Political influence in the AG office?

For me, the laffaire Gonzales is pure political theater. The outrage of Sen. Schumer is amusing at best, and annoying at worst.

Then I found this:

CROSSED THE LINE
For all of the posturing by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during the testimony of former Department of Justice political appointee Monica Goodling, they and their Democrat colleagues in the Clinton administration went to far greater lengths to identify and track the political activities of career and politically appointed lawyers in the Department of Justice and elsewhere.

"We knew the political affiliation of every lawyer and political appointee we hired at the Department of Justice from January 1993 to the end of the Administration," says a former Clinton Department of Justice political appointee. "We kept charts and used them when it came time for new U.S. Attorney nominations, detailee assignments, and other hiring decisions. If you didn't vote Democrat, you weren't going anywhere with us. It was that simple."

In fact, according to this source, at least 25 career DOJ lawyers who were identified as Republicans were shifted away from jobs in offices they held prior to January 1993 and were given new "assignments" which were deemed "noncritical" or "nonpolitically influential." When these jobs shifts came to light in 1993, neither the House nor Senate Judiciary committees chose to pursue an investigation.

"The difference between then and now, is that they [Department of Justice] didn't coordinate so openly with the White House," says a former Clinton White House staffer. "Remember, we had our own separate database that we could cross check if we had names. Everybody today forgets about the databases we created inside the White House. It's funny no one talks about that anymore. We were doing stuff far more aggressively than this White House or the Department of Justice did."

Well, what now?

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
- H. G. Wells (1866-1946)

Ouch!

Further proof that you never want to get on the wrong side Christopher Hitchens.
Jimmy Carter is perhaps a little too easy, but then again, he deserves it.

Sigh . . .

At the above link, Jay Stevens of LITW thinks he makes some cogent points by linking to other half thought, or completely wrong assertions. More than anything, Jay exemplifies the problem with civil discourse. It feels like I am dealing with a severe schizophrenic when I read his stuff sometimes.
The most offensive to me though was the link about the doxa of the military being the true defenders of liberty and freedom. I became so enraged at the half truth and invalid assertions while reading the article that I couldn't finish it. Some of the points that the author was trying to make are that lawyers and protesters are greater guarantors of our freedom.
Sigh.
How do they get the right to protest or sue anyone, unless the military has provided the basic structure of stability necessary? The most amazing thing about the American military is that they could stage a coup at any moment, because no one has the force or capability to oppose them. Wait, you say, protesters would rise up, letters to the editor, the ACLU would be in the courts. If the military was as ruthless as some have insinuated they would move quickly to set an example by summary execution. And then what would we do?
Instead, the American military is made up of individuals who have the personal sense of loyalty to which they have sworn their allegiance: The Constitution of these United States!!!
God help us all if that ever goes away.

Impeach Bush

The Anchoress has a good point at the above link. We do need to impeach Bush!
As a general rule, I always tell my clients that they can do nothing about press coverage, and that the best thing to do is just shut up. Most want to write the newspaper and tell them all of the factual errors. I tell them that it just reopens the issue, and that the best thing to do is to present the full story to a jury, and let them sort it out.
But maybe in Bush's case, we should ask for an expedited trial schedule. In the past, I had seen impeachment as a waste of time. The House would vote articles of impeachment, but the Senate Republicans would remain as a block, just like their Democratic counterparts did, and there would be no impeachment.
But think about old Chuck Schumer being embarassed by the paucity of evidence to support the Left's favorite themes. If the case was fair, it would expose those who want to impeach Bush as either liars, political hacks or charlatans. Not serious minded folks.
One article that the Left may get a conviction on is that Bush is "incompetent." Okay, and what kind of a high crime or misdemeanor is that? And besides, wouldn't the defense be Jimmy Carter? The standard was set by him, and I don't even think that Bush has approached Carter's nadir.

The end of civilization as we know it.

So, Congress now wants to tax the Internet. I can see them drooling over it right now. A chance at a revenue stream that will continue to keep growing and growing. Since it is a sales tax, I hope that the Democrats realize how regressive of a tax that can be. If you figure that disposable income will by definition be less for poor people than the rich, then poor people will pay a higher proportion of their hard earned dollars than they should.
And I don't know if we have the ability right now to means test Internet connections.

I hate people telling me what to do

All of these do-gooders from Gov. Corzine to Al Gore and his private jets blowing more carbon for every trip to talk about global warming than I make in a year are driving me crazy.
Somehow, they all seem to think that they are our "leaders." No, they are our representatives. I don't want them telling me what to do especially when they are hypocrites, but I do want to tell them what they should be doing.

US Torture methods exposed!!

For all of the complaints about Gitmo and torture, the above link shows what torture really is.

Democrats are going to save us!!

At the above link, Democrats are going to force Detroit to make more fuel efficient cars. Now, why didn't someone think of this before? All of these automakers who are going bankrupt, somehow couldn't seem to figure out that the American consumer wanted a car that gets 35 mpg.
Well, with the Democrats telling them to do this now, I am sure that all of those pesky technological problems will just go away. I just wonder why they took so long.

Why Democrats are safe until 2012

Michale Barone has an interesting take of the demographic developments and it got me to thinking about the political fortunes of the Democratic party. First, the Democrats receive extremely favorable coverage from the mass media, so their generalized corruption will go unreported even if it is as flagrant as that which drove the Republicans from power. I anticipate a Democratic President, unless Hillary wins the nomination. More than likely it will be Obama, unless he falters and someone who isn't presently in the race comes in to save the day.
But the Democrats are getting set for a trap that they have made for themselves. Much has been made of repealing Bush's tax cuts, which I don't think will happen, but instead they will allow them to expire in 2010. Wealth will flow away from the soon to expire cuts, which will drive down tax revenues, and probably tank the bond market and stock markets as well.
2010 will also see the reapportionment of seats in Congress. Now think about it for a minute. Democratic President, and a Democratic Congress, and the economy tanks. I'm not so sure that Jon Tester will actually get re-elected.

The best reason to believe

that we are doing the right thing in Iraq, is because Pat Buchanan is against it.

Further proof

That ours is the "Lamest Generation."

Florida's jurisprudence is an oxymoron

At the above link is a story about two teens who took pictures of themselves having sex and were prosecuted (as adults) for making child pornography.

