" is something of a misnomer. It is high only in relation to regular corn syrup, not to sugar. The version of high-fructose corn syrup used in sodas and other sweetened drinks consists of 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose, very similar to white sugar, which is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose. The form of high-fructose corn syrup used in other products like breads, jams and yogurt — 42 percent fructose and 58 percent glucose — is actually lower in fructose than white sugar.”

The hypothesis has been mistaken for sound science, as most scientists believe the idea that HFCS is bad for us is tenuous at best.

What about the strong correlation between obesity rates and HFCS?
HFCS is responsible, but indirectly. Around the same time sugar quotas made HFCS a very cheap alternative, consumer behavior began to undergo significant changes. Manufacturers were able to makes lots of sweet stuff on the cheap and Americans officially entered into its Super Size Me mentality. The same NY Times article reports:

“From 1980 to 2000, per-person consumption of sweetened soda rose by 40 percent, to 440 12-ounce cans a year, according to the Agriculture Department's Economic Research Service. During roughly the same period, the inflation-adjusted price of soda declined by about one-third, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

“In 1983, for example, 7-Eleven rolled out its 44-ounce soda and, in 1988, the huge 64-ounce. And McDonald's began supersizing its drinks in the late 80's.”

Who knows?
So we’ve basically got a bunch of hypotheses, but it’s highly possible that the nutritional value (or lack thereof) of HFCS isn’t making us fat, but the overwhelming prevalence of cheap, over-sweetened food and beverage products that Americans consume on a yearly basis.

Our inability to control our appetite for sweets isn’t grounds for making U.S. trade policy, but it is certainly an example of the unintended consequences of barriers to the free market. The protection of one resource may tilt the balance towards another, often with poor results.

The Wing Suit

Check out this piece in the New York Times about the wing suit, an amazing invention that could replace the parachute some day.

If diplomacy fails, perhaps we'll be landing in Tehran with these things in ten years.

Two Funny Brits Explain the Subprime Mess

This is from the award-winning satirical British TV show, "Bremner, Bird and Fortune." It's actually quite informative.

Rappin' bout Econ 101

Sean Penn, are you listening?

This NY Times Op-Ed from the former commander in chief of the Venezuelan Army says Hugo Chavez has democracy on the retreat in Caracas:

"Venezuela will thrive only when all its citizens truly have a stake in society. Consolidating more power in the presidency through insidious constitutional reforms will not bring that about."

What Trent Lott's Retirement Says About U.S. Politics

This is an interesting article from Wednesday’s Washington Post, about Minority Whip Trent Lott’s retirement and the Senate’s fading ability to compromise across party lines.

The piece states, “A major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws went down in flames. Just two of a dozen annual spending bills passed Congress, and one of those was vetoed. Repeated efforts to force a course change in Iraq ended in recrimination and stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) filed 56 motions to break off filibusters to try to complete legislation, a total that is nearing the record of 61 such "cloture motions" in a two-year Congress.

“Lott's departure from Capitol Hill in the coming weeks after 34 years in Congress -- 16 in the House, 18 in the Senate -- is further evidence that bonhomie and cross-party negotiating are losing their currency, even in the backslapping Senate.”

The truth is, the legislature isn't becoming partisan – it’s been that way for a long time. But it does feel like we’re living in a totally polarized political environment. Perhaps my view is skewed because I live in the East Village, in New York City -- the locus of liberalism on the East Coast.

I once worked next to a copywriter who would have loud daily conversations with his work partner likening Israel to Al-Qaeda, wishing for centralized government, and spewing hateful 9/11 conspiracies about President Bush and Dick Cheney. I'd overheard enough one day and defended some reasonable conservative ideals. I suddenly became branded throughout the company as a right-wing nut. In fact, the Chief Creative Officer, who I was friendly with, came up to me at a work function and said, “I never would have thought you were a Republican … you seemed … so normal.” I keep my name off this blog because it would be bad for my career.

To be fair, I’m sure the same scenario in reverse occurs in Lubbock, Lincoln, and Salt Lake. But it tells me that we’re spreading further apart on issues that used to be considered private or local. Many of today’s key debates were once deemed the domain of individuals, families, towns, and states. They’ve unfortunately become national and are consistently shaped by those on the margins –- left and right. I’m a die hard conservative on fiscal policy, foreign policy, and ideas about government’s role in our lives, but I believe that reasonable people, red and blue, can come to some consensus about topics like immigration, social security, and abortion.

