Regulating Shoe Bombers & Financial Institutions

Flying has become more tedious and time consuming since passengers to remove their shoes as part of airport security. As most people are aware, this policy was put into place after Richard Reid, an amateur terrorist tried to set off a shoe bomb in an airplane. This highlights some fundamental problems with government regulation that are applicable to financial regulations. While the goals of terrorists are almost always irrational, their methods are not. When planning attacks, they take existing security measures into account, which means that the chances that they will utilize are shoe bombs are slim to none. Aspiring terrorist will now seek other means to terrorize air travellers or they will seek softer targets like sports stadiums and museums. And while intelligence operatives may be swift and effective, bureaucrats never move and change as fast as the individuals and organizations that they seek to regulate. By the time they have planned and implemented a new regulation, such as airport shoe checks, that regulation has already become outdated. And hence its only achievement will be to make air travel slower and more costly for airlines and travellers alike.

On a deeper level this represents the distinctly American obsession of seeking to eliminate uncertainty and risk by continuously expanding laws and regulation. In some instances these endeavors are successful, but a great many social and economic phenomena are by their nature in a constant state of flux and are beyond the control of static rules and regulations. In these cases, our focus should be on covert enforcement based on sound intelligence gathering. In other words, rather than burden all travellers with ineffective, security pantomimes, we should focus our monitoring and disrupting terrorist networks. And we must focus limited attention and resources on individuals who statistically pose a greater risk. This does not mean we should harass all Muslims; frisking an Elderly, Iranian Woman, just because she wears a hijab would be a waste of resources, because on three counts (age, national origin & gender) she does not pose a statistical risk. However, young men, like Richard Reid who attended radical mosques and madrases in London and Lahore fit the profile to a tee.

How do these principles apply to financial institutions? Take the real estate crash; by the time regulators made the mortgage market more "safe & secure," fraudulent or reckless investors had moved on to "softer targets." Crooks and excessive risk takers know that utilizing mortgages to realize illicit, high return gains is equivalent to a terrorist using a shoe bomb after the Richard Reid incident. In both cases, regulators are focusing their attention on preventing a specific set of behaviors. Knowing this, terrorists and financial criminals will seek new means or entirely new targets, leaving a rattled public to bear the costs of new regulations. While they may be warranted, such regulations will not protect the public from the next bomb or financial bubble. And if anything, in response to the financial meltdown, most banks are now erring on the side of caution, to the detriment of the general economy.

Numerous commentators cited the Bernie Madoff scandal as proof positive that we desperately needed more regulation of financial institutions. But, a closer look at the Madoff story shows that the problem was not a lack of laws, but failure to enforce existing laws. According to Wikipedia:

"Concerns about Madoff's business surfaced as early as 1999, when financial analyst Harry Markopolos informed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that he believed it was legally and mathematically impossible to achieve the gains Madoff claimed to deliver. According to Markopolos, he knew within five minutes that Madoff's numbers didn't add up, and it took four hours of failed attempts to replicate them to conclude Madoff was a fraud.[81] He was ignored by the Boston SEC in 2000 and 2001, as well as by Meaghan Cheung at the New York SEC in 2005 and 2007 when he presented further evidence. He has since published a book, No One Would Listen, about the frustrating efforts he and his team made over a ten-year period to alert the government, the industry, and the press about the Madoff fraud."

Rather than subject travellers and financial consumers, to new and more onerous laws, there are three things that government can do to protect the public from criminals and terrorists, be they corporate or Islamic in nature:

1) Profile: a business, such as Madoff's that consistently produced unsustainable rates of growth, over extended periods of times warranted a serious federal probe. To those who looked, the red flags abounded, much like they did with the shoe bomber.

2) More Responsive Investigators: If the SEC had responded to Mr. Markopolos's concerns in 1999, the Madoff scandal could have been avoided and investors may have exercised greater caution. We can assume that a combination of institutional sloth and a cosy relationship with investors contributed to the SEC's ineffectiveness. The same can be said of British Intelligence; why did they not better monitor Richard Reid and the other alienated young men who attended the Finsbury Mosque and later radical madrases in Pakistan?

3) Punishment: Corporate fraud and white collar crimes should be treated as harsh, if not harsher than less destructive street crime. The same should be done for any individual or organizations preaching violence in the name of Islam.