When you combine this nonsense with The Anna Nichole judge and the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, you gotta wonder if there might be a maximum IQ limit for becoming a Florida judge.

I'm thinking just above comfortable room temperature, and you might be disqualified.

More Hillarity

This is absolutely wonderful. Nancy Pelosi is saying that Dick Cheney is questioning her patriotism, because Dick says that Nancy's plan for an immediate defeat (oops - strategic withdrawal (oops, I had it right the first time)) is just what Al Qaida wants.
So, let me see if I get this right: If you are a Democrat and accuse the President of every perfidy imaginable, you are exercising your patriotic right of dissent. But if you are a Republican and say that the person's plan will have unintended consequences that will aid the enemy - well, you are questioning their patriotism.
I guess this goes with William Arkin's statement that US soldiers are all just mercenaries and they should not have an opinion that differs from his own. It's amusing to me, that this is much like my wife (The Good Democrat) who tells me "here is my opinion on such and such." And when I try to address her thoughts by offering facts or information that doesn't comport with her view, she cuts me off and tells me that I am just being arrogant.
No wonder we don't have informed debate in this country. We have become a bunch of babies who are annoyed with anything outside of our world view.

How can she seem so happy?

Since she just held a vote to ensure defeat.

Do tax cuts for the rich help the poor?

At the above link, is a pretty good analysis of the effects of the Bush tax cuts. It seems that the Senate taxation committee relies on errant data or analysis in forecasting the effect of tax cuts.
If the objective of liberals is to increase revenue to the Treasury in order to pay for more social programs, the evidence points to tax cuts. If the objective is wealth redistribution, then tax increases are the answer.
So, do you want to help fund government programs, or do you want to punish the rich? Can't have it both ways.

I am guilty!

As anyone who knows me would have to testify, I am guilty of contempt of Congress. In fact, I have no defense at all, and am fully aware that if charged, I would have to admit to the allegation.
But my contempt doesn't stop there. Remember during the judicial nominations that the Democrats when they were in the minority would threaten to filibuster? At that time, it was considered by the MSM to be responsibly acting on the behalf of the minority party. Now, we get this. The media are stating that the Republican minority is blocking debate, when the reality is that the Democrats want to end the debate. What a crazy world we live in.
Kind of reminds me of the sage words I read before:

"When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'
The question is, said Alice, whether you CAN make words mean so many different things. . . .
When I make a word do a lot of work like that, said Humpty Dumpty, I always pay it extra. . . .

Maybe it is time to not make words work so hard.

A Proposed Senate Resolution on the Surge

The Senate is presently trying to reach a non-binding resolution to let Pres. Bush know that they are not happy. I understand that there have been a lot of different proposals which have failed to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. In the spirit of trying to he helpful, I am offering a proposal that I think pretty well covers all of their concerns:

110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 28

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 5, 2007

Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. HAGEL, Mrs. CLINTON and Mr. LUGAR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee of the whole
_______________________________________________________________________

RESOLUTION

Establishing the Sense of the Senate that it wishes to impart to Mr. George W. Bush, President (for the moment) of the United States.

Whereas half of the membership of our body is preparing or is running for the office of the President of the United States;

Whereas after the recent elections, the public having expressed its collective voice as we interpret it;

Whereas those of us who are not running for the Presidency are in deep trouble for our re-election;

Whereas those Democratic Senators who voted for the war in 2003 were reflecting the will of the public and their own chances for re-election;

Whereas the Republican Senators are now faced with the same choice as their counterparts earlier had;

Whereas we unanimously voted to appoint Gen. Petraeus as the Commander of all Multi National Forces in Iraq;

Whereas General Petraeus having requested more troops in order to accomplish the mission that he has been assigned;

Whereas we are getting beat up in the polls and recognize that our re-election is necessary for the safety of the Republic; and,

Whereas we have demonstrated that we collectively have the spine of an immature jelly fish;

Whereas we are desperately seeking a way to have it both ways;

Whereas we are willing to show our enemies and allies alike that we are feckless;

Whereas we don't know what to do, but agree that criticizing the President at this date and time has political advantages that simply cannot be ignored: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) it is the sense of the Senate that we pass a meaningless resolution with no teeth;

(2) the Senate--

(A) blames George W. Bush for every problem that exists in this world

(B) requests that the President issue a proclamation calling upon the people of Iraq to--

(i) take the blame that cannot be assumed by the President; and

(ii) give us the necessary political cover to look good..


This is just my proposal, maybe all the members of the blogosphere should provide their own version for consideration.

Matt: Where are you?

Last November, voters ousted the corrupt Republicans like Conrad Burns because he had received campaign contributions from Abramof in a purported quid pro quo. Now we learn that Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried got a personal increase in his personal wealth for an obvious quid pro quo.
Make me wonder if Matt at Left in the West would be condemning this obvious corruption. I haven't heard from Matt on this issue, but I am sure that he is working on it behind the scenes.
Go Matt, don't let partisanship excuse corruption.
Heh.

Wulfgar Reads Me!!!

Wulfgar has included me in his rant abour how we have already lost the war. Darn, you work hard and you miss all of the news. I really didn't know that we had already lost. Nobody tells me anything anymore.
But he expresses an interesting view. One that is shared by my wife (the good Democrat) that we have lost the war for the Middle East, so let's just get out now.
I still don't see how we have lost yet. I can agree that we have not won, but not winning is not necessarily the same as losing. Think of it this way, suppose two heavy hitters are slugging it out, with one absorbing untold punishment, and the other growing weary from inflicting blows. Which one should quit first?
As Black5 notes maybe we are winning, and we just don't know it. This kind of reminds me of the call for sacrifice that has been bantered about for so long. Maybe we should have scrap metal drives, and collect old tires and ration gasoline, just so we can all feel a part of the war effort. On the other hand, Sally Fields is on the TV telling me of the plight of her good friend who has to remember to set aside time each week to take her calcium pill instead of once a month like Sally does. I think that we have hit the limit of how much sacrifice most Americans are willing to make.
Hmm, makes you think that we are such a powerful country, that only we can defeat ourselves.

Greater Love Hath No Man . . .