Even better, perhaps our national debates on these hot button issues should be kicked back to the local level and not be national at all. Should we have really been discussing the fate of Terry Schiavo on a national scale? Do we really need federal government dictating appropriate sexual health lessons in schools when needs are different in Vermont, Harlem, and Kansas? Conversely, why can’t I decide what to do with my retirement funds? The dead-on-arrival plan to invest 3% of our own SS money in a private account is not that radical.

This polarization of politics shows me that we shouldn't be leaving everything up to the politicians. I don't want a bunch of backslapping, pork-slopping legislators deciding what the future of healthcare looks like for my generation. The Bridge to Nowhere is not just in Alaska. In the incompetent hands of beaurocrats, it potentially leads to our future as well.

Who Can Make Middle East Peace?

George Bush graces the cover of this week’s Economist with the headline, “Mr. Palestine: The only man who could make it happen.”

This is part of a news cycle that’s about to begin around the upcoming Middle East peace summit. The conference begins tonight in Washington, D.C. and then moves to Annapolis, Maryland. Top American, Israeli and Arab officials including President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and representatives from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries will attend.

My concern about the Economist’s coverline is that it is based on flawed logic. The world loves to blame the Bush administration’s lack of engagement on the Middle Eastern conflict as the major barrier to peace. Roger Cohen of the NY Times, said, “While the Bush administration looked away, Israelis and Palestinians lost sight of each other.” But an understanding of the conflict’s history leads me to believe that no American – specifically, no American President – could mediate peace as did Teddy Roosevelt during the Russo-Japanese War.

American lack of engagement is not responsible for the historical “No” that the Arab world has delivered each time peace was in the balance. In 1937 the Peel Commission report offered a two-state solution. The Jews said yes, the Palestinians said no. In 1947 there was another offer of a contiguous Palestinian state and a non-contiguous Jewish state. Again, the Jews said yes and the Palestinians said no. And in the fall of 2000, with Bill Clinton toiling for peace at Camp David, Israel offered 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, a capital in Jerusalem, control of East Jerusalem, control of the Temple Mount, 30 billion dollars in a compensation package, and symbolic return of several thousand refugees. Again, the Palestinians said no and launched wave after wave of suicide attacks. Clinton, perhaps the most engaged president we’ve ever seen on this issue, wrote that after Arafat decided to walk away from the summit and suspend negotiations, the PLO leader paid him the following compliment for his efforts: "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."

The Economist states that, “Mr. Bush has it in his power to turn Annapolis into a significant step towards peace. All he has to do is pluck up the courage and make the right speech.” The problem here is that the right speech is not going to stop Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Arab world from believing that Israel does not have the right to exist. This is a fundamental chasm that no amount of negotiation can gap.

Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said recently that the Palestinians would never formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"Israel can define itself however it sees fit; and if it wishes to call itself a Jewish state, so be it," he said in an interview with the satellite station Al-Arabiya. "But the Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity."

When this type of sentiment comes from the “moderate” side of the negotiating table, one wonders how peace will ever be possible. In my mind, it can only be possible when the Palestinians and the Arab world decide to make it happen. They must choose: Is this a land dispute or a challenge to Israel’s existence? If the issue is the existence of Israel, no amount of negotiating, bullying, or interim trust-building measures are going to solve the problem.

Of course, in the hope that it is truly a geographic disagreement, Israel and the U.S. need to be willing to negotiate. But let’s understand the issues before setting the Bush Administration up for inevitable failure. In December of 2006, Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed in the NY Times called Mideast Rules to Live By. The list is an insightful and world-weary take on the Middle East maelstrom and offers the following as its final rule:

Rule 15: Whether it is Arab-Israeli peace or democracy in Iraq, you can’t want it more than they do.

Chuck Norris Hearts Huckabee in the Best Political Ad of All Time

Mike Huckabee, the populist social conservative dark horse from Arkansas, has been stirring up the masses in Iowa recently. Against the odds, he's ascended to the number-two Republican spot in the Hawkeye state just 45 days from the caucus. But when I saw that he was getting ready to release his first television ad there today, starring Chuck Norris, I thought his time might be up. This guy has had a good run, I thought, but he appears to be a half-step away from announcing that David Hasselhoff will be managing his campaign from here on out.

