Republcians See RHG Birth As "Game Changer" in Health Care Fight

New York, NY (AP)-

Two Leading Republicans have hailed the birth of Robert Harold Gerstein, which occurred earlier this week, as giving their party a significant edge in the health care debate before the U.S. Senate.

Senate Minority Leader John Boehner praised the event as a "game changer".

"I don't see how you can look at the outstanding health care he received and not conclude how ludicrous and unnecessary this proposed legislation is. Bobby Gerstein's birth clearly proves, once and for all, that privately funded health insurance is alive, well and working for the majority of Americans."

The birth also attracted applause from former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. "If private health care is good enough for socialist countries like New York," said Palin "it should be good enough for America."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned his Republican Senate colleagues to temper their optimism, however. "I have it on good authority that Bobby strongly supports this bill," stated Reid. "He wants this legislation because he knows how critical it is for America's future, and we are going to pass it for him."

General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, welcomed Gerstein's birth for reasons unrelated to the healthcare debate. "He's a great little ranger, and I can't wait to serve alongside him in my Army, " said McChrystal.

U.N. Secretary General Hails RHG Birth

New York NY (AP)--In a brief press conference this morning, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Kai-moon offered congratulations to Theresa and Ephraim Gerstein on the birth of their son, Robert Harold Gerstein. The Secretary-General hailed the birth as a "stupendous event."

"We expect great things from Bobby, " declared the Secretary General, "the whole world is watching, and will continue watching. This is change we can count on!"

Gerstein was born on December 1, 2009 at 11:35 pm, at New York Presbyterian Hospital, in New York City.

Adidas to Sponsor Ephraim

New York-June 8, 2009

Erich Stamminger, Adidas brand CEO unveiled a new sponsorship agreement with Ephraim Gerstein, in a press conference at Rockefeller Center earlier this morning. The partnership is believed to be the first in history to feature a relatively unknown private citizen, rather than a professional athlete or celebrity. Adidas did not reveal the endorsement fees paid to Gerstein at press time. The optimistic Stamminger appeared relaxed and enthusiastic to begin what many commentators believe to be an audacious marketing strategy.  "To us, it was a no-brainer," declared Stamminger.  "The Adidas brand stands for quality, understated style, and a tradition of overall excellence, so it was natural to want to partner with an individual who lives those values. [Gerstein's] relative anonymity might pose something of a marketing challenge, but Adidas could not pass up the opportunity to deliver such a fresh, compelling message."

CNBC commentator Phil LeBeau believes the unconventional deal holds promise for Adidas.  "It's certainly a new way of doing things," said LeBeau "but I believe that this is a leading indicator that we are entering a post-celebrity era.  It may be that many consumers will relate better to Ephraim than they would to a celebrity.  After all, most consumers are not famous.  I think Adidas is betting that a young, upscale target audience would look at Ephraim and say 'here's a guy just like me, someone I can trust.' He's wholesome. Trendy, but not excessively so. Someone you could aspire to be, but within reach."

Though Adidas kept most of the deal's details under wraps, Stamminger said that Gerstein will not have to throw away his Chuck Taylors. "We don't consider those to be a competing product," said Stamminger. 

And The Problem Is?

This puzzling article about Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor appeared in this morning's edition of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/politics/29puerto.html?_r=1&hpw

Basically what it seems to be saying is that her job, as a young attorney, with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, somehow renders her less than qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.  The gist of the argument seems to be:

1. Sonia Sotomayor represented indigent immigrants as part of her job.

2. She did her job well.

3. Therefore, she might presently be biased in favor of the people she used to represent as part of her old job.

The absurdity is not only in this argument, but that NYT reports it as though it's a legitimate conflict of interest.  All I can tell you (and this is from personal experience) is that we represent clients.  In order to do our job effectively, we have to empathize with our clients.  We are their advocates.  By this logic, all lawyers who have ever represented anyone in any capacity cannot serve on the Supreme Court, because we all have represented clients whose positions might be different from those of the parties we might judge.  The President will have to confine his search to first year law school students.  

Supreme Court Justice: Not a bad entry level job. 

