OK, that’s a bit outlandish, but if you’re already Republican, Gallup suggests you are significantly better off mentally. (Well, at least you say you are.)

Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats.

And it’s not because Republicans are (supposedly) richer.

One could be quick to assume that these differences are based on the underlying demographic and socioeconomic patterns related to party identification in America today. A recent Gallup report (see “Strong Relationship Between Income and Mental Health” in Related Items) reviewed these mental health data more generally, and found that men, those with higher incomes, those with higher education levels, and whites are more likely than others to report excellent mental health. Some of these patterns describe characteristics of Republicans, of course.

But an analysis of the relationship between party identification and self-reported excellent mental health within various categories of age, gender, church attendance, income, education, and other variables shows that the basic pattern persists regardless of these characteristics. In other words, party identification appears to have an independent effect on mental health even when each of these is controlled for.

Now, as I’ve said many times in the past, I hate polls, especially ones where the respondents are asked about something that is outside their area of expertise. So I’m not sure how qualified most people are to gauge their mental health, but what this does tend to show is that Republican folks are generally more content with their lot, whatever lot it is.

This probably explains some of Arthur Brooks findings about how conservatives tend to be more charitable. Also note that according to Brooks, liberal-headed families make slightly more money on average that conservative-headed families, so it really isn’t a case of more money making you happy. And if you want to extend that correlation, religion is the single biggest predictor as to whether someone is charitable, and most of the religious are on the Right (hence the label). Someone might connect the dots to suggest that religion plays a positive role in mental health.

Or, perhaps, they already have.

Technorati Tags: mental health, religion, Republican, Democrat

Shire Network News #110 has been released. The feature interview is with Reut Cohen, a previous guest on SNN. She has decided to join the US Army, much to the shock of some of her friends. She speaks to us about the reasons for her decision, and the reactions she’s received – not all of them positive. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

The segment I submitted for show 108 was finally used this week, so you can click here to read it.

Technorati Tags: Shire Nertwork News, Reut Cohen, global warming

Harry Reid has made his considered pronouncement about the situation in Iraq. Again.

“Every place you go you hear about no progress being made in Iraq,” said Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid.

“The government is stalemated today, as it was six months ago, as it was two years ago,” Reid told reporters, warning US soldiers were caught in the middle of a civil war.

“It is not getting better, it is getting worse,” he said.

This is the same guy who proclaimed that the Surge had failed 7 months ago, before it really got going. The actual facts were quite a bit different from that, and now he’s doing it again. Why should we believe him now?

(Hint: We shouldn’t.)

Technorati Tags: Senator Harry Reid, Nevada, Iraq, Surge

Sanctions — so the story goes with the anti-war Left — should’ve been allowed to work in Iraq, and the invasion should have been a last resort. OK, let’s put aside for the moment that the sanctions weren’t working, were instead enriching Hussein, and were being actively undermined by our “allies” France and Russia. Let’s just focus on sanctions in and of themselves. You’d think that installing sanctions on organizations that the US has labelled terror groups would meet with approval by this crowd.

You’d think wrong.

Several Democratic presidential candidates, though not front-runner Hillary Clinton, said they were worried the White House had begun a march to war.

“I am deeply concerned that once again the president is opting for military action as a first resort,” said Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, a long-shot Democratic candidate.

How much of a long-shot do you have to be to require labelling sanctions “military action”? How desperate must you be to find something, anything, to complain about that you stoop to this level?

Perhaps as desperate as a Russian President.

It is the first time the United States has sought to take such punitive measures against another country’s military. Russia and some other U.S. allies believe dialogue rather than more punishment or military action is the way forward.

“Why should we make the situation worse, corner it, threatening new sanctions?” Putin said in Lisbon.

Sure, because dialogue has made things so much better already, with Iran utterly ignoring the sense of the international community. They know they’ll at least have France and Russia on their side, eh?

What military options there are must be considered, as a last resort, because to not consider them does two things. First, it catches us off guard if we turn out to need it and have not prepared for it. Second, it shows that, during such dialogue, we are serious about what we are saying. Any country not willing to back up its words with actions, and to prepare for those actions should they become necessary, will simply not be listened to by any rogue state. Instead, said rogue state will simply keep the international community at the “bargaining table” until such time as they’ve done what they wanted anyway.