Then I watched the ad. I now believe that this man will be the next president of the United States. It is simply the coolest political ad in the history of political advertising. We have all underestimated this man in a bad, bad way. See for yourself, but an ordained Baptist minister who uses Walker, Texas Ranger in an ad while essentially interviewing for the biggest job of his life has my utter and complete respect.

Now, if only he'd drop his anti-free trade beliefs, populist fiscal policy, and pro-social conservative agenda, he might have my vote as well.

Income Mobility Data Shows that American Dream is Alive and Well

Income inequality clearly exists in this country, but it is less of a problem than populists like John Edwards and Mike Huckabee will have you believe. This chart shows that those on the bottom (i.e. immigrants, the poor, the young) have been able to lift themselves into new income groups by a significant rate. In fact, everyone but the top 5% and top 1% have shown overall upward mobility over the past decade.

John Edwards believes that there are indeed two Americas, with one playing in a "rigged system," but it's the rich that have lost median income. Those at the bottom and the middle have proven that merit and not heavy-handed government redistribution get you closer to the American Dream.

The Supply-Side Election

Supply-side principals like low taxes, minimal regulation, and free-trade simply work. These principals work in the United States, but also in Ireland, Estonia, and around the world. I hope enough people keep this in mind next November as supply-side values are at stake. These are not ideas that will be supported by a Hillary Clinton White House.

NY Times Buries News About American Victory in Baghdad

I found this article about American victory in Baghdad while trolling the deep waters of The NY Times online news links. You'd think such good news would be a featured, front page article. You'd at least think that it would be featured on the "World" news page. It was neither. Rather, it was hidden beneath the fold in the "World" news link depot on the bottom left of the screen.

This is The NY Times editorializing the news at its worst. It's not always what you say, but rather how and where you say it that tilts a story.

Meanwhile, this news is nowhere to be found in today's paper. I guess American victory in Iraq is not a story the Times is interested in telling. The news editors at the Times should save their leftist opinions for the op-ed page and trust its readers to make up our own minds on the war.

Misleading Health Care Numbers

Greg Mankiw wrote a piece in today's NY Times that calls many accepted beliefs on health care into question: Beyond Those Health Care Numbers.

I'm not saying we need to yank coverage away from those who are in desperate need, but I certainly don't think that we'd be better off with a European health care model. Think about what it's like when you go to the DMV. Now think about what it would be like if you had to go to the DMV when you needed care. They can barely take a good polaroid of your face, how well do you think they'll do when they take an MRI of your brain?

Ear today, gone tomorrow

With all that's going on in the world today:

• The Red Sox won another World Series (bad)
• The Yankees hired Joe Girardi (good)
• There's talk about tax hikes (bad)
• And tax cuts (good)
• There was a major bombing in Iraq (bad)
• The fires in California are mostly contained (very good)

This is the news item that reminded me that life is sometimes a Kurt Vonnegut novel:


Chopper pulled by ear

The New York Times Advocates a Tax Hike, but Low Taxes Work

The New York Times ran an opinion piece on taxes and national healthcare that is clearly the antidote to a healthy economy. It’s scary to think that this is the type of view that a Democratic president would champion. The Times says:

“This country’s meager tax take puts its economic prospects at risk and leaves the government ill equipped to face the challenges from globalization.

"Germans…paid more in taxes, as a share of their economies.”

But when you look at what makes an economy tick, it’s generally low taxes, limited regulation, and a fair system of justice. Major tax cuts have historically proven that individuals - champions of innovation and limitless human ingenuity - drive positive and robust growth when government is not overbearing. For example, Kennedy’s major tax overhaul, Reagan’s supply-side reform, and Bush’s 2003 program, show cutting taxes, not raising them is the handmaiden of success. Take a look at the three charts at the top, which show revenue, employment, and GDP growth since the Bush cuts were enacted. The third box also shows that the middle class is not shouldering this burden. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Think this only works in the United States? In a 2005 op-ed, Thomas Friedman extolled the virtues of lowering taxes in Ireland, a perennial bottom-feeder.

This is what he had to say:

“Ireland today is the richest country in the European Union after Luxembourg…while those following the French-German social model are suffering high unemployment and low growth…a program of fiscal austerity, slashing corporate taxes to 12.5 percent, far below the rest of Europe...And overall government tax receipts are way up.”