Guantanamo Inmates To Alaska

I don't profess to be an expert on the subject of the Guantanamo inmates, however, I would like to make a couple of observations:

1. Guantanamo bay is unsettlingly close to south Florida--I don't know anything about this prison's security procedures, but it would seem to me that if an inmate was smart enough to escape, it might not take much more to get ahold of a small boat and get across the straights.  I know that those who raise the NIMBY problem are professedly concerned about having terrorists in their backyard, but I would counter that Cuba is our backyard.  A nice, remote location in the interior might be better.

2. Alaska is far away from most Americans, sparsely populated and very cold--Even if a prisoner could escape a supermax in Alaska, they would be very far away from our centers of population, and, depending on where it is in Alaska, might have to cover some very punishing terrain.  

Yes, the more I think about it, the more attractive a supermax in Alaska becomes forthe housing of Guantanamo inmates.  Of course, the Alaskans might not want them in their backyard, but that's fewer people being "inconvenienced" than anywhere else in the country.  Also, it's yet another opportunity for them to get federal funding.  Admittedly, this would also be a politically expedient solution for Obama, as Alaska has few electoral votes, and the Republicans will probably get them anyway (though I consider this, at most, an incidental dividend).

It seems like a winner all around.

P.S. I'm not, by this post, necessarily advocating that we indefinitley hold people without charging them.  That is, of course, a separate issue that I have to give more thought. 

Jon Huntsman--Ambassador to China

As many of you probably already know, President Obama announced this morning his appointment of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman as ambassador to Utah. You can find out more about that appointment here:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/utah-governor-to-become-ambassador-to-china/?hp

This is precisely the type of bipartisanship that the President promised us--and with this appointment, he is delivering (at least as much as he can insofar as the GOP is willing to co-operate. The appointment is of key importance for two reasons:

1. This is no mere symbolic gesture. China is the number two world power and arguably our greatest foreign policy challenge. Whoever serves in this post will have an enormous influence in shaping world affairs, and the U.S. role in them. Obama did not pick Huntsman just for the sake of picking a Republican. He doesn't have that luxury.

2. Huntsman has outstanding conservative credentials. He's the second-term governor of the most Republican state in the country. He was re-elected with the support of 77% of Utah voters. He is a strong fiscal conservative who has cut taxes substantially. Although he claims to favor making healthcare more widely available and affordable, he advocates doing so using free-market mechanisms such as tax cuts. You can learn more about Jon Huntsman's policies here:
http://www.utah.gov/governor/priorities/health_system_reform.html


Obama's choice of Huntsman demonstrates a continued strong desire on his part to work with Republicans. It also represents a willingness to look beyond his own party when filling important jobs He is a substantive pick for a substantive post, but he's no liberal masquerading as a conservative. His existence in the GOP, and his willingness to do it, should be consolation to Republicans wondering what has become of their party. If the GOP is to have a future, Huntsman represents the way forward. Of course, if Huntsman is confirmed it takes him out of the running in 2012, but I suspect that we will be seeing more of him in future election cycles. Whether we will also be seeing more of the Republican party, on the other hand, remains to be seen.

Cheney "Extremely Disappointed" at RHG Announcement

May 15, 2009

New York (AP)-An indignant former Vice President Dick Cheney offered biting criticism to Theresa and Ephraim Gerstein on their announcement that they were expecting their first child, earlier today. The child, who is currently being referred to by only its expected initials "RHG" is to be born in early December of 2009. In an early morning interview with David Brooks, Cheney called the announcement "precipitous, dangerous and irresponsible." "There is no doubt in my mind," Cheney went on to say, "that by disseminating such sensitive information so widely and at such an early date, Ephraim and Theresa have further endangered national security. They have clearly made America less safe and have given a big helping hand to the terrorists." When Brooks asked Cheney to clarify his concerns, Cheney replied "Oh come on, David! Do you really expect me to be able to anticipate every nefarious possibility? God only knows what these terrorists will do, and that's precisely why Americans need to vigilantly protect sensitive information. Frankly, as commissioned officers, they should know better. Their behavior was clearly dangerous and disloyal."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to issue an official comment. "Look," said Gibbs, "Dick Cheney has a lot of opinions on a lot of subjects. You name it, he has an opinion on it. If we had to comment every time that constipated old blowhard mouthed off, we'd never have time for the important news; and that really would be a threat to national security."

