I am thus feeling energized in my own district (PA-13), currently misrepresented by Democrat Allyson Schwartz. At first glance, PA-13 looks like a fairly hopeless cause. Not only is it D+7, but Schwartz is serving her third term and has yet to be seriously challenged in any of her elections. 

However, after a review of the “Blue Dogs” that were elected in 2008 – possibly the most anti-Republican election in recent history - I counted 36 of them in Republican districts, including a dozen in disctricts rated R+10 or higher (according to the PVI values provided by cookpolitical.com).  So, anything is possible. 

There are two conservatives running for PA-13.  For those who may live in this district and for anyone interested, here is some information on them. 

Josh Quinter.  Not much information currently available online.  There is a joshquinter.com but it is either not his website or he hasn’t added any content yet.  He does have a facebook page, and in reviewing his info, looks like a solid conservative.

Damian Dachowski.  There is a lot more information available, as Dachowski launched his campaign a bit earlier.  Here is some background info detailing some relationships he has in Montgomery County, though he is largely new to politics. 

Also see his facebook page, campaign site, and twitter page.   In addition, I found this piece detailing a healthcare forum held in September that is very encouraging. 

More information will no doubt become available as the primary draws nearer but it is important to keep up the enthusiasm all the way through to 2010.  Massive electoral change then and 2012 will be the only way to stop Obama’s radical agenda.

In a locally unprecedented move, the School District of Philadelphia will hold principals accountable for the number of students eating breakfast in their schools.

Alas, this does not mean schools are attempting to control waste by limiting the number of students who receive breakfast at taxpayers’ expense.  This move is to force all students to eat breakfast regardless of family income, or even if they typically eat breakfast at home.  The move comes after just 54,000 of the 165,000 students in government public schools ate breakfast last year.  With Philadelphia leading the charge, this is yet another stunning move toward socialism and the breakup of the family.  Our government, both locally and nationally, has utter disdain for the rights of families to make their own decisions.  Amazingly, one of the lone voices of reason was the president of the Commonwealth Association of School Administrators union:

You’re doing a disservice to principals by holding them accountable without controlling for other variables….Are we going to get to forced feedings? I think it’s wrong to assume no parent in Philadelphia is providing breakfast each day.

How anyone can support this massive intrusion of families’ rights, not to mention the costs in the face of a national deficit that has already tripled from last year, is beyond logical explanation.  And, in case that does not outrage, eating breakfast will now be counted as “instructional time”:

Just how food will be served in Philadelphia schools is up to principals. Studies show, however, that more children eat when breakfast is served in the first class of the day.  Last year, the vast majority of the district’s 267 schools served food in their cafeterias before the school day began, Grasela said. Just 47 served them in classrooms, he said.  Typically, principals have resisted such service, saying it detracted from instructional time.  But in the spring, the Pennsylvania Department of Education ruled that if students throughout the state eat breakfast in their first class with a teacher present, it will be counted as instructional time.

The entire program is a despicable abuse of our rights as well as a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars.  While Obama is trying to ram healthcare down our throats, teachers now have the authority to literally ram food down children’s throats.  Didn’t we used to be America?

Below is a list of Republican state senators and here is a list of conservative Democrats who can be influenced.  The list of Democrats is in a printable flyer format; feel free to print and distribute.  A vote is expected by the end of the week.

Don’t let Pennsylvania go the way of California!

Double in my role

Alter in my image

Struggle for control

Rasmussen’s Approval Index (the difference between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove of the job the president is doing) has frequently been used along with the president’s overall approval; numbers which, of late, indicate that his charm is wearing thin.

The approval index is a curious number despite not being in itself a complete measure of the president’s performance (for example, its value could be negative while overall approval is still 60%).  What makes it worthy of attention is that it encompasses the majority of the polling data.  Of four possible options (strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove and strongly disapprove), the approval index owns between 60 – 75% of all the data: only one person in three doesn’t have a strong opinion of the president!

What if the approval index could be manipulated to show the extent to which all that opinion is dividing the nation, instead of simply a parallel measure of overall approval?  Take a look at the familiar chart that can be found on Rasmussen’s website.

Now look at the same chart but with the approval index plotted out.

You can see how Obama has gone from “The One™” to “The Worthless One II™”*. 

But, as previously noted, all this shows is the slow, cold, burn that is shaping Obama’s presidency and legacy (I know it’s early and Clinton did turn things around after his approval fell to 40% but allow me some gloating…)

If the approval index is calculated in a slightly different way, it can vividly show the stunning polarization this country has seen over the last eight months.  I base this on the following assumption: if a solid majority have a strong opinion on any issue, there is likely to be polarization.  Further, when that opinion is evenly split (50-50), you could say that polarization is at a maximum.  Applying this to the approval index, we would see more division when its value is near 0.  Thus, the “Polarization Index” is created by measuring how far the approval index is from 0, then subtracting from 100 (to yield a high value when the approval index is near 0).  The result is this.