Which is the course this is taking already. Iran has showed no signs whatsoever that diplomacy is working on them. Think it’ll be easier to bargain with an Iran backed by a nuclear bomb? But in the meantime, the anti-war Left is whining about sanctions being put in place. I’ll bet if this was a Democrat doing it, they’d be extolling the diplomatic process.

UPDATE: The Captain points to another article on the subject that finds more whining against sanctions.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said in a statement yesterday that Bush’s action “not only echoes the chest-pounding rhetoric which preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2002, but also raises the specter of an intensified effort to make the case for an invasion of Iran.”

Technorati Tags: sanctions, Iran, Revolutionary Guard, Vladimir Putin, Christopher Dodd

Republicans in California are trying to change the way electoral votes from California are distributed.

Veteran GOP consultants said Monday that they were relaunching a drive to change the way California allocates its electoral college votes, aimed at helping the 2008 Republican presidential nominee capture the White House.

Political strategist David Gilliard said he was taking over the ballot initiative campaign, along with strategist Ed Rollins and fundraiser Anne Dunsmore. Consultant Mike Arno will oversee the signature-gathering effort.

“Our budget is going to be whatever it takes to make the June ballot,” said Gilliard, who played a key role in getting the recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis onto the 2003 ballot.

The proposed initiative would change California’s method of allocating its 55 electoral votes from a winner-take-all basis, which favors Democrats, to a congressional district-based approach. Republicans hold 19 congressional seats, so presumably the GOP nominee could win a similar number of electoral votes.

Amazingly enough, Markos Moulitsas, the Daily Kos himself, is thrilled with this development.

The move is brilliant. For one, every state should allocate EVs in this manner. Maine and Nebraska already have some variation of proportionate EV allocation, and it would force the parties and candidates to pay attention to swing regions unlucky enough to not reside in a swing state. There are more than 18 states in the union, but you wouldn’t know it from the way this campaign will be waged.

Oh, sorry. Got my links mixed up. This is his reaction to when Colorado was going to change its electoral vote distribution. If you click here, you’ll see his reaction to the California effort, which he considers election stealing, compares to a “bad horror movie”, and calls it an attempt to “game the system”.

What’s the difference? Well, if you know your netroots, you won’t be surprised. For the Colorado effort, this would benefit Democrats.

But on a more immediate tactical level, this initiative will force Republicans to spend a great deal of money in Colorado when they hoped to completely ignore the state and take its nine EVs for granted. Despite all the talk of Colorado being in play this year, Kerry still has a ways to go before he pulls the state in play.

But the effort in California could give more votes to the Republican nominee. True to form, what Kos thinks is good or evil is entirely, exclusively a case of how its politics fall. He was for electoral vote reallocation before he was against it.

For the record, I was against the Colorado effort, and I’m against this one. Click here for why, but it boils down to the idea that the Electoral College favors broad support over the most support in close races. Whether or not you agree with this is one thing, but for one’s support for the system to be utterly devoid of an understanding of its principles is partisanship at its blindest.

Technorati Tags: California, Colorado, electoral votes, Electoral College, David Gilliard, Ed Rollins, Anne Dunsmore, Mike Arno, Markos Moulitsas, Daily Kos

The Speaker of the House did the right thing, if in an extremely understated manner.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked a fellow San Francisco Bay-area liberal Friday for what she said were “inappropriate” comments about Iraq during a congressional debate.

During a debate on children’s health care Thursday, Rep. Pete Stark accused Republicans of sending troops to Iraq to “get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

Condemnations rolled in from Republican politicians, right-leaning bloggers had a field day, and a White House spokesman declined to “dignify those remarks” with a response.

Pelosi issued a statement Friday evening rapping Stark, who is in his 18th term representing the liberal East Bay. He’s California’s longest-serving House members.

“While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand—providing health care for America’s children,” Pelosi said.

Stark’s comment came as the House failed Thursday to override President Bush’s veto of legislation to expand the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

“You don’t have money to fund the war or children,” Stark accused Republicans. “But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

I’d call that remark a bit more than “inappropriate”, but she at least went that far. Good job, Madam Speaker.

Technorati Tags: Nancy Pelosi, Pete Stark, Democrats

Shire Network News #106 has been released. The feature interview is with two ex-Muslims – Sheila (not her real name for reasons which are probably obviuous) who lives in the United States, and Adil Zeshan from the United Kingdom. They talk about why they left, and why the fear the reaction from their former compatriots.. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary segment.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to “Consider This”.