Support for the Gersteins came from an unexpected quarter, however: Archbishop Timmothy Dolan of New York. "The Archdiocese, and I personally, offer these dear friends only the warmest support and our heartfelt prayers as they enter this exciting new chapter of their lives," said Dolan. "I was personally wondering when they would have a kid. The news made my day. It's enchanting." When asked about Cheney's comments Dolan replied: "I don't profess to be an expert on foreign affairs, but it seems to me that now is the time to be patting both Gersteins--Theresa especially--on the back; not second guessing their decisions. The main thing is that they chose life; and that's a beautiful choice."

A better, fairer gun control

Unlike some liberals, I firmly support the Second Amendment.  I think we have a right to own firearms, and I see no reason why law abiding citizens should be prohibited from doing so.  However, I also recognize the harm guns can cause, particularly in the wrong hands or the wrong circumstances, and I recognize the need for limited government regulation of their use (just like with all of our other rights).  It's a tough balance to strike.  

With this in mind, I call your attention to this recent article by former New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer. He proposes a plan whereby the government uses economic incentives, rather than restrictive laws, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while still ensuing that law abiding people have access to them.  In a nutshell, the government, as the world's largest firearm purchaser, simply adopts a policy to only buy guns from manufactuers who put in place procedures to avoid selling guns to those likely to use them for unlawful purposes.  You can read the full article here:

 http://www.slate.com/id/2217117/

What I like about this idea is that it does not restrict a single law-abiding citizen from acquiring a gun; nor does it force any manufacturer not to sell guns. It merely creates powerful economic incentives for gun manufacturers to distribute their product responsibly.  U.S. taxpayers have to subsidize the sale of guns; our govenrment needs them to do it's job.  But why should we have to also subsidize the sale of guns to criminals.  Companies that wish to make money through sales that harm us should have to pay for it in the form of lost sales to us.  That's just basic fairness. 

Welcome to BlueHawk

Welcome to Bluehawk.

 I have three goals in starting this blog.

1. To lend a voice to those in the U.S. military or interested in national defense issues, but have a left of center perspective.  

2. To combat the stereotype of Liberals that we're all just a bunch of wussy flower children spouting off about peace and love. (Though I admit some of this is our fault; a subject we'll be talking a lot about later).

3. To lend some balance to military thinking.  

About me: As an Air Force veteran, I know from personal experience how it feels to be the only Democrat in the crowd.  In a word, it sucks.  Full disclosure: when I joined I dropped my party affiliation, and when people asked me, I said I was an independent. I did this for two reasons: 1) I was an officer, and as an officer, I felt that I should be for the country, not a particular party. 2) When people asked me my views point blank, it was a great answer to get them to drop the subject. It's not fun to be berated all the time.  Don't get me wrong-It was the best experience of my life.  I met a lot of incredible people, learned critical lessons about leadership, sacrifice and honor, and even met my wife (who was also serving at the time).  I think I even got to do some good.  I'm proud of my service, and proud to be an American. 

But one thing I discovered over the years was that the Military isn't as red as everyone thinks.  I never took a poll, but because of the nature of my job, I got to speak with a lot of people about political issues, and  it didn't feel like 90-10 to me.  Come down to it, it didn't even feel like 80-20; more like 60-40.  I think some of the reason for the misconception most people have about the politics of service members is that we don't speak up.  That's why I'm here.  

Another thing I learned is that, if you love this country; if you believe, as I do, that it's the greatest nation in the world, and like me, think it deserves better leadership than it has had in the last few years, you need to get involved. Service is a part of citizenship, no matter what your politics. Sure, if you come from Manhattan NY, you might not feel as comfortable as if you were from Manhattan Kansas, but that's exactly why you need to be there.  Somebody has to be first. That's one reason why I went in, and I can tell you, I think my unit benefited from my "unique" perspective. America needs those perspectives, and it needs Liberals to stop letting the right own defense.  Keep in mind, we won the "big one" under Democratic leadership, the Republicans in Congress at the time mostly wanted to stay out of it. (Now, if you want to talk about other wars led by Republicans, we can do that, but fair warning, we didn't do as well in those). 

I love this country.  It gave me and my family a lot. Serving in its defense was an honor, and a duty. Feeling that way doesn't make me any less of a Democrat, and being a Democrat doesn't make me any less patriotic.  I didn't serve in the red states' Air Force, or the Republican Party Air Force.  I served in the United States Air Force, and I helped make it better.  I hope I can inspire some of you readers to do the same.