So far, this is fairly intuitive: at inauguration its value is lower, when many were willing to “give him a chance” and were thus more united in favor of the president.  As that sentiment wore off, and Obama’s duplicity and radical views became more visible, the nation has become more divided.  The origin and persistence of protesting, from tea parties to town halls, correlates well with the increasing polarization. 

If Obama and the democrats continue their “contempt for Americans” tour unabated, I’d expect the nation to become less divided, as we unite in opposition – and if the last couple weeks are any indication, that may already be happening.  Given the hole the democrat party has dug for itself, I don’t see high approval and less division for either the party or Obama in the foreseeable future.  The best scenario may be to do nothing on the most divisive issues and salvage some approval, but the nation will remain fairly divided in that case. 

The writing on the wall for the democrat party has been apparent for some time, as November 2010 rapidly transitions from “a potentially bad year for democrats” to “an unprecedented slaughter” depending on how they play their cards.  This is one more way to visualize it.

* The Worthless One being Michale Medved’s reference to Jimmy Carter

Background notes

As noted earlier, using the approval index as a measure of polarization is meaningful only when strong opinions form most of the polling data.  In Obama’s case, the percentage of those polled with strong opinions (strongly approve + strongly disapprove) has been high and remarkably consistent given the large changes in overall approval.

If this was not the case, trying to quantify polarization would be more complicated (weights to account for variations would be needed).  Additionally, there is an implication that people are going straight from “strongly approve” to “strongly disapprove”.  Another way to see it is to look at the all of the approval data – that is, include “somewhat approve” and “somewhat disapprove” on the chart.

Again, the “somewhat approve/disapprove” options have been remarkably flat.    Incidentally, it also shows what happens when you use the tactics that Obama used to get elected:  hardly a mandate to “fundamentally transform the US”, but more a movement to kick out any resemblance of the Bush administration.  Otherwise, all those folks who “strongly approved” in the beginning wouldn’t have totally reversed course if they were ideologically on board with Obama. 

Finally, for comparison, Bush’s approval index in November 2008 was -30, with 56% of those polled having a strong opinion (13% strongly approve, 43% strongly disapprove).  Unfortunately, there is no earlier data for a more rigorous comparison, but Bush’s polling data, at least at the end of his presidency, did not elicit the level of strong opinion that Obama has so far. 

Well, starting with the economic crash late last year and the stunning leftward lurch of our country, I woke up pretty fast.  I have since devoted as much time as I can to advancing our cause.  I have become active here at Redstate as well as other sites like Twitter.  

And that brings us to the relevance of my title and my secret double life.  

Though I have only recently become politically active, I have had some unpleasant encounters with others.  This is not a complaint.  I have no problem with it, be it name calling or an attempt at debate.  But I have now met what can only be described as a spectacular display of uninformed paranoia that goes beyond the pale.

It all started with – wait for it – the Obama Joker image.  When the Obama Joker manufactured controversy (yes, you walked right into that one, liberals) broke out I decided to use the image as my Twitter avatar.  For the record, the avatar I initially used was a hastily made Obama Joker – Bush Joker side by side image to highlight the ridiculous nature of the racism charges:

Since then, I reverted back to the original image so I could clearly display #Iamthemob (the callout is in honor of Obama’s recent comment that dissenters should, well, STFU):

Now its time to don your tinfoil hats.  A liberal blogger picked up on my avatar with the typical racism charges.  I am not going to address the racism, as it has already been done here, and I can’t really add much to it. What fascinates me is the utterly insane conclusions that seem to be drawn from nothing more than the existence of the Joker image.

Here is an excerpt from the post regarding my avatar (I’m Doug) and other Twitter users I am following:

I can see Doug is “connected” with USA’s Francisco D’Anconia, St. Cloud, Minnesota’s Leo Pusateri, Michigan’s Eric Ball (Michigan Tech, studying Chemical Engineering), San Francisco’s Stacy Joyce Kennedy, Texas’s Walker of Crags, and Virginia’s BowlmeOverVa.  Francisco describes himself as:

            [A] Member of the underground conservative resistance.

How deep does this network run?

How deep does this network run? I’d first suggest asking Sean Hannity.  I’m afraid it runs far deeper than this blogger can conceive.  I also wonder if she’s aware that “Francisco D’Anconia” is an obvious psuedonymn, taken from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (though I suppose using fake names can only deepen the “conspiracy”)..