“A chicken in every pot, and a car in every garage.” That was the slogan of Republican Herbert Hoover in his campaign for President of the United States. His promise of prosperity likely helped propel him into the Oval Office. Well, it looks like Hillary Clinton has taken that same promise and updated it for 21st century Democrats.

Her first trial balloon was the idea that the government would give each child a $5000 US Savings Bond when they were born. More than just a chicken in every pot, this would be a bond for every baby. But unlike Hoover’s promise of prosperity, which came with the assumption that people would earn those chickens and cars due to a healthy economy, Clinton is doing what liberals do best; giving “free” money away and taxing the growth out of the economy to pay for it.

But this trial balloon was made of lead. Apparently the legality of vote buying is not in question with most Americans. And so, with this attempt at pure, unadulterated socialism put back in the vaults of the Democratic Party, no doubt to be brought back out again in the fullness of time, Mrs. Clinton tried something less brazen.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed tax cuts of up to $1,000 a year on Tuesday to encourage millions of working-age families to open personal 401(k) retirement accounts. The New York senator said the program would be paid for through higher estate taxes.

Now this is ironic on any number of levels. Let’s start with the obvious one; using “tax cuts” and “Democrat” in the same sentence. OK, OK, she does wind up trading one tax for another, but to not just seem to be giving away “free” money must have really hurt.

And what tax is she trading with? The estate tax! Otherwise known as “The Second Tax on The Stuff You’ve Already Been Taxed On When You Earned It”, it’s assessed on your estate when you die, hence a third, more well-known term, “The Death Tax”. Do you see the circle of life here? She gives you a tax break for retirement that she takes back from your heirs when you die. It’s the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. And it’s just as illusory. Or you could look at it as a forced loan from your children. Now there’s compassion.

And consider this; what she’s essentially doing is (get ready for this) partially privatizing the handling of retirement benefits! She’s not talking about a $1000 boost in your Social Security benefits, she’s talking about your own, personal 401(k). You gotta’ give her credit for coming around, even a little bit. But again, we’re swimming in irony here..

And yet, it still really just is vote buying, if clothed in privatization. If at first you don’t succeed, buy, buy again.

So whatever happened to Hoover’s promise? Well, a scant 7 months into his administration, the Great Depression dashed all his plans for prosperity, proving once again that no matter the promises a presidential candidate makes, the future isn’t always perfectly predictable. (Just ask George W. Bush about the first September after he took office.)

The best a President or Prime Minister can do is make economic conditions as favorable as possible, so that if stock markets or buildings come crashing down, you will be in the best position to recover. Redistributing wealth through an inefficient bureaucracy isn’t the way to do that.

I’ll leave you with a quote talking about the state of the republic:

Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions – everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

No, not our republic. This poet was talking about the Roman empire of the first century, but the results of relying more and more on government rather than ourselves are the same regardless of your time period. If Mrs. Clinton is elected President, perhaps we would need to update this observation just a little. The People may now be anxiously hoping for bread, circuses, and 401(k)s.

Consider that.

Technorati Tags: Shire Network News, Adil Zeshan, Herbert Hoover, Hillary Clinton, socialism, Social Security, bread and circuses

“Hmm, my first attempt at bribing for votes was a little too obvious. Let’s try it this way.”

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed tax cuts of up to $1,000 a year on Tuesday to encourage millions of working-age families to open personal 401(k) retirement accounts.

The New York senator said the program would be paid for through higher estate taxes.

At the same time, Clinton said she has given up another idea for a savings incentive — giving every baby born in the U.S. a $5,000 account to pay for college or a first home.

Instead, she said, her plan for what she called “American Retirement Accounts” will provide “universal access to a generous 401(k) for all Americans.”

From Wikipedia, I found the source of a well-known phrase.

… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions – everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

If Hillary gets elected, I guess we could then add to that list “and 401(k)s”.

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, presidential election, Democrats, bread and circuses

James Taranto, in his “Best of the Web Today” today, notes that the accusations of “anger” against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas seem to be unfounded. But building on that is the idea that, since the travesty that was his confirmation hearing didn’t manage to keep him off the bench, he shouldn’t be upset about those accusations. “Hey, you made the highest court in the land. So what about the politics of personal destruction?”