Growth and innovation are on the march in the land of St. Pat's. The world is certainly flat when Dell, Intel, and other corporate captains of industry call Ireland home. Among other things, they were both attracted by “low corporate taxes.”

The Times is also a proponent of a Hillary Clinton-type national healthcare:

“From universal health insurance to decent unemployment insurance, other rich nations provide their citizens benefits that the United States government simply cannot afford.

“The consequences include some 47 million Americans without health insurance and companies like General Motors being dragged to the brink by the cost of providing workers and pensioners with medical care.”

Greg Mankiw, professor of economics at Harvard University counters this perspective nicely:

"What the Times seems to be saying is that because companies like General Motors have promised levels of compensation too large to make them competitive in the international marketplace, we should shift the responsibility for some of that compensation from the companies to the taxpayer. An alternative approach is for the companies to reduce compensation to levels they can afford. One might respond that reduced compensation would be hard on workers. But so would the higher taxes needed to pay for the national health insurance the Times is lobbying for. There is no free lunch here."

As economies in the 21t century become more knowledge and information based, successful governments will allow individuals to flourish and promote a light-footprint approach. Heavy-handedness will only serve to stifle both rich and poor alike.

The Libyans!

On Tuesday, October 15th, the 192 members of the U.N. Assembly voted to make Libya a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. This January 1st, the country will begin a two-year stint joining the five permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

Has the world gone nuts? Aren't these the same Libyans that, in Back to the Future, killed Doc in the mall parking lot while driving around like maniacs with rocket launchers in a VW van? Yeah, I know, Doc stole their plutonium, but it was the only way to reach the 1.21 gigawatts necessary to power the flux capacitor. Take a look at the clip below and decide for yourself whether or not they deserve to be on the U.N. Security Council:

Can Nobel Prize winners in Economics explain my 96 cent phenomenon today?

The Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to three American economists today for creating and developing a sophisticated explanation of the interaction among individuals, markets and institutions.

Link here: 3 Americans Win Nobel in Economics

But they can't explain the fact that my day today was highlighted by a once in a lifetime phenomenon. I left my office in midtown New York and grabbed a soup & sandwich for lunch at the Hale & Hearty on 54th street. The total came to something and 4 cents and the woman annoyingly returned a handful of change tallying 96 cents. I lugged it around all day until on my way home I stopped in my corner store in the East Village to buy a magazine and a jar of peanut butter. The cost? $10.96!!! I threw down a ten, scooped the 96 friggin' cents from my pocket and smiled all the way home.

Joy comes in the smallest ways...

Jon Stewart is a smug weenie

I watched Jon Stewart when he hosted the very first talk show on MTV. I 'd never heard of him before, but I found him funny, irreverent, and, well, likeable. Unfortunately, the show got yanked and he ended up doing a late-night show that replaced Arsenio Hall on channel 9 in NY. It didn't last that long, but he'd made his mark and his career would soon take off big time.

His big breakthrough came when he replaced Craig Kilborn as the new host of the Daily Show on Comedy Central in 1999. Again Stewart was great and we all know what it's become (It won an Emmy in 2001). But it's been down hill ever since. I can't really watch it anymore. Jon Stewart went from funny and original to smug and predictable.

I'll admit upfront that I disagree with his politics. I'm a Republican and he's obviously a very far-left-leaning liberal. But it shouldn't matter in comedy. A good joke is a good joke, even if you don't necessarily like who's at the butt. But Stewart has become a one-note band. The definition of a joke is the delivery of something incongruous or unexpected. Yet I know what's going to come out of Stewart's mouth every time: Iraq's a bungled mess, Bush is dumb, Cheney is secretive and evil, the Republicans are hypocrites. Yeah he'll make fun of Hillary every now and then, but it's never as biting; never venomous.

I really wish the Daily Show could still keep us on our toes. Give us a little misdirection once in a while and say something awful about Barack Obama or Harry Reid. Not be so damn obvious all the time. Even its comedic offspring (Stephen Colbert) has an act of pseudo-conservatism that's predictable and tired.

The worst part for me is that Stewart used to be a great interviewer. But he's lost credibility with his softballs to Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky and his obvious disgust for anyone he disagree with. Even when Mr. Stewart is "trying" to be cordial (see below clips of guest Lynne Cheney), he comes across as a smug weenie. To me, he even came across as a jerk when he called Tucker Carlson a "dick." I wasn't even a fan of CNN's Crossfire and I essentially agree with Stewart's premise that America needs less far right/far left screaming matches, but I saw the smugness that day and it's only gotten worse since then.