Of course we must always strive to put wise regulations into practice, to minimize risk and protect the public. But, we must avoid illusions that we can maintain safety and security by imposing undue burdens on the general public. Our efforts must be focused on intelligence gathering and targeted enforcement and avoid needlessly multiplying the number of regulations and bureaucracies that govern American life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

Our Standard of Living is Better Than Ever?

According to an article in USA Today, the standard of living in the United States has risen over the last 30 years, in spite of negative perceptions. This is a complex issue with some factors that support this position and some that contradict it. On the plus side, since 1980 the average income has risen from $24,079 to $40,454 (factoring in inflation). Home sizes have substantially increased and a vast array of items that were once considered luxuries are almost universal: televisions, telephones, cable, computers, cars and video games. On the down side, the cost of health care, housing and higher education have soared faster than inflation, fuelling a troubling growth in personal debt. All in all, I believe that we have experienced a modest net growth in living standards. The question is to what extent the inevitable onset of government austerity will effect living standards.

Our standard of living Is it better than ever?

Absolutely, but tough times have us thinking otherwise

By Dennis Cauchon

USA TODAY

When Richard Steckel was a kid, he had friends whose family put their refrigerator in the living room. So great was the status of a new, electrified icebox that it had to be displayed for all to see. "Who doesn't have a refrigerator today?" asks Steckel, 66, an Ohio State University economist. "People grossly underestimate our progress over time because of technology." The nation is recovering from its worst recession in decades and the unemployment rate is above 9%. Yet the nation's standard of living — by almost any standard — is better than ever, or close to it. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found only 31% of Americans thought they could live comfortably for less than $50,000 a year. One-fourth thought it would take $100,000 or more to make them comfortable. That's roughly the same result as when Americans were asked the same question in 1987, after adjusting for inflation. What's different today — what stretches the ordinary imagination — is how much richer we've become than at any time in the past. USA TODAY compared life today to 1980 to show how life has changed since Ronald Reagan was elected president and during the adulthood of Baby Boomers, the 77 million born from 1946 through 1964. The average annual income was $24,079 per person in 1980 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Last year, it was $40,454 per person. Not only has income grown, what's less obvious is how much better a lifestyle can be bought for the same amount of money — whether it's $25,000 or $100,000.

In 1980, 2.5 gigabytes of computer power cost $214,000 and consumed a room. Today, that capacity sells for $7 in a pinky-sized flash drive at Best Buy. The wealth of the computer era and other innovations have made this generation so prosperous that it's hard to remember what life was like not long ago. A typical new house today has 2,400 square feet and fewer people in it than the typical 1,700-square-foot new home of 1980. Today, Americans fly twice as many miles as in 1980 and own more vehicles than the nation has drivers. Yet the recession has changed our attitudes and expectations so many Americans don't feel as rich as they were several years ago or when they grew up. "People earning $200,000 a year are feeling and behaving like those with half that income," says Scott Spiker, chief executive of First Command Financial Services, an investment adviser that surveys consumer attitudes. Americans appear to have made a permanent adjustment toward frugality, Spiker says. "People are making a standard of living change, saying they don't have to live so far on the edge anymore," he says. Automakers see the change. Buyers are purchasing smaller cars to save money, then spending more on safety upgrades, entertainment systems and global positioning satellite systems, says Jeff Schuster, forecasting director for J.D. Power and Associates, an automotive research firm. "People are taking some of the savings from downsizing and luxury-ing up the vehicles," he says. "The buyer is saying, 'Maybe I don't need all the space, but I want the amenities.' " The shift to luxuries — which soon become everyday items — has been helped by a decline in the cost of food and clothing, partly the result of cheaper production overseas and discount retailers such as Wal-Mart. High unemployment and increased inequality has led to the perception that living standards aren't progressing as they should, Steckel says. "It doesn't mean much that you can buy a $10 shirt at Wal-Mart if you don't have a job," he says. Still, the average person spends about $1,000 a year on clothes today, the same as in 1980, even though incomes are higher and shirts cheaper. With basic items inexpensive, consumers have turned the flow of money to their quality of life: housing, health care and recreation.