Taranto has a great rundown of all the shenanigans that took place back then, including the observation that

“…Thomas’s political foes managed to violate the integrity of the FBI, the Senate and the D.C. Circuit–that is, of all three branches of government. This behavior was unethical, unconscionable and possibly criminal, and no one has ever been held to account for it.”

Thomas was treated unfairly, as well as illegally, but that didn’t matter to the Democrats that opposed him.

Thomas’s opponents believed that the end justified the means, as a former foe tells the justice’s wife on page 232:

Years later a young woman who had worked for one of the many groups opposed to my nomination approached Virginia. “We didn’t think of your husband as human, and I’m sorry,” she said, tears streaming down her face. “We thought that anything was justified because our access to abortions and sex was at risk.” The woman went on to explain that she had subsequently had a religious conversion and now felt that it was her duty to apologize to us.

Now, those who remain unrepentant are reduced to arguing, pathetically, that Justice Thomas–and the rest of us–should countenance the means because they failed to realize the end.

Taranto’s analysis is why “BotWT” is a daily e-mail I never miss.

Technorati Tags: James Taranto, Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court

Shire Network News #105 has been released. The feature interview is with blogger and media analyst Richard Landes, about the latest developments in the Mohammed Al-Durrah case. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary segment.

Hi, this is Doug Payton, asking you to “Consider This”.

Last Wednesday, there was yet another Democratic party debate for the US Presidential nomination. Honestly, this whole campaign season started way too early for my tastes, but it does make for wonderful blog fodder. I mean, the more these folks talk, Democrats and Republicans, the better the chance that they’ll say things that let us see the real candidates, not just the ones their handlers want us to see.

Take John Edwards, please. In that debate, Tim Russert asked about same-sex marriage in general, and about a new “fairy tale” in particular that is designed for 2nd graders about two kings who get married. When asked if he thought this was OK, he said the following:

I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in — did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all those possibilities, because I don’t want to impose my view. Nobody made me God.

Well, to that last sentence, taken entirely out of context, I’d have to say a hearty “Amen”, so to speak. I mean, you’re not likely to hear someone on “Extreme Makeover, Home Edition” walk into their new house and exclaim “Oh my Edwards!”

But let’s go back and put the sentence in context. John Almighty has indeed decided that second graders should be their own moral agents, discerning all manner of right and wrong at the tender age of 7. Now, there are some moral issues that second graders should be able to recognize and, even if they make the wrong decision, they know it’s the wrong one. Whether or not to splatter little Katie’s white dress with black paint is one thing. I would think (I would hope) that even Mr. Edwards could figure that one out. It’s rather black and white. But does he believe that second graders are ready to make a moral decision about the rightness or wrongness of same-sex marriage?

Comedian Jeff Foxworthy has a game show in the US called “Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?”, where contestant compete against elementary school kids. Well it seems that Pope John the Democrat doesn’t think he qualifies to be the moral guide to a 2nd grader. I’m sorry, John, but if you don’t think you can do that, what makes you think you can tell me how to run my own health care, or what makes you think I can trust you with the tax dollars you want to give to charities?

I’ll tell you what, though; if that “fairy tale” “King & King” were about two brothers getting married, I have a feeling John would somehow muster from deep down inside him the courage to impose his views on Mrs. Hutchison’s class in room 107. Yes sir, that line in the sand would be drawn. This far and no farther! Something tells me that his alleged laissez-faire attitude towards his children’s moral education just might be shown for the veneer that it is. And using your children to pander to your base is particularly reprehensible.

And perhaps all this would last until society’s values changed and John would morph with them. “Marriages of 3 or more? Hey, no on made me God! Playing NAMBLA propaganda to babies in the womb along with their classical music? The rumors of my Deification have been greatly exaggerated!”

Now I’m sure that there are those who have been disagreeing that the whole same-sex marriage issue isn’t really a moral issue. I personally think it is, and I’d also note that the faith that John claims, from the Southern Baptist denomination, also sees it that way. John saw fit to bring God into the equation with his statement that he was not Him. But while it’s true that no one made John God, God did make John something; a parent. Just because you’re not God, it doesn’t mean that you can’t make decisions for your children. Indeed, who other than the parents are the primary moral educators of the next generation?

Unless, of course, you think it’s the state’s responsibility to do moral education, and handle all your health care, and micromanage the economy, and tax your way to prosperity. Well, at least according to the latest polls, John doesn’t look like he’ll be getting the nomination.

To that I say, “Thank Edwards.”