Much of the bloggeratti feel like Stewart may have gone "easy" on Mrs. Cheney the other day, but I think he couldn't help but let the weenie come out just a little bit. His assertion that six years without an attack on American soil is meaningless because "they" waited "eight years between WTC attacks last time" is simply absurd. I'm not saying that things are great over in the Mid-East, but let's get real about how this war started (EVERYONE, including Bill Clinton, the U.N., the French, and the Russians thought Hussein had WMD) and let's get real about what that part of the world, in fact, what the entire world could be like should we hit the reset button and get out. I guarantee it would be a million times worse both long and short term with more American lives sacrificed home and abroad.

Anyway, Cheney is sweet as can be and Stewart is just annoying in the clips below (it gets pretty bad in pt. 2). See for yourself:

"It's real fast and then you stop."

I thought I'd try to tie this video into American politics, but I just came up with a few bad Larry Craig jokes. Hey, name another Republican that would laugh at this video. Well, enjoy courtesy of The Whitest Kids You Know:

Soiled Pinstripes

I'm sitting on my couch, watching the Yankees/Indians game (down 2 games to 1 and 9 outs away from the Torre era coming to an end) and feeling sick to my stomach. My buddy J sent me a photo message showing his new baby girl in a cute Yankees uniform. It may have been his way of saying that if you're wearing a Yankees uniform, you've probably got poop in your pants.

Here's the office version of this Yankees meltdown from The Whitest Kids You Know:

9/10 Is Over

Much of the media, led by The New York Times, continues to accuse the Republican candidates, particularly Rudy Giuliani, of running on the back of September 11th. A couple of recent examples:

"Giuliani...cannot simply keep muttering “9/11 ... 9/11 ... 9/11” until February."

And here in Thomas Friedman's September 30th column.

Friedman’s conclusion is that “9/11 has made us stupid…We need a president for 9/12.” His premises are below:

• Our government is exporting fear; Guantanamo = lower tourism

• Bad infrastructure: The Minnesota bridge and bad cellular service vs. European cell service

I’m perplexed at the connections Friedman makes to arrive at his “9/11 made us stupid” conclusion. Is weak tourism really something that should be playing a role in our foreign policy decisions? In my mind, being at war with an enemy depends on the exportation of fear. This isn’t a friendly soccer match; we’re up against perhaps the biggest threat in the history of our nation. We want the bad guys to be scared. By the way, check out this article from Slate, which sites an average 13 lb. weight gain and a fondness for bagels (how ironic) by the prisoners. Poor them.

And someone needs to help me understand how our “9/11 stupidity” has anything to do with local infrastructure issues. Is George Bush responsible for the inefficiency of state government? It seems that Friedman infers that living in "9/12" means doing things the European way. The idea that the federal government should be held accountable for EVERYTHING is ludicrous. We live in a federalist society in which there is a relationship between city, state, and federal authority, and we need to stop blaming the Iraq War for hurricanes, tsunamis, and dropped phone calls.

Friedman and many of those who share his voice are actually stuck in the world of 9/10. This is naive and irresponsible. It shows a lack of understanding for the world that tore into us on 9/11. Pretending we’re not up against an existential threat isn’t going to make people like us more, hold up our bridges better, or make our cars more environmentally friendly. Let’s let the government focus on keeping us safe and let the free markets determine whether or not we want better cell service.

Burn the American Flag Pin

Barack Obama might as well have played a round of golf with Hugo Chavez. Smoked a stogie with Fidel. The New York Times is reporting that he has removed the American Flag pin from his lapel!

In this campaign making story, Obama states, "My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart."

Yeah, well my sources are telling me that the real reason is that he's sick and tired of stabbing himself trying to get it on every morning. Perhaps he feels his heart is bleeding enough on its own.

I may be a Republican, but I hope Obama's bold move sets an example for the rest of our elected officials. If any of you are reading this, please, take off the pin. It doesn't make you more American. It makes you more dorky. They're made in China anyway.

Samberg Hearts Mahmoud

Maybe a little Astroglide will help ease international tensions...