Americans spent $5,438 per person on health care last year, up from $1,796 in 1980, after adjusting for inflation. The spending has paid off. A 50-year-old can expect to live three years longer than a person of that age in 1980. The chance of surviving cancer is way up; pollution is way down. Crime has fallen by two-thirds. Steckel, the economist, says our living standard has improved far more than economic numbers reveal. "Imagine what people would have once paid for aspirin? An enormous sum. Today, it's super-cheap, as are so many products," he says. Every year, Steckel asks his students how many expect to have a standard of living equal to their parents. Many students predict they'll be worse off. To imagine what living standards were not long ago here and are in much of the world, Steckel suggests they turn off their electricity. To really understand, he says, shut off the plumbing. Page 1A

America's Most Miserable Cities

Interesting article on America's top 20 miserable cities. I believe that not by chance, but largely by government policies, 8 of these cities are in sunny and (formerly) optimistic California. To a lesser degree Florida, Ohio and Michigan are overrepresented. And the areas are largely, but not exclusively blue cities. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly Chicago made the list, mainly because of its long commutes, high taxes, crime and corruption.

America's Most Miserable Cities

Kurt Badenhausen

Forbes Magazine

02.02.11

California has never looked less golden, with eight of its cities making the top 20 on our annual list. Arnold Schwarzenegger was sworn in as the governor of California at the end of 2003 amid a wave of optimism that his independent thinking and fresh ideas would revive a state stumbling after the recall of Gov. Gray Davis.

The good vibes are a distant memory: The Governator exited office last month with the state facing a crippling checklist of problems including massive budget deficits, high unemployment, plunging home prices, rampant crime and sky-high taxes. Schwarzenegger's approval ratings hit 22% last year, a record low for any sitting California governor. Located in the state's Central Valley, Stockton has been ravaged by the housing bust. Median home prices in the city tripled between 1998 and 2005, when they peaked at $431,000. Now they are back to where they started, as the median price is forecast to be $142,000 this year, according to research firm Economy.com, a decline of 67% from 2005. Foreclosure filings affected 6.9% of homes last year in the Stockton area, the seventh-highest rate in the nation, according to online foreclosure marketplace RealtyTrac.

Stockton's violent crime and unemployment rates also rank among the 10 worst in the country, although violent crime was down 10% in the latest figures from the FBI. Jobless rates are expected to decline or stay flat in most U.S. metro areas in 2011, but in Stockton, unemployment is projected to rise to 18.1% in 2011 after averaging 17.2% in 2010, according to Economy.com.

There are many ways to gauge misery. The most famous is the Misery Index developed by economist Arthur Okun, which adds unemployment and inflation rates together. Okun's index shows the U.S. is still is in the dumps despite the recent gains in the economy: It averaged 11.3 in 2010 (blame a 9.6% unemployment rate and not inflation), the highest annual rate since 1984. Our list of America's Most Miserable Cities goes a step further: We consider a total of 10 factors, things that people gripe about around the water cooler every day. Most are serious issues, including unemployment, crime and taxes. A few we factor in are not as critical, but still elevate people's blood pressure, like the weather, commute times and how the local sports team is doing.

One of the biggest issues causing Americans angst the past four years is the value of their homes. To account for that we tweaked the methodology for this year's list and considered foreclosure rates and the change in home prices over the past three years. Click here for a more detailed rundown of our methodology. Florida and California have ample sunshine in common, but also massive housing problems that have millions of residents stuck with underwater mortgages.

The two states are home to 16 of the top 20 metros in terms of home foreclosure rates in 2010. The metro area with the most foreclosure filings (171,704) and fifth-highest rate (7.1%) last year is Miami, which ranks No. 2 on our list of Most Miserable Cities. The good weather and lack of a state income tax are the only things that kept Miami out of the top spot. In addition to housing problems (prices are down 50% over three years), corruption is off the charts, with 404 government officials convicted of crimes this decade in South Florida. Factor in violent crime rates among the worst in the country and long commutes, and it's easy to understand why Miami has steadily moved up our list, from No. 9 in 2009 to No. 6 last year to the runner-up spot this year. California cities take the next three spots: Merced (No. 3), Modesto (No. 4) and Sacramento (No. 5). Each has struggled with declining home prices, high unemployment and high crime rates, in addition to the problems all Californians face, like high sales and income taxes and service cuts to help close massive budget shortfalls.

