February 14, 2006
My Kind of Pachyderm
It is not often that I, as a proud Texan, have any cause to be jealous of those north of the Red River. I am now jealous though of those residing in the 68,667 sq. mi. known as Oklahoma. What could possibly give rise to such an ugly emotion? Well it certainly isn't their schools or their football teams, it is their junior Senator, Tom Coburn (R-OK).
He is my kind of pachyderm. A fiscal conservative not afraid to make it known that what is currently going on up on the Hill is just plain wrong, Coburn has recently teamed up with the perennial thorn in the Republicans foot, John McCain. Now, I don't especially care for McCain, but he is good at making noise and getting whatever agenda he is pushing out in the public eye, so it is good to see Coburn taking advantage of the McCain loudspeaker to bring attention to the issue of earmarks, or as it is more properly termed, pork.
Apparently so many of his fellow members have questioned if he was serious about ending this grotesque practice, he saw fit to answer them via this letter in the Wall Street Journal. Included in the letter was this:
Nowhere in our founding documents is a justification for today's out-of-control earmarking. In fact, Madison and the other framers were clear that the general welfare clause of the Constitution should never be construed as a blank check for Congress. Pork is a modern indulgence, not an ancient or noble tradition.
Personally, I would think that such an obvious point would not need to be explained to his fellow Republicans, but apparently it was. Of course, he wasn't totally on base in the letter. His assessment of pork is off base:
Pork is the root cause of the unholy relationship between some members of Congress, lobbyists and donors.
Pork is not a cause, it is a symptom of the overreaching hand of modern government in our country. It is only natural that when the government sees fit to relentlessly increase its reach into the private realm, that those affected by the government actions will see the need to do everything within their abilities to ensure that government action benefits, rather than harms them.
Naturally, once politicians get a taste for the perks the wielding of their power brings, they become more and more willing to use that power to get more perks. But the perks aren't just those slipped to them by various lobbyists, they also figured out very quickly that they could get perks from their constituents (in the form of votes) for "bringing home the bacon." Once that cat was out of the bag, there was virtually no stopping it.
The only hope that Coburn has is to shine as much light on this as possible. Shame is his weapon, hopefully he will wield it well. If so, he will become my second favorite Republican, behind Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
Authored by Liberty Dog
Update: In one of the comments, I was reminded that I am still new here and most of you still don't know my politics. Having forgot that, I failed to point out that this post was meant as an endorsement of only Sen. Coburn's fiscal policies, not his social ones, which as a libertarian, I do not subscibe to.
Posted by Woody at February 14, 2006 09:10 AM | TrackBackWoody, I read about this gent a couple of days ago. I was so impressed that I looked up his website, and though not "my" senator...in a larger sense, he's all our senator, as they all are ("do what's best for the country philosophy vice do what my own state likes so I can get re-elected" kind of deal."). So, I sent a short thank you, applause and mega accolades. Maybe no one will read it. If read, it will only be a staffer. However, if enough people weigh in from around the country....and tell your own sentator from the state in which they reside, maybe they'll get the message.
Posted by Tad at February 14, 2006 12:16 PM
Is this the same Tom Coburn who claimed you are healthier if you have breast implants than if you don't, suggested that abortion should be a capital offense and that lesbianism "is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom at a time", objected to showing Schindler's List on broadcast television as "irresponsible sexual behavior" and sterilized one of his patients without her written consent ? Yeah, just the kind of guy we need more of.
Well, take what you can get, from wherever...
Posted by reg at February 14, 2006 01:24 PM
Incidentally, Coburn also characterized his Senate campaign as a race between "good and evil", which strikes me as qualifying him for the psycho ward.
Posted by reg at February 14, 2006 01:40 PM
Tad, Liberty Dog gets the credit for finding information on Sen. Coburn and preparing the entry.
reg, I think he said that men are healthier if their wives/girl friends get breast implants. Something about speeding up their heart rates.
Posted by Woody at February 14, 2006 01:55 PM
reg...I guess I should have mentioned in my post that my approval of him was in reference solely to his fiscal views, not his social ones. I forgot that I am writing for a new audience who is not already aware of my views.
Posted by Liberty Dog at February 14, 2006 03:23 PM
Reg has it right...
"You know, I immediately thought about silicone breast implants and the legal wrangling and the class-action suits off that. And I thought I would just share with you what science says today about silicone breast implants. If you have them, you're healthier than if you don't. That is what the ultimate science shows...In fact, there's no science that shows that silicone breast implants are detrimental and, in fact, they make you healthier."