One of my problems with the discussion of the War in Iraq, is that it has taken on such a political tone that it is impossible not to see opposition to the war as purely cynical. As I noted below, the Democrats were for the surge when Bush was against it, and when he agrees with them, they immediately flip flop. But my greatest concern is with the effect of the cynicism on the troops.
Approximately 1000 soldiers signed a petition for redress about the war and that was trumpeted all over the news as showing even the troops were against the war. Okay, 1000 out of 140,000 serving. What if 2000 troops signed a petition that said they were for staying and finishing the mission? Would that receive the same level of coverage? I don't think so. But the fact is, in spite of rapid return of units to Iraq, the soldiers keep re-enlisting. When you check out the Milblogs you find that the military as a whole still supports our endeavor.
But the reason for this post is the title. Quoting Jesus from the Bible, "Greater love hath no man than that he should lay down his life for another." 3,000 of our best and brightest (despite what Rangel "vicitms of the economy" or Kerry "study hard or you will end up in Iraq," think) have demonstrated that love.
Understanding why men and women fight is not that difficult, it's just not what you think. Soldiers, being human beings, are complicated creatures with many and varying motives for doing anything. But in this context, soldiers fight for their brothers and sisters in arms. They may start out with some lofty ideal or political goal, but as S. L. A. Marshall found, it is the soldier to your left or right in the fight that matters. So, first and foremost, they fight for each other.
Beyond that, the milblogs show that the soldiers still have hope. They see progress that isn't being reported. They would like to see the Iraqis take more action for their own defense, but they have not given up. They know that the terrorist attacks are aimed at the American public through the willing cooperation of the media, and know that these terrorists attacks, while having no military value, are working on us here at home.
But their real love is for America, the ideals, and hopes that we all have for the world. A world that is peaceful and respectful to each of us that live here. A world where parents don't have to watch their daughters raped in order to coerce a confession. Or see their sons thrown into a vat of acid for the same purpose. Or to see anyone killed simply for having the wrong religion. They believe in America. Unfortunately, it appears that America is not keeping faith with them, nor honoring their loving sacrifice of their friends and brothers and sisters. For them, to quit now is the same as America spurning their loving sacrifice.
I wish we could communicate to them, that the introduction of politics into the debate is done for purely partisan purposes, not because of what they have done.
On the other hand, maybe we shouldn't communicate that idea. Just reading it again chills me to the bone.

John McCain for Pres.?

I don't usually care for John McCain because of his campaign finance reform which is an abridgment of the 1st Amendment, but as I am watching his performance on Meet the Press, I may have to consider him nonetheless. Some of his hits on opponents of the troop surge were quite impressive. One was that the idea of the Senate voting a resolution against the surge is essentially a slap in the face of the troops. Basically "We sent you there to do a job, but you are'nt doing it right, but we support the troops." He also slapped at Harry Ried who had said that he is only a senator, and therefore has no responsibility for proposing a different plan except retreat. How wonderfully droll.
Politicians talking about war reminded me that our own golden child politician, Gov. Schweitzer delivered the rebuttal to the President's address yesterday. Although rebuttal is ridiculous because his comments had nothing to do with what Bush was talking about. But Brian was saying that we need a political solution not a military solution. Well hello? War is politics by other means. Yes we need a political solution, but it goes hand in glove with the military solution. They don't exist in a vacuum.
It amazes me how stupid politicians must think we are. They keep saying that we don't have a strategy in Iraq. Well here is one: Train the military and the police to standards that are similar to our own; defense of the country, not a party; and help to establish a free and democratically elected government that is able to sustain itself and protect itself. Oh wait, that is what Bush wants. Hmmm, makes me wonder why they are complaining.
I'm still not sure that I could ever vote for McCain, but he sure does have the ability to put stupidity in its place.
This could be interesting.

Interesting Developments

Omar at Iraq the Model is reporting that both the Sunni terrorists and al Qaida are leaving for another province since Baghdad and Anbar are going to be shutting down. The interesting thing about this is, that apparently, Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army is also planning to relocate to the same province.
Now both of these groups actually hate each other more than they do the Americans. Could be interesting if the troop surge actually forced the rats into one place where they can kill each other.

A Law I Can Support

At the above link is a proposed law that I really could support. It says that if a lawyer gives a contribution to the campaign of a judge, the judges have to recuse themselves from any case with that lawyer. In a way, it makes sense. After all, if lobbyists are going to sway legislators with their contribution, then surely judges are no less vulnerable.
I normally don't give money to politicians, since it only serves to encourage them. But in this case, I am more than willing to give to the campaigns of certain judges that I would rather never have to practice in front of. A $10 contribution seems a small price to pay just to never have to deal with them again.
You gotta love small minded legislators.

New Look

I was getting tired of the old template, and frustrated trying to straighten out the margins. So, I have tried this new style. Any comments?

Democrats for Democrats' Sake

Now that Bush has announced his plan to increase the numbers of troops in selected areas, the Democrats are howling. But it was not always so. See here, here, here, here, and, well, you know. But, now that Bush has stated his intention to increase the forces, the Democrats are all over saying that this will never happen. They also seem to be saying that they want an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, but not an immediate withdrawl (insofar as they can be caught up in it).
The ability of the Democrats to flip on this issue is just further proof that whatever Bush is for, they are against. I don't understand how anyone can be so shortsighted about the Middle East to believe that our failure to succeed will result in anything but a disaster for us and the entire Middle East. You almost get the impression that prior to March of '03 they believe that Iraq was a bastion of peace and stability. They now say that if they had known that the intel was wrong that they would have never voted to allow the war. Fair enough, but the subtext (although openly addressed by less responsible people) is that Bush lied about the intel. Hmm, as the Hammond Report makes clear, they were for the intel before they were against it.
Now the Democrats are saying that their opposition has been widely vindicated by the recent elections. Elections in which they won a majority (1 seat in the Senate), and the the President needs to heed opinion polls that show the American public dissatisified with the way the war is going. Of course, the flip side is that if you only follow the whims of public opinion polls, Bush was correct in '03 when we went into Iraq (More than 70% supported the war then). Ah, but perhaps we were manipulated back then. Maybe, and maybe we are being manipulated now.
It seems to me that the Democrats offer no alternative, except that they are not Bush. This is extremely shortsighted now that they are the majority party in the legislative branch. They have a responsibility to act in the nation's best interests now that they no longer are the minority party. Unfortunately, they seem to see the nation's interests as keeping the Democrats in control.
It's not that they are unpatriotic, just that their definition of patriotism is anything that the Republicans are for they are against. Unthinking opposition often results in unthinking in all actions.
Should the Democrats prevail in their petty opposition, I fear for the country. But I live in Montana, I know that my and my family's personal safety is not threatened by their childish antics. I just feel bad for the rest of the world.
Good Luck to you all.