Last year's most miserable city, Cleveland, fell back to No. 10 this year despite the stomach punch delivered by LeBron James when he announced his exit from Cleveland on national television last summer. Cleveland's unemployment rate rose slightly in 2010 to an average of 9.3%, but the city's unemployment rank improved relative to other cities, thanks to soaring job losses across the U.S. Cleveland benefited from a housing market that never overheated and therefore hasn't crashed as much as many other metros. Yet Cleveland was the only city to rank in the bottom half of each of the 10 categories we considered. Two of the 10 largest metro areas make the list.

Chicago ranks seventh on the strength of its long commutes (30.7 minutes on average--eighth-worst in the U.S.) and high sales tax (9.75%---tied for the highest). The Windy City also ranks in the bottom quartile on weather, crime, foreclosures and home price trends. President Obama's (relatively) new home also makes the cut at No. 16. Washington, D.C., has one of the healthiest economies, but problems abound. Traffic is a nightmare, with commute times averaging 33.4 minutes--only New York is worse. Income tax rates are among the highest in the country and home prices are down 27% over three years. ....

http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/02/stockton-miami-cleveland-business-washington-miserable-cities.html

Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother

A thought provoking and controversial book came out that reflects on the undeniable connection between East Asian parenting styles and the high levels of academic achievement among Asian-American students. Those who believe that this is a stereotype should take five minutes and look up statistics on high school graduation, college attendance, income, incarceration and out-of-wedlock birth rates among Asian Americans. I believe it's obvious that these values are also major factors in the stellar economic rise of East Asian nations. The author, Amy Chua attributes this success to the focus on discipline, learning and achievement. On a deeper level, this represents what Mrs. Chua calls the "virtuous cycle," discipline leads to achievement, which creates a true sense of satisfaction. The idea that learning must be "entertaining" and "relevant,: which is endemic in the world of American education, is alien to this worldview.

In contrast, over the last 40 years, large segments of western society have simultaneously elevated self esteem to religious heights, while disconnecting it from real achievement. Predictably, academic and economic achievement in the west have stagnated, narcissism has flourished and I believe on a deeper level, self esteem is no more the better.

In no way am I idealizing East Asian Culture and depreciating modern, Western Culture; all cultures have their strengths and weaknesses, positive aspects and pathologies. I am merely stating that if we as a nation are serious about addressing our lackluster educational achievement, we should explore the successes and yes, the failures of other cultures.

Perhaps more interesting than the actual article were the public responses. Some responses were quite positive, but I was surprised by the visceral hostility, rather than thoughtful debate that Mrs. Chua's book provoked. In fact Rolling Stone Magazine published an article in which a court of public opinion charged her with being an "asshole." I suspect that this largely stems from the fact that Mrs. Chua has indirectly challenged major elements of the "progressive revolution" in culture, education and parenting that has reshaped American Society over the last forty years. More specifically, she has brought its failings to light. I say "failings" rather than "failure," because some of the changes have indeed been positive. For whatever benefits eroding parental and teacher authority and elevating self esteem may have brought, improved academic performance was not one of them. The mere success of Asian Americans is a challenge to the world view off progressives, who believe that the academic and economic output of different groups is merely a product of "racism" and "white privilege" and accordingly must be remedied by massive state intervention.

Those well read on American history will know that Chinese and Japan Americans faced appalling racism, legal restrictions and in some cases even lynchings. But, in the matter of a few decades they, by every indicator of health, social and economic welfare, have surpassed whites. On a deeper level, this must cause distress to the army of government bureaucrats and progressives whose very livelihood and sense of purpose depends on the notion that only through their intervention and activism can poor and marginalized populations survive, yet alone advance. The notion that values, choices and behaviors of individuals and groups are major factors in their welfare are anathema to this world view. But, amazingly the same progressives who (wisely) exercise skepticism when reading environmental research funded by oil companies, do not consider the possibility that research conducted by "public servants" and "activists" may also be tainted with self interest. I do not expect everyone to agree with this book, however I am hoping that it will spark self reflection and honest debate amont parents, teachers and politicians.