Emphasis mine. A questionable claim if I've ever heard one...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn
Posted by E. Nonee Moose at February 14, 2006 03:24 PM
I went to the wikipedia site and learned that Coburn is an M.D., and there was a scientific study which supported his statement. Rather than making simple statements to discredit the Senator, it's best to give the entire story. He's certainly not stupid and had a reason for saying what he did, just as some of the commenters have reasons for their remarks--which are simply to discredit conservatives whether justified or not.
Posted by Woody at February 15, 2006 06:57 PM
I simply said that I find his claim questionable and I stand by that. There are many limitations to the studies that have been done on breast implants so far. Source: http://www.breastimplantinfo.org/what_know/medscape.html
Overall, the most important limitations of these studies are the following:
• They used medical records and self-reports rather than clinical exams.
• They focused on classically defined autoimmune diseases and did not study most other diseases or atypical types of autoimmune disease.
• Most studies included samples that were too small to meaningfully study increases in the rare diseases they were studying.
• Most of the women in most of the studies had implants for too short a period of time to develop and be diagnosed with the serious illnesses that were the major focus of the studies. Since connective-tissue and autoimmune diseases may take years to develop and be diagnosed, studies that include women who had implants for just a few months or years cannot determine whether breast implants increase the long-term risks of getting these diseases.
So I do find it questionable for anyone, regardless of political ideology, to claim that breast implants make a woman healthier. The studies done so far have been woefully inadequate and more research is called for.
Posted by E. Nonee Moose at February 16, 2006 10:33 AM
Woody, I guess I should have realized a long time ago there's no limit to the deceptive hackery you will stoop to, so my assumption is that if I respond to your truly nutty defense of Coburn, you'll attribute it to some liberal mental disorder, but here goes. Coburn was referring to a study that dealt with breast implants in women who had mastectomies and the incidence of recurring breast cancer relative to women with mastectomies who didn't have implants. As noted by E. Nonee Moose, the study was limited and not something one would consider conclusive. Coburn called it "ultimate science" and used it to make a completely indefensible, stupid statement - and for a doctor something that borders on a violation of professional ethics - by referring to that in the the context of a debate over class action lawsuits and silicone implants that was not limited to women who had breast cancer, mastectomies, etc. To defend this guys remarks in that context, as either a legislator or a doctor, is just completely irresponsible and another example of what a blindered, reckless partisan you are. Have you no shame ???
Posted by reg at February 16, 2006 01:27 PM
I've been amused at the tug-o-war between moose, reg and my very good friend and co blogger Woody.
Having said that, I'm not going to support Coburn's statement, though he has a little (very little?) more support for the position than many positions of "science" found on the left.
But to see reg make a statement like "...what a blindered, reckless partisan you are. Have you no shame ???" with what I assume is a straight face is ludicrous beyond blelief. reg, you are one of the most blindered, reckless partisans around. Have you no sense of irony?
ROFL, what a dweeb.
Posted by GM Roper at February 16, 2006 02:47 PM
GMR - very happy to see you back, getting better and all of the best to you.
But, on point, I think you know that Woody is prone to stupid, reckless partisan statements - as is Coburn. Woody can't tell someone who follows the traditions of FDR or George McGovern from somebody who reveres Mao Tse Tung, when push comes to shove. He makes wild charges to that effect constantly. Sometimes it's couched as humor, but sometimes he's obviously quite serious and so obviously biased in a way that, frankly, becomes self-defeating in a debate so that it's impossible to take everything except the comedy seriously.
I make nasty comments about the far-right, but I can't ever remember accusing Bush of being a fascist and I understand the difference between the various strains of "conservatism", such as it is in its current rather bizarre formation. That said, in the name of reason, I don't consider the current GOP insiders and their enablers "anti-government" by a long shot, nor - earmarking aside - do I think that Tom Coburn is even close to being one of the 100 wisest, most thoughtful men who could be serving in the Senate. Unfortunately as we mostly know on all sides of the issues, he's got a lot of company in that category.
On the issue at hand, to compare Coburn's comments to some vague bull about "positions of science found on the left" is pretty lame. I assume you're talking about global warming, which is hardly a "left" position. Coburn considers global warming - in his wisdom - as a "bunch of crap." Apparently the coalition of evangelicals - people generally considered to be on the "Christian right" - who are taking up global warming as a stewardship issue don't agree. I don't know what other "left-wing" science you're talking about. Evolution ? Right...more "left-wing" science. You don't want to go there. Certainly not tobbaco warnings which, like mandatory seat belts, were considered "leftist" tomfoolery not so long ago. Now, like most liberal causes historically, it's mainstream and nobody in their right mind would argue over it.