Triteness in Political Discourse

In case you missed it, Sen. Boxer of California made a complete ass of herself in her personal attacks on Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice. Rather than apologize for a remark that was over the top, she now defends herself by saying that "she was speaking truth to power." What a load of crap.
Can we please just use some plain old English? Speak truth to power? This is as trite and meaningless phrase as there ever was. Okay, maybe "make the rich pay their fair share," is in the running, since that would mean that they are in line for a tax cut.
I am not big on the language police, but people need to be called when they use trite phrases with no real meaning as a subsitute for intelligent thought.
On the other hand, maybe that is as intelligent as Sen. Boxer can get.

Kudos to Matt at LITW

Matt at Left in the West has stated that he is more interested in accountability than he is just in having a Democratic majority. Good for him!
I have often disagreed with Matt on philosophical reasons, but I admire the way that he thinks. Because I am old, I am willing to make a prediction: Matt will soon find out the syllogism that all politicians are human, and all humans are fallible, ergo all politicians are fallible is true. When he does, he will be faced with a choice, surrender to his ideals, and go along to get what he thinks is important, or decry those who failed him.
The true measure of charachter is the ability to remain true to yourself. I hope that Matt does. Who knows, maybe someday he will run for office himself, and I will be forced to seriously consider voting for him.

c'est plus change

The Democrats managed to win the national level of government by decrying the ethical problems of the Republicans. Madame Speaker Pelosi et al. have promised to restore ethics and accountability to government. So, she has examples like Rep. Conyers to look to as an example of her profound concern about responsible and ethical government.
Or, how about cold cash William Jefferson? This is really only too funny. But it is nice to know that the problems of corruption are not unique to the Republicans. They just seem to be unique to anyone seeking elected office.
But hey, with the ability to fully investigate any perceptions of wrongdoing, people like Rep. Mollohan will be able to root out corruption immediately.
I feel so much better already.

Good Intentions, and the road to . . . .

It's wonderful to know that within the grand scheme of things, there are immutable factors which never change. At the above link, a Montana Legislator is actually trying to pass a law to make sure that there are paper towels in every restroom in the state of Montana. I first heard about this on MT Public Radio, in which even Sally Mock seemed to be mocking the idea.
This sort of proposed legislation makes me think that one of two things are happening. Either there are no serious problems for our legislature to consider, or there are no serious legislators. Hmm, methinks it's the latter.
What we probably need aren't sunset laws, but sunrise laws. Let the legislature pass laws like this, but make them unenforceable for five years. If there is not complete destruction of our civilization during that period, the laws will be rescinded before they come into effect. That way, silly legislators can pass silly laws, but with no real effect on the rest of us.

Dummy Scientists

In the link above are several celebrities (most of whom I have no idea who they are) and the dumb things that they are saying. It is almost predictable that some group feeling intensely that they are correct about an issue, will find some muddle headed celebrity to agree with them, and that celebrity will become their unofficial spokesman.

Just remember, that all of the great lines uttered by movie actors (Do you feel lucky punk, Go ahead, make my day, or life is hard, it's harder when you are stupid) were written by someone else than the person we associate them with.

Which reiterates my point (now that I am old) - will everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about, please just shut up!

Fair Taxes? Not in our lifetime

I was checking out Will to Exist, and he had linked to Publius Rendevous about a change to the tax code which would be inherently fair, and was wondering why the Congress isn't doing anything about it. What he fails to understand is that the tax code serves two purposes: Generation of revenue, and implementation of social policies.
The ability to manage people's behavior is what is really liked by the Democrats. Make a flat tax, where everyone pays a pro rated share, and the rich will not pay more. Horrors!!

Check out Publius. Maybe he is right, with a grass roots effort we just might be able to get Congress to do the right things. Get rid of lobbyists and you could eliminate the prime source of corruption. But again, it's just too good to be true.

New blog

I link to those blogs that I reguarly read. This is not to exclude anyone, but as I go through my blogs, I use my links to read those that I would look for because they are interesting to me. Sometimes, I check out my favorite blogs links, and I found the The Montana Misanthrope.
I now have to get up even earlier to check the opinions of people whose opinions interest me.

On Religion and Politics

My wife (the good Democrat) used to be frustrated with me whenever we discussed the war in Iraq, because as she put it "There you go, using facts again" whenever I pointed out the logical inconsistencies of her arguments. (Sidenote: this is a perpetual problem for anyone married to a lawyer.) So I encouraged her to get facts by watching news shows. Lo and behold, she has discovered Keith Olberman, who says what she believes and he does it so almost intellectually.
I listened to his tirade this evening, and while marvelling at a delivery that would have made Goebbels green with envy, I became upset with his use of "facts" that were anything but. For instance, the good Dr. Olbermann stated that we have "lost the war in Iraq." How can that be I wondered? Which American units have been forced to surrender. What divisions devastated, or brigades obliterated? Where can we not go whenever we want to?
This is not to say that we are winning. The reality is that we are winning militarily, in that the enemy is not able to exert his will on our forces, but we are losing politically. The enemy has found our week spot: Our susceptibility to propaganda.
Which was ironic when I found this article about delusions. This explains so very well why we have lost politically. Because we want to. With a constant barrage of hatred against the war which is really just a subset of the hatred toward Bush, we have come to believe that which we hear so often.

The article also got me to thinking about Islamic/Oriental fatalism. If nothing can happen except by Allah's will, then why was Israel allowed by Allah to exist? And if it is Allah's will to allow Israel to exist, then what good Muslim could seek its destruction?

I know, I know, religion and logic are automatically antithetical.