Tiger Mothers: Raising Children The Chinese Way

by Maureen Corrigan January 11, 2011 Amy Chua may well be nuts. What kind of a mother hauls her then-7-year-old daughter's dollhouse out to the car and tells the kid that the dollhouse is going to be donated to the Salvation Army piece by piece if the daughter doesn't master a difficult piano composition by the next day? What kind of a mother informs her daughter that she's "garbage"? And what kind of mother believes, as Chua tells readers she does, that: "an A- is a bad grade; ... the only activities your children should be permitted to do are those in which they can eventually win a medal; and ... that medal must be gold"? What kind of a mother? Why, a mother who's raising her kids the Chinese, rather than the Western, way. In her new memoir, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Chua recounts her adventures in Chinese parenting, and — nuts though she may be — she's also mesmerizing. Chua's voice is that of a jovial, erudite serial killer — think Hannibal Lecter — who's explaining how he's going to fillet his next victim, as though it's the most self-evidently normal behavior. That's the other gripping aspect of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother: There's method to Chua's madness — enough method to stir up self-doubt in readers who subscribe to more nurturing parenting styles. Trust me, Battle Hymn is going to be a book club and parenting blog phenomenon; there will be fevered debate over Chua's tough love strategies, which include ironclad bans on such Western indulgences as sleepovers, play dates, and any extracurricular activities except practicing musical instruments ... which must be the violin or piano. Hear An Interview With Amy Chua On 'Tell Me More' January 13, 2011 Battle Hymn Of The Tiger Mother

Add to Playlist Download The back story to Chua's memoir is this: She is the daughter of Chinese immigrants and is now a professor at Yale Law School and the author of two best-selling "big-think" books on free-market democracy and the fall of empires. When Chua married her husband, fellow Yale law professor and novelist Jed Rubenfeld, they agreed that their children would be raised Jewish and reared "the Chinese way," in which punishingly hard work — enforced by parents — yields excellence; excellence, in turn, yields satisfaction in what Chua calls a "virtuous circle." The success of this strategy is hard to dispute. Older daughter Sophia is a piano prodigy who played Carnegie Hall when she was 14 or so. The second, more rebellious daughter, Lulu, is a gifted violinist. Chua rode the girls hard, making sure they practiced at least three hours a day even on vacations, when she would call ahead to arrange access to pianos for Sophia in hotel lobby bars and basement storage rooms. Chua also rarely refrained from criticizing her daughters, and in one of the many provocative passages that fill her book, she explains: Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginable — even legally actionable — to Westerners. Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, "Hey fatty — lose some weight." By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of "health" and never ever mentioning the f-word, and their kids still end up in therapy for eating disorders and negative self-image. ... Western parents are concerned about their children's psyches. Chinese parents aren't. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently. As Chua admits, though, the Chinese model doesn't dwell on happiness, nor does it deal well with failure. (Some of the most hilarious parts of her memoir deal with her attempts to apply Chinese parenting methods to the family's two dopey Samoyed puppies.) I was on my living room couch, reading the end of Chua's memoir, when my 12-year-old daughter came downstairs and announced that she had "done enough reading" for one day and that since she had also practiced flute (for 15 minutes) she was going to kick back and watch TV — in this case, a made-for-TV Disney movie. Chua tartly sums up the stereotypically "Western" Disney plot this way: "In Disney movies," she says, the [studious kid] always has to have a breakdown and realize that life is not all about following rules and winning prizes, and then take off her clothes and run into the ocean or something like that. But that's just Disney's way of appealing to all the people who never win any prizes. Winning prizes gives you opportunities, and that's freedom — not running into the ocean." I looked over at my daughter and had mixed feelings about her just chillin' in front of the TV, rather than plugging away in that virtuous circle of enforced practice. I guess we won't be sending out the invitations for Carnegie Hall anytime soon. This is a story about a mother, two daughters, and two dogs. It's also about Mozart and Mendelssohn, the piano and the violin, and how we made it to Carnegie Hall. This was supposed to be a story of how Chinese parents are better at raising kids than Western ones. But instead, it's about a bitter clash of cultures, a fleeting taste of glory, and how I was humbled by a thirteen-year-old. Part One The Tiger, the living symbol of strength and power, generally inspires fear and respect. The Chinese Mother A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do: - attend a sleepover - have a playdate - be in a school play - complain about not being in a school play - watch TV or play computer games - choose their own extracurricular activities - get any grade less than an A - not be the #1 student in every subject except gym and drama - play any instrument other than the piano or violin - not play the piano or violin. I'm using the term "Chinese mother" loosely. I recently met a super-successful white guy from South Dakota (you've seen him on television), and after comparing notes we decided that his working-class father had definitely been a Chinese mother. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish, and Ghanaian parents who qualify too. Conversely, I know some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are notChinese mothers, by choice or otherwise. I'm also using the term "Western parents" loosely. Western parents come in all varieties. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that Westerners are far more diverse in their parenting styles than the Chinese. Some Western parents are strict; others are lax. There are same-sex parents, Orthodox Jewish parents, single parents, ex-hippie parents, investment banker parents, and military parents. None of these "Western" parents necessarily see eye to eye, so when I use the term "Western parents," of course I'm not referring to all Western parents — just as "Chinese mother" doesn't refer to all Chinese mothers. All the same, even when Western parents think they're being strict, they usually don't come close to being Chinese mothers. For example, my Western friends who consider themselves strict make their children practice their instruments thirty minutes every day. An hour at most. For a Chinese mother, the first hour is the easy part. It's hours two and three that get tough. Despite our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes, there are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting. In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that "stressing academic success is not good for children" or that "parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun." By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be "the best" students, that "academic achievement reflects successful parenting," and that if children did not excel at school then there was "a problem" and parents "were not doing their job." Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately ten times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams. This brings me to my final point. Some might think that the American sports parent is an analog to the Chinese mother. This is so wrong. Unlike your typical Western over-scheduling soccer mom, the Chinese mother believes that (1) schoolwork always comes first; (2) an A-minus is a bad grade; (3) your children must be two years ahead of their classmates in math; (4) you must never compliment your children in public; (5) if your child ever disagrees with a teacher or coach, you must always take the side of the teacher or coach; (6) the only activities your children should be permitted to do are those in which they can eventually win a medal; and (7) that medal must be gold. Excerpted from Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother by Amy Chua. Copyright 2010 by Amy Chua. Excerpted by permission of The Penguin Press. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/11/132833376/tiger-mothers-raising-children-the-chinese-way http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-people-vs-tiger-mom-amy-chua-20110318

