Blogging under another name

Until the November elections I will be blogging with a small group of students on the PA elections check us out here.

The Real Truth Behind HR3200 and the Drastic Expansion of the Executive Branch

My rebuttal to Michael Connelly whose now famous blog can be found here:

I appreciate your article however I have to say, this kind of stuff is not only misleading but detrimental to the success of our nation. First any true constitutional scholar, and I've seen, met and spoken with a few, from institutions that are generally respected for their thoughts on constitutional law and executive power, can blow this lawyers argument out of the water.

Here's why:
Historians, Professors and constitutional scholars, all teach that the reason the constitution has achieved such success in creating and maintaining this country is not due to the fact that it was perfectly written the first time. Instead the brilliance of it and other legislation that founded this country is that it is a relatively flexible document that sets up checks and methods to amend and modify it. Other nations have created constitutions more effective than ours that have ultimately failed because they approached the matter of nationhood the wrong way. Therefore my argument is that despite your opinion on the actual Bill the "sweeping changes of power" are not a doomsday device that will spell the Death of America. Now that I've dismissed some charges from some of the more baseless commentators out there, I'd like to address some specifics Mr. Connelly outlined.

Unfortunately though before I can proceed with the details of the bill itself I have to address Mr. Connelly's not so coy comment, "To begin with, much of what has been said about the bill and its

implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are
saying. " It seems interesting to me that someone of his stature would entangle himself in the partisanship battlefield of modern media. This seems an easy target however what he is claiming is nothing groundbreaking. An Independent Research Firm, Pew Research has actually published some astonishing new data on the media. The details can be found here. http://people-press.org/report/543/ To summarize the report "The public’s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans’ views of media bias and independence now match previous lows. " This report condemns all media and includes the go to source for his readership, Fox News.

Abortion has been one of the hottest and most divisive issues this country has faced since perhaps slavery. Small wonder than that Mr. Connelly decides to lead off with this issue. Politically speaking using hot button issues to defeat a bill that is much more expansive than one issue is brilliant. The interesting thing is that the actual bill never mentions the word abortion, not even once. Found here http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text. Not only is the word not mentioned there isn't a section dedicated to the action. In fact according to the IRL in a letter to the NRLC this is the section dealing with abortion:

SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.
(a) In General- A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

(b) Provider Network Defined- In this division, the term ‘provider network’ means the providers with respect to which covered benefits, treatments, and services are available under a health benefits plan.

Moving away from the debate about what the bill covers and doesn't cover, a think tank has published a report that proves that the reforms suggested in this bill "would have the ultimate effect of reducing the number of abortions in America." http://www.thirdway.org/products/241

To conclude I would just like to point out what most constitutional lawyers have conveyed of our former president who is regarded by many as a president who took drastically stretched the constitution and coveted more power for the executive branch, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/06/BL2006060600667.html. I bring this up to demonstrate that this is not the first president accused of expanding the executive branch, and in fact as any professor, and even conservative columnists will tell you most presidents have expanded their presidential power. http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2008/05/truman_and_the_expansion_of_pr.html


For those of you still unsure why we need reform, The Economist has you covered.

This article shows how the rest of the world views our Health Care Reform efforts.


Eric Morel

Iran's Next Revolution?

I feel it is necessary to explain why this is my latest post and what compelled me to write this. After checking my twitter feed and noticing how the elections in Iran were a trending topic I started to notice a pattern. First there was great anger and frustration being projected not just at the government of Iran but also at the American media for its scant coverage of the events that are occurring as I write. I have to say despite the negative atmosphere, these comments are conveying the fact that Americans are interested in Iran and disappointed in their media. This gives me hope that this nation still does demand more from its media and that people as a whole still take an interest in what goes on outside of America. None of this explains why I feel the need to write a post on Iran, but the fact is I fear that many of the people commenting on this issue are misplacing their optimism, and misunderstanding Iran and its complexities. To help explain this I have written a post with an extremely brief history and a projection for the future.

To quote Health Ledger in his infamous role as the Joker, “Where do we begin?” Iran has a relationship with the United States that it seems we were all to keen to forget. The reality is that at one point the United States and Iran had a very close relationship. In fact not only did we help instill the dictator that ruled before the Revolution we also gave him sustained support and towards the end amnesty. This begs the question why does Iran hate us if we had a working relationship with her? The fact is that the Shah (Iran’s King) passed through and enacted some reforms that created a great deal of resentment towards him. He created a high unemployment rate and was viewed by a good deal of the youth as a tyrant. The Shah’s acceptance of Westernization provided the fuel for the inevitable backlash. This coupled with the fact that he had “illegally” seized power back with his own coup in 1953 with the assistance of the CIA; only perpetuated his image as a “Puppet of the West”. This anger allowed more radical clerics and fundamentalists to harness the power of Iran’s large youth population and eventually resulted in the Iranian Revolution. The Iranian Revolution had two targets in its sight the Shah and the Great Satan (The United States). This is really the underlying cause of our tensions with Iran today.