Great Nike Ad

This is one of the best spots i've seen in a long time. It's a Nike football ad that shows dramatic, almost video game-like footage of Shawn Merriman and Stephen Jackson battling their opponents, the weather, and gravity itself. It's done by Wieden & Kennedy, who've long been making some of the most sensational and epic commercials in the business. Turn up the sound, you might recognize the music from Last of the Mohicans, which is beautifully juxtaposed against the raw power of the game of football. Just awesome.

Verizon vs. Pro-Abortion Group

My response to a comment left about the recent Verizon issue:

What do you think about the recent news about Verizon refusing to allow NARAL-Pro Choice America to use its service for some sort of campaign? This made big news, then within days, Verizon changed its mind and decided to work with the pro-abortion group. What do you think about that?

-hobbiewho

This is an interesting issue. From my point of view there are several values at stake here. If you asked me if I morally agreed with Verizon’s actions, I’d tell you that I think it’s ridiculous that they’d prohibit speech that is intended for those whom have signed up to receive these texts.

Legally though, the company is probably within its rights to ban this type of transmittance. Verizon has said that they have traditionally avoided “advocacy issues” like abortion or war. It’s a private company and it can do what it wants. The 1st amendment protects speech from government censorship only.

This is why the salient point here is that this is mostly a business issue. First and foremost, Verizon is a business whose sole objective is their bottom line. We must consider whether the company made a smart business decision by banning this type of speech from its network. This is a perfect example of the beauty of free markets. Verizon made a decision that was based on something other than profit and the market spoke. Who knows if it would have picked up steam, but why risk alienating millions of paying customers by taking a toothless moral stand? Should they also ban people from having phone conversations about this topic on their network?

It’s similar to the recent NY Times controversy over the MoveOn.org ad. The Times was well within its rights to run the ad, but ultimately it was a bad business decision. It only served to bring more attention to the charge that it’s a partisan organization for allowing anti-war advocacy advertising, but not pro-life advertising, with which it editorially disagrees. Was the Times legally wrong? Nope. Did they make a bad business move? Yep.

Just Beat It

One more note from the Democratic debate two nights ago...

Russert, playing his favorite gotcha game with flip-flopping politicians, posed the following question/scenario to Mrs. Clinton:

“I want to move to another subject, and this involves a comment that a guest on ‘Meet the Press’ made,” Russert said. “I want to read it, as follows: ‘Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in al Qaeda. We know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.’”

Russert asked the candidates to comment. Obama said he wouldn’t torture the prisoner under any circumstances. So did Sen. Joseph Biden. Then Russert turned to Sen. Clinton. “Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?” he asked.

“You know, Tim, I agree with what Joe and Barack have said,” Clinton answered. “As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period….These hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it’s dangerous to go down this path.”

Russert then pulled the rug: “The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year."

Bill has it right.

Look, I can see why these candidates are opposed to admitting on national television that they advocate torture. But wouldn't it be reasonable for a serious presidential candidate to say, "I believe that torture is a despicable thing. And 999 times out of a thousand, I'm against it. And I definitely DO NOT believe it should be part of a policy to retrieve information. But I DO feel that in the case stated by the former president, an exception could be made.”

If you caught someone involved in kidnapping your child and knew that if he didn't give you information your child might be molested, injured, or killed, you would use ANY tactics necessary to get the information out of him. The same goes for a terrorist and a dirty bomb in New York, LA, or Chicago.

Any president that refused to “beat it out of him,” within the context of mass murder, should be impeached, charged as an accomplice to murder, and thrown in jail.

The world is sometimes a very ugly and dark place, but ignoring this fact is not going to make it better.

Hello

I'd like to introduce myself. I've been in New York since 2000 and moved to the East Village in 2002. I work at a well known advertising agency and have been in the ad business since 1999.

I plan to use these pages to discuss politics and foreign affairs, but I'll also talk about sports and pop culture. While I'm one of a million Yankees fans in the city, I promise you that I've never met another conservative in my neck of the woods in all the years I've been here. South of 14th and east of 3rd is a bastion of the most leftward-leaning folks in the entire nation. Per capita, there are more Che Guevara T-shirts than any other form of currency or legal tender, and I plan to write about the world from the perspective of a lonely Republican in the East Village.

One other thing before I sign off my first post. I'm not your typical establishment Republican. If you've read P.J. O'Rourke or listened to Dennis Miller, you might know where I'm coming from. I'm into free markets, free choice, and know that we've got no choice but to have the strongest military in the world and be unafraid to use it wisely. I did say wisely.

Thanks for reading.

The East Village Republican