Merry Winter Relfection by Jack Hunter

Very interesting piece by Jack Hunter in which he observes the contradiction seen in many western liberals who encourage other cultures to celebrate and express their religious traditions and myths, in the name of multiculturalism, yet are deeply disdainful of their fellow Americans who do so with their Christian Culture and Traditions. He ties this in with the belief of Guillermo Bernal, (an expert on the Mayans from The Mexican Autonomous University) that so many Americans are latching on to (their gross misinterpretation of) Mayan Myths and Traditions because their own myths and traditions have been so thoroughly exhausted. Agree or disagree with his beliefs, Mr. Hunter is always thought provoking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkeNRJe6THs&feature=related

The Scam of Social Conservatism by Jack Hunter

Social Conservative rhetoric has dissuaded many reasonable people from supporting conservative principles. Conservative commentator Jack Hunter points out that it has largely served as empty rhetoric that distracts from real policy issues, such as our growing national debt and irresponsible foreign policy. Listen and enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSkPYapXtLI

Conscientious, Anti-War Conservative: Jack Hunter

No one has done more to tarnish the reputation of conservative thought than thoughtless partisan hacks like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. The core conservative skepticism of government power was notably absent in their unconditional support for the GW Bush Administration. Had their loyalty lay with conservative principles, rather than the Republican Party, they would have criticized Bush for his out of control spending, irresponsible warfare and massive expansion of welfare. The behavior of much of the Republican Party and their mouth pieces has led many Americans to believe that militarism and aggressive foreign intervention are core conservative values, which is far from the truth. Historically, conservatives have been very vocal about their belief in the dangers of becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations.

Thankfully, there were some conscientious conservatives who were critical of the both parties support for military and domestic intervention. Among them Jack Hunter stands out; he has consistently pointed out the inconsistency of (so called) conservatives who declare that they are against "big government," yet support trillion dollar wars. With great clarity, he has expounded his belief that the warfare state is antithetical to conservative values of limited government and fiscal conservatism. Prolonged warfare always leads to an expansion in the size and scope of the federal government and an erosion of civil liberties. Mr. Hunter has questioned popular notions that the sole impetus for terrorism is a "hatred of our freedom," instead arguing that overly interventionist foreign policy is a more pertinent factor.

My greatest hope is that such critics will push the Republican Party away from its promotion of reckless domestic and foreign intervention towards real and not just rhetorical support of limited, constitutional government and fiscal responsibility. Until they reach that point, I will consider them almost as unworthy of my vote as their Democratic counterparts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMJ0TEnvUQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLpaz8tdLfI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsOOJT_LWws&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUB29dKu0k&feature=related