I realize there is idiocy all around but this wins the prize and takes uninformed publishing to new heights.  

Perhaps this is so far off the deep end that it doesn’t deserve the attention.  However, irresponsible smears by liberal bloggers big and small seem to be a consistent pattern.  Yes, I’m a very small player in the grand scheme and this particular event is beyond ridiculous but these folks need to be exposed for the moonbats they are.  Ignoring antics of the left is partly what has allowed them to creep their way into political power.

Note to Ms. Cairns: we are not racist or a secretive hate network, but we are open activists seeking change (or more accurately, seeking to restore and preserve our liberty). I have gotten involved with Redstate, Twitter, and other sites as an initial stage of political activism because our country is being hijacked by radical leftists who intend to destroy the foundation upon which our country was built. I will continue to keep myself informed, write about topics I feel are pertinent, and contribute in any way I can to advance the cause of freedom.  The rest can wallow in their obsession with race, accusations of conspiracy and the like, but it will no longer occur without notice.

I’m told Hizb ut-Tahrir means “party of liberation” in Arabic.  As in “liberate” the world to Islam.  Don’t worry, though. They don’t want to replace democracy, or even Christianity, just capitalism.  Whew.  That was a close one.  It’s a good thing we don’t have actual elected officials targeting all three.  Oh wait…

via youtube

This could have been written by Obama himself, except for one thing: sheer audacity. And I might say, outdoing Obama in audacity is a feat. Governor Crist is proud of his “tobacco surcharge” because it will simultaneously cure cancer and force people to quit smoking. Even though one can deduce exactly how Obama’s various concoctions will fail, he usually doesn’t do us the favor of actually saying it – at least not all in the same breath.

Tell me Governor, which cancer research program will your tax hike fund – lung cancer or the brain cancer that causes cognitive dissonance?

Dear Friend:

Thank you for writing to Governor Charlie Crist regarding a cigarette surcharge.  The Governor appreciates receiving your comments and asked that I respond on his behalf.

Governor Crist approved the tobacco surcharge that will result in increased funding in a wide variety of health and human services areas, including cancer research, up to $50 million per year. Governor Crist is proud of the budget that he signed as it will help support cancer research that will find better treatments, and one day maybe even a cure for this dreaded disease.

In addition to generating research funds, the tobacco surcharge will improve public health and result in an overall decrease in health care costs. The surcharge will discourage smoking among adults and children and help reduce cancer and chronic diseases directly related to tobacco use and second-hand smoke.

Again, thank you for writing to Governor Crist. Your thoughts and concerns are important to him.

Sincerely,
Kate McILroy
Executive Office of the Governor

Of course, this hardly starts with Obama.  The progressive movement, as I’ll call it, has continued largely unimpeded from its origins in the late 19^th century until the 1980′s with Reagan – and since then it has been slowed at best. Interestingly, Marx / Engel’s The Comminust Manifesto was written in 1848 (for those interested, see this for a nice summary, link to original document within).  While it may be a morbidly fascinating piece of work, it is also a single, comprehensive, and well known source of ideas that presumes moral superiority.  Whether or not progressives will allow themselves the label of “Marxist”, every progressive idea has its roots in the aforementioned work.  If you’re not sold on that proposition, read the commentary on the 10 goals of communism in the above link; we’ve practically already achieved them. 

The ideas upon which America was founded were radical and extraordinary.  Unfortunately, while a moral argument for capitalism can be inferred from various founding quotes and documents (including the Constitution), one was never explicitly presented in a tangible work comparable to Marx’s Manifesto.  In fact, for most of America’s history, proponents of capitalism had only its practical merits to offer: it simply works best.  Capitalists would have to wait another hundred years after Marx before having anything more substantive at their disposal.  William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review in 1955; Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957 and her non-fiction works started in the 1960′s.  Figures like Rand and Buckley helped to not only popularize laissez-faire capitalism but also provide its sorely needed moral argument.  The importance of the moral argument (for anything) is put very well by this quote, taken from a speech on socialized healthcare (back when Hillary attempted it):  

This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice…. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan — not if it really is noble.

Marx’s ideas have had over 150 years to flourish.  Ideas backing capitalism from a moral and philosophical perspective have had far less time to become established.  I will go so far as to say the progressive movement will continue to meet resistance over time as the philosophy of capitalism and individual rights grows.  Take the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute as examples.  They were founded in 1973 and 1977, respectively, and have only grown since.  Even more recent is the Institute for Justice.  It was founded only in 1991 and is “what a civil liberties law firm should be” – a champion of economic liberty, free speech, and property rights.   The “capitalist movement”, I think, is really just getting started.