Fast forwarding to this very hour, again youth take to the streets, attack the police, start fires and chant “Down with the Dictator”. Once more it seems a spirit of revolution is in the air fueled by an “illegitimate elections result”, and as history repeats itself Americans have fallen “in love” with the spirit of REVOLUTION just as they did during the Tiananmen Square Protests. It is this optimism that I regard with great suspicion. The Iranian people are not discarding the pillars of the previous Revolution, and are not chanting for a pure democracy. What is being protested is an election result between a somewhat more moderate candidate and a fundamentalist one. This is not a call for a complete overthrow; in fact the election results carry very little weight in the grand scheme of things. This chart should help demonstrate my point.


The real leader of Iran is the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Guardian Council to a lesser degree. The fact that Khamenei has come out in support of the results creates a conundrum in Iran. Either Iran falls in line with his wishes, as it has done since the Revolution, or the dissenting voices strength forces the Ayatollah to demand a re-election or risk civil war. The second scenario is a stretch, however considering how unpredicted the first Revolution was it is a possibility. The real question is what reform any of the possible choices could bring.

98% of Iran is Muslim and that figure is not going to change. The leaders of the country are extremely conservative and have continued the same fundamentalist fervor that brought them to power. Most of the poor and peasants in Iran still show an overwhelming support of the radical president Ahmadinejad, and his power and populism is not something to be underestimated. The real dissent comes from the middle class and educated population. There is another country that tried a revolution with the backing of this group and it ended up in a Communist Republic instead of a Democratic system. I am referring to the Kadets who led the first Revolution in Russia and were quickly overthrown by the Bolsheviks. If history is to be the judge a successful revolution led by this group in Iran is highly unlikely.

As always would love comments and love to debate any of my points my email address is kremdond37@gmail.com

An update? Burkean Approach to Gay-Marriage?

Yes, a real update this time. School is over and I have my time back again.
To start off this update I need you to read this great article from Jonathan Rauch.

http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/2009/04/not-whether-but-how-gay-marriage-and-the-revival-of-burkean-conservatism.html#trackback -----> link feature not working, sorry.

Below is my rebuttal, if you will, and is a copy of the email I sent to him.I would appreciate your comments and I will post his response if appropriate as an update.

Open Letter to Jonathan Rauch:
I first off need to confess that I am new to this issue and am a younger American (19), however I have been soaking up the information from both sides of the political spectrum and have immersed myself in the debate about gay marriage. I wrote this email to address an issue in regards to your article. The Economist helped direct me to your work, and I have to say it is refreshing to hear a voice like yours using facts and philosophy to compile a compelling argument. The issue I have with your article, is that you fail to address the real voice against gay-marriage, and more specifically prop8. I feel this issue also needs to take into account a fact you briefly mentioned but largely passed over, that the majority of the country is ready for this change. Furthermore, I question your idea that the current approach has helped "take the edge of the hysteria off the issue", in the past I would agree with you, however, the recent campaigns from both sides of Proposition 8 seem to tell a different tale.

Addressing my issues, I site a recent CBS news poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4972643.shtml) that argues that 42% support gay-marriage, 25% support civil unions, and only 28% support no legal recognition. I assume a man of your intelect would question this results, an indeed I am no way indicating that this is indicative of the nations views, after all 973 adults isn't necessarily a great reflection of over 300 million Americans. In addition this older survey finds contrasting results, (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1194). I agree with your assertion that support for both sides is growing but If CBS's poll numbers continue to grow, and the nation as whole continues to grow in support for Gay-Marriage, at what point should the federal government declare it legal? Civil Unions is a huge compromise to gay rights activists as you rightly pointed out, however, the nation is more accepting of this scenario at this time which explains your support for this solution. I agree that civil unions will gain ground in the near future but looking beyond I see an interesting argument shaping against your Burkean approach.

Proposition 8 has hijacked the media of late and set fire to a powder keg issue. California, I fear, has become a staging ground for the rest of the large, more important states, especially NY. The debate in California has descended into Rove-ian politics with both sides using the media and questionable tactics to edge people's opinions. The side for prop8 has engaged in this debate with a vigor not seen since the Christian backing swept George W. Bush into office. Reports have surfaced that the main funding behind this incredible campaign was the Church of the Latter Day Saints, Mormons. Further reading has shown how this fundamentally different christian organization has created a strong coalition between other religions and even some Catholic Churches. Given that the debate is not playing out in a "what the people want" manner but more in a "persuading and dissuading forcefully" manner, I would have to say that your argument that this nation has and will take a Burkean approach to this issue is moot.