The unfortunate thing about these discussions is that a lot of people on the right don't even understand what science or scientific theory even is. Or what it isn't. Crap science that's purely politicized is coming mostly from the right these days and I think that, on reflection, you know that. You can "ROLF, dweeb" me all you want, but the partisan hackery on evidence in this thread is pretty clearcut. Certanily "Liberty Dog" didn't want to touch Coburn's wingnut social views (which go well beyond his silly breast implants comment.)
I'm all for fiscal responsiblity and ending pork. (I needn't remind you which administration has come closest to actually delivering the goods when it comes to fiscal responsiblity over the last 25 years and which one was brazen enough to deliberately pile up debt in order to stymie future "liberal" administrations.) And I was against the K-Street "ethic" while you guys were trashing the investigations of Tom Delay as purely "partisan". I have nothing against a move against "earmarking", but that doesn't mean I want to see more Tom Coburns in the Senate, anymore than I want to see any more Cynthia McKinneys just because I may agree with her on certain specific issues. Some people reek of extremist and irrational approaches to issues six times out of ten that they open their mouths. Coburn, unfortunately is one of these.
Also, if I'm such a "blindered, reckless partisan", how come neither one of you guys are consistently able to argue against me from evidence. It's always some crap about "liberals" or some ideological stance, but very rarely anything that might actually make me change my mind on an issue because you've got the goods. I can't remember any time - here or over at Coopers - where you got me to reconsider points I put forward because you delivered on a factual level. It's always stuff like your comment above.
But welcome back. You've shown yourself to be made of strong stuff. I can admire your spirit, even if I don't find much there in the political arguments.
Posted by reg at February 16, 2006 05:19 PM
Food for thought...
http://tinyurl.com/8xm4t
http://tinyurl.com/9taon
Posted by reg at February 16, 2006 05:35 PM
Reg, thanks for the welcome back. I always admire the sincerety of your words, if for sure not your politics. Having said that, I'd be happy to take a look at the "record." Alar on apples anyone? How about any number of so called franken foods that could feed millions and millions and save vision all over the world yet, many on the "left" are agast at the "possibility" of engineered foods. Not that 100 % of our foods haven't been engineered over the decades anyway. Reg, have you heard of the "original seed" projects where they are trying desperately to preserve original seeds because the vast vast majority of our foods are different than originally planted. Too your comment regarding the deficit is also way off base. Consistently when taxes go down, receipts go up. Unfortunately, and here I think you and I will agree, spending tends to go up also as politicians of all stripes figure out how to buy votes with earmarks.
Lastly, I apologize for the dweeb remark. left wing nut job would have been a better choice (said with tongue in cheek) ;-)
Posted by GM Roper at February 16, 2006 06:02 PM
I'm not going to get into a long bit on the discredited "Laffer curve" theory, but suffice to say that the public debt to GDP ratio increased from 26.1% in 1979 to 41.2% in 1986. More than fifty percent in six years !!! God only knows what it is today under Bush. Rationalize that any way you want, but you guys overlook the fact that there were tax increases under Reagan after '86, that Clinton's tax increases did none of the damage to the economy that Lafferites would have predicted but allowed him to balance the budget three years in a row with huge increases in revenue that disproved "Lafferism" and that discretionary spending under Clinton rose just 13% during his entire Presidency, while Bush2 has already increased it by 48%. (I guess I did get into a long thing, but I want to make the point that nostrums don't do much to counter facts.) Also, regarding "Frankenfoods" and "original seeds" I don't know much about it, probably because unlike Creationism or global warming, it's a fringe issue without much political impact. I do know, however, that heirloom tomatoes are so far superior to the "factory food" supermarket tomatoes as "good eating" that I wouldn't dismiss "original seed" folks as completely nuts. Frankly, when I first started tasting my first farmer's market heirloom tomatoes not that many years ago, it was like discovering a new food, the stuff I'd become used to eating from the supermarket was so awful in comparison.
Posted by reg at February 16, 2006 06:59 PM
One tangential note on perceptions of "conservative" vs. "liberal" on certain issues, please don't try to tell me that it's "liberal" or "left" to buy fresh produce at a farmer's market and "conservative" to shop for your veggies at the mall supermarket. If such were true, it's a reflection of the same kind of topsy-turvey bullcrap where a guy in his '60s who can windsurf (ever try it?) is lampooned as a "wuss" while a guy in his '6Os who blasts little birds - bred for this fate in a "hunter's theme park" - is some kind of macho man. Give me a break. My grandfather, who was a rock-ribbed Republican who hunted in the real woods - but only for food that ended up on our table - and raised fresh produce, chickens and rabbits in his backyard (in the city, no less) must be rolling over in his grave.
Posted by reg at February 16, 2006 07:35 PM