Why what we say matters

It had been awhile since I checked out Iraq the Model, and so I found the article that I am referring to down just a little bit. Titled "It's in our interest to make them understand..." Omar is saying many of the things that I have felt, but lacked the coherence to put them to paper like he has. Perception is everything when it comes to foreign policy. If your opponents perceive you to be strong when you are not, they will be more careful just because it is ambiguous. Conversely, if you appear weak, they will plunge ahead in misadventures.
The article details how the Middle East has taken the Democratic take over of Congress to be the first step in our surrender. i don't think any Democrat is actually advocating surrender. They just want us out of there now. But for the listeners in the Middle East, that is the same as surrender. I predict that there will be an upsurge in violence in the coming months as an attempt to convince us that we were correct to abandon Iraq. Unfortunately, it will be our soldiers and Iraqi civilians who will pay the enhanced price of our change in direction.
As Omar said:

The ideology of the extremists believes in "either victory or martyrdom" and now they think they are closer to the former and this will be used to attract more of the reluctant to the camp that considers itself close to victory and we'll see intensified media efforts invested in this field.
What I want to say here is that now I believe more that I must disagree with those who claim that wrong American policy breeds extremism, and now I believe more than ever that wrong signals that might be interpreted as weakness are what can be exploited by the enemy to give more credit to extremism especially under the current circumstances.

Now the fanatics in the Middle East will be able to point to the Tehran Embassy, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, Mogadishu, and now Baghdad as examples of how to bring the Americans low.

Maybe they are right.

Sometimes, Ya just gotta wonder

At the above link is James Taranto's Best of the Web latest installment about those who "didn't work hard enough" or Charley Rangel's refugees from poverty. What astounds me about this is how insensitive they (Rangel/Kerry) are. But I suppose they are playing to an audience that is used to hearing this sort of BS.
I have even had good intentioned and well educated friends of the Democratic persuasion relate the same nonsense to me, which was rather flabbergasting, since they knew that I had served long enough to retire. I suppose it fits their mold of how the world should be. But I would suggest that they consider an alternate story line in order to broaden their perspectives.

Having just read this, I realize that the same problem that I have with some Republicans acting in a patronizing manner towards poor people is just the same as what the Democrats are doing to the military.
Obviously, there is only one solution to all of this. Draft Democrats to serve in the military, and Republicans to take care of the poor, addicted and mentally ill.
That will never happen, but my next solution would be to have everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about to just shut up!!!

This is ridiculous

So Donald Trump and Rosie are having a public hissy fit. For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would care. But surprisingly, (or not so, if you are a cynic) more people are interested in this than anything else going on in the country.

How pathetic. And yes, they too have the right to vote.

Look for the Union Label?

Some may know (but most don't care) that I have signed on with the State Office of the Public Defender. The program went fully active on last July 1st. However, prior to becoming active, public defenders in both Missoula and Billings (who were county employees) held a vote to determine who would be the union that represents us at the state level. So, I never had a chance to vote for a union that was brought in before the enactment of my job, and now I will have to pay dues to said union. WTF?
I find it ridiculous that lawyers have unions. I am a professional, in that I exercise a skill for the best interests of my client, without regard for outside pressures. I am a member of a group that requires specialized training, and required me to pass a test and to be examined and found worthy first, in order to exercise my skills. Skills that the majority of the public are prohibited from doing.
What I want to know, though, is what in the heck is this union going to do for me? Are they going to say that I have too heavy of a caseload, and that if management doesn't reduce it we will go on strike? Let me tell you, the courts can and will impose punitive sanctions for failing to do my job, even if the union does call a strike. What about if some other union is picketing the courthouse, am I going to be allowed to cross the picket line? And if I don't who goes to jail for failure to represent my client?
As i understand it, we are supposed to be having a decertification vote next June. I can hardly wait.

This is too funny

Click on this link if you are a blogger, or read blogs.

I love the part about "written by fools, to be read by idiots."

The problem with ideology

Meagan McCardle lists her disappointment with PIRG work as the basis for her turning from liberal to libertarian. I think that the future of libealism (as opposed to Leftism) is going to be libertarianism. The reason for this is the difference between ideology and values.
For the most part, I have always believed that all human organizations become so large and unwieldly, that they begin to destroy the very reasons for their creation, in order to continue their existence as they perceive it needs to be. One of the examples cited in her comments was unions paying sub minimum wage to protest Wal-Mart wages, which are above minimum wage already.
The only organization that I can think of which hasn't fallen into this trap is the US Army. Upon relfelction, I think that is because the Army trains to accomplish something that it hopes will never happen. So, you have an orgainzation that seems to be doing something pointless. While some may argue that because it is pointless, it should not be done, I would argue that is pollyanish at best, and extremely dangerous at worst. Pure pacifism requires surrender to anyone immoral enough to demand it and willing to employ force to accomplish it. This is a surrender of your basic values for the purpose of upholding those values. A worthy contradiction, don't you think?
But getting back to the Army. The thing that held it together was called the Army values. These were (I am sure that they have been massaged since I was in) Courage, Candor, Commitment and Excellence. Each and every soldier regardless of rank or responsibility was expected to hold each of these values and to base all of their actions on these same values. If you look at the listed values, they are all fuzzy. Any MBA would find them inadequate for Management by Objective, but their fuzziness actually made them stronger. If you were to err, you would always err on the side of the decision that was closest to the Army values as understood by the group as a whole. Technicalities were not allowed. The only thing that mattered were did you accomplish the mission, not how hard you tried, or how well you meant, just did you do the job. The reason for this is that accurate information is a life or death matter in this type of job.
When I was teaching the Leadership course in ROTC, I always used the example of a tank platoon that was crossing a river in Korea during that war. The engineeer in charge of blowing the bridge asked the lieutenant of the tanks if he was the last of the Americans. The lieutenant thinking that with all of the fighting he had been doing said "Yes I am." So the engineer blew the bridge, and when the smoke cleared, there was an American infantry unit stranded on the other side of the river.
The moral of the story is that the lieutenant conveyed false information. Not that he meant to, but that he didn't know better. If he would have said "I've been fighting them all the way here and haven't seen any other Americans," that would have been an accurate statement, but different from his being the last Americans.
Values are something that has to be spread throughout and organization. Ideology can be a basis for forming values, but ideology can also destroy values. (I am doing this for the good of the cause.) If you have good basic values, your actions will always be moral and just. If you have a good ideology, your values will fall by the wayside whenever they conflict, because ideology is more important.
I would rather people with strong values lead than strong ideology. I can trust people with values to do the right thing. I can trust people with strong ideology to do whatever is needed to propagate that ideology as they perceive it.

I'm Baaack

Football season is now over, and once again I can concentrate on something other than my beloved Grizzlies, at least until September. I apologize for the lack of posting, but nothing seemed as interesting to me until now.