-Eric Morel

I promise I'll do a Real post soon

Felt Like supporting this creative marketing effort.

Summary of all April Fools Jokes for 2009

http://www.artline.com.au/

Take some time and visit the link, make sure you click on the different parts for more interactivity.ECONOLAND

http://www.axecollegehumor.com/

http://labs.opera.com/news/2009/04/01/

http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/landing/cadie/tech.html

http://cadiesingularity.blogspot.com/

List's of Pranks:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/01/april-fools-2009-best-pra_n_181568.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10209215-2.html

And So the Naiveity Continues

Short post this week, too stressed with finals, I wanted to leave a longer post about Terrorism and an excellent article I found about it, however I was so enraged by this week's events that I needed to say something.

First off, Someone please tell me why I seem to know more than Economic Professors, Teachers, and Journalists, Politicians, and of course business bankers!!!!!!

I'm getting ahead of myself lets back up a second. My story begins two years ago (keep in mind I was 17 and a junior in high school) as I was reading in the Economist about the current state of things and started noticing huge potential problems. This problem became the now well-known Subprime mortgage crisis. I realized right then that this new crisis where all sanity was lost in pursuit of short-term profits could sink our economy.
Granted I was wrong about the method's it would take, and being naive failed to understand the full complexity until I had conducted more research, however I did pickup on the fact that not only would this crisis crush our ballooned housing market and finally pop the false bubble that our lovely ex chairman of the federal reserve created to stem the losses from another ill conceived bubble. I rightly predicted that this would hurt banks and being very interested in the field figured that this would kill private equity, which at that time was actively engaged in turning around failing businesses (Chrysler).
My reasoning was that Private Equity required a massive amount of credit and leveraged debt to make their acquisitions and if the banks can't afford to lend them the money well then there would be no saving actions. As I previously mentioned I was naive and did not figure out the scope until a couple of months later, but I did predict a sort of credit crisis like the one we have found ourselves marred in today.
So over the next months I watched closely as the major banks Citi included took write-down’s totaling over $100 billion dollars and how much their over exposure to these investments had hurt the companies. I assumed others had paid attention to these articles as well, I was foolishly mistaken. So along came Bear Stearns and investor panic started forcing one company after another into what should have been bankruptcy. But no, our fading president had one last gift to us.
The president and his former hedge fund boss that now ran the Secretary of the Treasury considered the investment banks to large to fail and orchestrated a rescue selling these failing banks into and I quote as the newspaper's put it a "SAFE BANK". Who was this safe bank, JP Morgan and Chase. Now this process continued until the strategy became clear that the way out of this credit crisis and recession. (By the way I've been saying we are in a recession since last summer) So one by one failing businesses were absorbed by the only "safe banks" until we arrived with around four major banks controlling most of the investment and banking system.

Fast-forward to October, I attended a panel sponsored by RIT featuring economic professors from RIT, UofR, and other respectable organizations. Make no mistake these were educated, intelligent professionals. I listened to their opinion on the crisis and heard little to nothing new. There was the now redundant speech about how mortgages were sold as securities, rubberstamped by the bond companies and sold to corporations as secure securities. The panel continued explaining how the government had to intervene to save Bear Stearns, and by this time Merrill Lynch, AIG, the list goes on but I think you get the point. Finally it was question time and I got right up in front of the microphone and asked my simple, common sense question, Why are we assuming that these "Safe banks" who have had billions in write downs are equipped or even stable enough to handle these toxic assets? The response well they are safe and it has to be done. I wouldn't take no for an answer so I went up to the speakers and talked to a very bright Professor and Writer, about my fears. He explained to me that there was really no chance of these institutions failing.
WAIT am I Hearing this right Citi faces the prospect of Nationalization today, and I saw this coming when the experts didn't. Dear God, we are screwed.
This brings us to today and I have to say I am enraged, even more so than when the first bailouts were announced, we bailed out these companies that purposely structured their company's growth around risky short term investments, that were not only foolish but dangerous, and we have provided TRILLIONS of dollars to these same failing companies. WHAT???!!!
I just have to say I am extremely disappointed with the current situation and irritated at the doomsday talk of now two administrations that offers but one solution. I really would like to know what are your parameters for success of these bailouts because so far we have hundreds of billions of dollars un-accounted for and those same companies are still asking for money.
There is however a bright spot. Bank of America has started paying bank the interest to the federal government on a loan they received. Maybe we can have one "safe bank."

Eric Morel