On Income Redistribution

Matt of Left in the West is decrying the fact that some people actually have the temerity to be rich!! Oh the nerve of some people.
This reminded me of an interview I saw on Fox News Sunday where Barney Frank was being interviewed and was asked if it was alright for the government to take wealth from one group and give it to another. Rep. Frank was pointing out that the top echelons are amassing more wealth than ever before. This would be a legitimate problem if and I mean only IF it was due to some government policy. But I know of no such policy. Instead, it just seems to be "unfair."
Why is it the role of government to forcibly sieze wealth from one group to give to another? What moral or legal basis would allow, much less condone such robbery? I am at a loss for an explanation.
I know that some have argued that the rich have too much and the poor have too little. Okay, why is that a problem for governmental intervention? Again, I am at a loss.

It's already started!

I have thought for some time now that the biggest loser in the last Senatorial election after Conrad was Max. As 4&20 points out he is even more vulnerable than I thought.
The problem for Max has always been that he is a Democrat for four years, then moves decidedly into the middle right before election. If he fails to implement the Netroots agenda, I think that they will be looking for a Lefty champion to take him on in the election. I think they feel confident because of Tester winning, and are using this as a justification to knock Max off just like they did to Morrison.
As I have long said, never believe your own propaganda. I think that the electorate went with Tester as a general disgust with Republicans as a whole. However, it was still pretty close in the final vote. And Matt notwithstanding, I think that there is a more conservative streak in Montana than the last election showed. With the Democrats now in charge in both Washington and Helena, they will have to produce in order to keep their seats.
So far, I have not seen the kind of maturity that would require. Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party ran on the strong platform of "We're not Republicans!" And it seemed to have worked for them. With Republicans in the minority, I don't see how that will be useful in '08.
The rumor mills are swirling with Denny running to take Max's seat in two years. I think that this is an excellent opportunity to ressurrect my campaign to have Dave Budge elected to the House.
We were looking at this earlier last Spring, when Denny was unwilling to rein in the profligate spending that gives Drunken Sailors a bad name. Timing is everything, and even if Dave had won, he would probably have been discarded like so many other Republican candidates. Now, the political fortunes are starting to look better.
I have met with Dave when we were discussing it, and Dave wanted me to know that he has a less than perfect past. I think some might have even called it flawed. I disagree, flawed means that you are still broken. I prefer to think scarred. Scars are the result of healing. You are tougher and stronger around a scar then you were before.
The time is coming, and we all need to keep our powder dry until January 2008, when Dave will be urged by all of us other scarred individuals to run and save the country. Or at least keep it from destroying itself.

Do You Feel a Breeze?

The above link is to a pretty good discussion about Rep. Rangel's call to reinstate the draft. Earlier, I had snarkily asked about Rangel bringing back the draft, and now he is talking about doing it.
I do not understand the political logic of this at all. Does he think that they can ram it through both houses of Congress when they become in charge? Even if he did get majorities in both houses, he is going to give Bush a bright shiny wrapped present, when GWB vetoes it, in order to protect the military and America's youth.
These Democrats, I don't understand them, but they sure to provide a certain level of comedic relief.

Social Conservatives vs. Libertarians

At the link is a speech by McCain that was interesting.
When you look at the margin that Conrad lost by to Tester, then look at the number of votes given to the Libertarian candidate, I am sure that Conrad is now wishing he would have courted us more. Of course, this is not to say that Libertarians would necessarily have voted for Conrad to begin with. In fact, it could be argued that the jump in the Libertarian vote was really more of a "None of the Above" kind of vote.
While some in the Republican Party are blaming their losses on the Libertarians, it has to be because they have taken us for granted for too long. There is a natural affiliation with the ideals of the Republican Government: i.e. Small government, fiscal conservatism, which is why the two parties have worked together in the past.
However, the present day Republican Party seems to have abandoned those principles and with it us. They had taken to spending like mad in an effort to try and maintain popularity with the voters by essentially paying them off.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, this abandonment of principles has cost them our support. Unfortunately for Libertarians, our voting clout is so much smaller than that of the Social Conservatives.
Social Conservatives have found themselves ostracized from the Democratic Party. One recent comment that I enjoyed is that Democrats who support right to life are considered moderates, while Republicans who support right to life are extremists. But Social Conservatives are in many ways the complete opposite of Libertarians.
If the fundamental essence of Libertarianism is the right to be left alone, the fundamental essence of Social Conservatism is that the world is going to Hell in a Handbasket, and only the Government can stop it.
Part of this is a reposne to the Courts taking on non-legal political issues, and the government is the only check and balance to a court exercising authority over what is a purely political question. Nonetheless, whether justified or not, their goals would conflict with our ideals for the most part. Since they are antithetical, and there are so many more of them than there are of us Libertarians, the Republicans may be drawn to the idea of tossing us overboard in order to keep the larger number of social conservatives.
So, what is a good Libertarian to do? I hate to admit it, but I think that we will need to try and work harder with the Republicans in order to corrall the courts. If we can convince the Republicans, and through them the public as a whole, that the courts need to butt out of social engineering, the social conservatives would have no reason to complain, nor to manipulate the Republican party any longer.
A Win - Win for all.

The Republican Plan of '08

In the above link, the candidates for the House Minority leadership post are outlining their strategy for taking back the majority in 2008. They seem to be using the same blue print that the Democrats used successfully in this year's election.
I think that they need to consider another alternative. Make things work. Not just for political game points, but to actually demonstrate a more effective and cost efficient way to deliver governmental services.
Although, it would be amusing to ressurect Rangel's plan to reimpose the draft.

Another Great Man has Passed

According to this report, Milton Friedman has died. The Nobel Prize winner has done quite a bit on behalf of Libertarian thinking.

He will be missed.

Abramhoff and Democrats?

I thought only Republicans were corrupt. Now it appears that there are around 6 Democratic Senators on the take. Will the Netroots root out these charlatans, or simply turn their backs?

Hmm. I wonder.

The New Improved Democratic Plan for Iraq

After hearing that our beloved loser, Sen. McGovern is now instructing members of Congress on how to deal with Iraq, I felt it my duty to provide the basis for the plan:







Course, now it will be better, since a Blackhawk can carry more people.

Peace and Prosperity at last

My wife (the god Demomocrat) is absolutely giddy that the Democrats have taken the house. I am sure that we will now have years of peace and prosperity, at least according to her. But what really bothers me, is that she is really happy that Brittney Spears is divorcing Kevin Federlein. (I don't really know who he is)
My wife, I love her but don't really trust her with anything important.

John Kerry is an idiot

I have refrained from commenting on Kerry's supposed "joke" about being "stuck in Iraq" for several reasons. First of course, is because I loathe the man. The fact that the Democrats picked him as their standard bearer in 2004 more than anything else shows what bad judgement they have. The fact that he got 59 million people to vote for him is 59 million reasons why the Democrats should not be in control.
The whole joke business was just contrived because he knew that he was in trouble. After all, should you take him at his word that he was talking about Bush, then you would have to imagine that since Kerry had lower grades than Bush at Yale, he would be even worse off. But, instead of apologizing, he immediately went on the attack, blaming Republicans for what he said, and that he would apologize to no one. Karl Rove really must have mind rays that make Democrats idiots.
But what really gripes me is that what he said, I honestly believe, is what he believes. How many times from Fahrenheit 911 on have we heard that the American military is the repository of people who can't get jobs? Their desire to support their notion is a disservice to all who take the defense of the nation seriously.
Now I understand that Kerry has issued an apology on his web site. Methinks this is because he couldn't actually bring himself to mouth the words of contrititon. Good for Tester to call on Kerry to apologize. Bad for Tester because he is still associated with the group that says they support our troops, and with their words alone, feel content to leave it at that.

Pelosi on terror

Although the above link is to an editorial, it does fairly encompass rep. Pelosi's narrow view of the war. The funny thing is that those who are supposed to be wise and "nuanced" still run around with their reality blinders on.

Damn you Conrad Burns!!

Okay, it's been awhile since I last posted. Mostly because politics have become trite and boring. We have facile, inaccurate and just plain wrong statements by the two candidates for US Senatee, which are eagerly lapped up by their adherents. Negative campaigning works because it drives most of us away rather than inspiring us.
So, why the title of this post? Because for the longest time, Conrad looked like he was a goner. Tester was going to sweep to victory, and Conrad could go back to broadcasting. Because Conrad never seemed to have a chance, I felt free to cast my vote for the Libertarian candidate.
But now, Conrad has closed the gap to within striking distance, and could pull it off. This means that I actually have to seriously consider voiting for him instead.
I do know that I am very disappointed in Conrad and the Republican party in general, but Tester scares the bejeebers out of me. So when confronted with the only two choices, disappointment and fear, I have to go wtih disappointment. I do not want Chuck Schumer to have an extra vote in the Senate, and that is just what I think Tester would do.
So, congrats Conrad, you will now have my reluctant vote.

New Blog added

To the right is my Daughter's blog. The prodigal daughter has returned from 2 years on the East Coast. We shall slaughter a lamb and have a feast to celebrate her return to her natural homeland.

A Letter to Democrats

This is a very interesting article, and very telling. I think that it is correct that the one thing holding the Democrats from taking over the House and Senate, is that they can't shut up.
There are some very important points in the article. I wish that Shane Morrison, Wulfgar and to a lesser extent, Matt of Left in the West would read it without taking offense, but looking to see if there are valid points.
But that will never happen, because they believe that they are on a roll.
Maybe they are, but then, maybe they are not.

Now this is funny!

In my feeble attempt to run for the State Legislator, I did attend a couple of Republican events, and wasn't all that impressed. While Democrats are just plain insane with anger, Republicans are definitley boring. I say it's time to put the "party" back into the Republican party.
This link shows that the Republicans can have some fun. The true essence of humor is that it must contain a certain element of truth. Reading the America Weakly, you can see that it is entirely plausible what the priorities will be for the next Democratically controlled Congress.
On a marginally related matter, I found the quote from John Adams that seems to be very appropriate: "One useless man is a shame, two a law firm, and three or more a congress."

Maybe it's time to stop helping

Dave has this interesting post about the differences between Wal Mart and Costco and their net effect on the poor. His post brings to mind one of the main complaints I have about liberals, that is, that they are very interested in doing something, even if it hurts more than it helps.
My wife (the good Democrat) is railing after me because she is going to support the increase in the minimum wage, and I am not. She learned from Oprah that there are 30 million people who are subsisting off of minimum wage, and she wants them to get a raise. I pointed out that the numbers mean that 90% are living above the minimum wage right now, but that is superflous to her, because she is a kind and caring person. Now, you have to remember that we are comfortably middle class, and the least that our three kids are earning right now is $13 per hour, so we have no immediate stake in the outcome of the referendum.
However, when I point out to her that an increase in the minimum wage will probably result in about 10% or 3 million people losing their jobs, she just snarls, "Whatever!" and is happy that 27 million are getting a raise. I know that she is a compassionate woman, and she is not happy to see 3 million people lose their jobs, but this way she can feel good abour herself, much like the general principals/principles of the Democratic Party. Too bad if you are one of those 3 million though.
But to examine this problem to the fullest extent, are people really getting a raise? If you consider that someone was making 6$ an hour before the increase in the minimum wage, will they get an increase as well? If not, do their experience and longevity go unrewarded? You can continue the increases all along the line. But no one asks the question "Where does the money come from?"
The answer is from the employer, who passes the costs along to the consumer, resulting in higher inflation, because the increase in wages is legislatively driven, not productivity driven. So, with more minimum pay, that means the increase is eroded proportinately, so that there is no real increase in wages, but 3 million people are out of work.
Some help. Maybe we shouldn't always be so quick to help.
Of course, I always complain about carpers who do nothing but point out a problem, and offer nothing to solve it, so I am obligated to offer a solution to the 30 million people that are living on minimum wage. How about this, government funded education that will enhance an employee's assets to the business? Send someone to school to learn how to do spread sheets, or word processing, or whatever it is that the employer requires to maximize output and productivity. This will result in better skilled employees who can command higher wages based on their abilities and contributions to the bottom line.
Hmmm, nah, makes too much sense.

Silence of the Blogs

If you really listen carefully, you will hear the breeze making a soft whistling sound as it blows across keyboards all over this land, dangling from their cords below the computer desks of bloggers across the middle and right of this fair land. Why the quietude? Why the lack of passionate arguments? Hard to say really.
Dave included this post which shows all sites are having a reduction in traffic. But it is larger among the center and right blogs, even though left blogs are also experiencing a reduction.
One answer might be that the beauty of summer has drawn us away from providing insight or even questions, into the outdoors to enjoy the halcyon days of the joy of life. But maybe, there might even be a different answer.
I think that the blogosphere has finally evolved to the level of real life. That is, we no longer actually discuss anything anymore. We shout out our opinions, and if the other side fails to be impressed with our volume, we simply relegate them to the great unwashed "idiots/criminal fools" that we always knew the other side to be.
There is almost no intelligent discussion. Instead, there is the presentation of a point of view, and the denigration to the point of questioning any opposing commenter's lineage, rather than a discussion of the points rasied.
There really seems to be a lack of curiosity in seeing the other side's perspective on an issue. Instead, anyone out of the poster's line of thought is considered to be a heretic, and unworthy of salvation after a few feeble efforts to rehabilitate them.
Compounding this problem are the trolls. Those who lack the courage or intellect to make their own blog, (they're free you know) but choose instead to populate another's blog with witticisms more appropriate for a kindergarten playground for juvenile delinquents.
My favorite example is Larry Kradj, the self proclaimed environmental ranger, who trolls the blog Left in the West. Larry loves to make fun of people's names, a wonderful technique for debating an issue. He further expounds on his service to his country giving him full authority for challenging anyone who is not quite as deranged as he is, even though he probably only spent his tour in Viet Nam stoned to the gills, and visiting the local ville to get a child prostitute every payday.
The real problem with Larry is not just his infatile postings. The problem is what do you do with such an obnoxious beast? If you take him on, he inevtably drags you down, since he cannot rise to the level of civil discourse. If you ignore him, he has an influence well out of proportion to his argument, as witnessed by many of the letters to the editor.
Reading Larry is a lot like being forced to sit on the flight from Missoula to Minneapolis with a four year old having a tantrum the entire way. There is no reasoning with the child, they simply want to have a fit. There is no way that you can make the child appreciate how odious their behavior is by acting the same way, because the child like Larry and his ilk lack the capacity to see beyond their own ego. Thus you are forced to sit and suffer while the obnoxious brat carries on, unable to say or do anything that will have any meaningful effect.
I hope with the cooler weather to come, we will see more of the intelligent debate that I used to read. Of course, that doesn't include discussion of football teams. That is a discussion that is really one sided. Football is of little real consequence but it does provide amusement.
I wonder if that is what has become of political discussion.

The beginning of the End?

Interesting take on Kos being coy about his success in ousting Lieberman. Couple this with the commentary by our former Congressman Pat Williams who misses the irony of calling for the removal of "partisan Rebublicans" and their replacement with (partisan) Democrats, and I am beginning to see the end of the Netroots community as a force in the Democratic Party.
What's that you say? Are they not at least successful in the CT race? Probably will be, and thanks to missteps by Conrad Burns, will pick up his seat as well. They may even have enough success to recapture at least one of the chambers of Congress. So much for 2006.
What will happen next, is that Kos and others like him will begin to target those who are not the "true believers" and the internecine combat will begin. It doesn't matter that you are 99% in my camp, I will find someone who is 100% and remove you from tainting the purity of our ideals and goals.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, this will mean that they will be seen by the 35-40% who do not see politics as a blood sport, and who will reject the over the top hyperbole (I know, redundant, but nonetheless, necessary and apt) of the Kossacks and crew.
2008 will probably see a Democratic challenge to Baucus, and his eventual replacement by a Republican, since Montanans seem to prefer divided government. But for 2 years, they may have their say.
Too bad for them.

Another take on Global Warming

Sure it's dang hot, and yes the forests of the Bitterroot valley are burning, but this wonderful article raises the idea that increases on carbon dioxide will actually be beneficial.
Sure, it is obviously written by someone for whom English is a second language (spelling the word program with an extra m and e). But the science is interesting and certainly worthy of discussion.
But, still it is hot. The problem is when you confuse weather with climate. Because our life span is so short, we think all weather is climeate.

Libertarians and War

There is a great discussion about what the role of libertarianism and war should be. I highly recommend it and the comments to see that there are many thoughtful people out there who are looking into this issue.
One of the fun things about being an adult is dealing with moral dilemnas. This is just one example. Another question for the Volokh Conspiracy might be what is the propler libertarian stance on abortion. On the one hand, you don't want the State to dictate what people should do. On the other hand, do we not need to protect all people in order to allow them to make reasoned and informed opinions?
What fun, especially when good and moral people can come down squarely opposite one another on the issue.

On Illiberal Liberals

A darned good analysis here of the improper use of the word "liberal" by those who claim that they are. Here is the money quote: "

True liberalism is dedicated to a full and rational exchange of views in a mutually respectful manner. In the classical sense, liberals are centrists on the political spectrum, open to persuasion and seeking to persuade. They value the thoughts and policies advanced by persons both on their right and their left. They defend the right of every person, private citizen and public official, to speak freely, and they condemn any effort to restrict freedom of speech or to drown out others with shouting or vulgarity.

The intolerance and illiberal behavior of those who present themselves as modern liberals is a betrayal of true liberalism. Today's liberals would do well to rededicate themselves to the defense of the right of every individual to speak and be heard in the public forum.

Far too many of my Democratic friends assume that you are either a Democrat, (good) or a Republican (bad), with no other alternatives available.
God save us from these illiberal liberals.
(oops, that will drive them nuts).

On the Flag Burning Amendment

Well, a political stunt to change the Constitution has failed. Or, gutless cowards are afraid to defend the one true symbol of all that is good about America from desecration. Take your pick.
I have felt the tremendous joy that can only come from seeing the American flag for the first time after doing the country's bidding. You can't explain it unless you have felt it, so there really isn't a lot to discuss about it. However, I as opposed to tinkering with the basic structure of a document that is designed to protect our freedoms from the predations of the government.
I would suggest that rather than make it a constitutional amendment, we instead provide legal immunity for any veteran who kicks the sh** out of anyone who burns a flag. Burning a flag is really nothing more than a means to instigate anger. Sometimes it really works. Don't beleive me? Go down the VFW and burn a flag. See how many approving comments you receive from those who served under the flag that you are burning.

Coercive interrogation?

In the above link, a blogger points to Andrew Sullivan's atrocious phrase and the attemtpt to link to Rumsfeld what happened to the two soldiers who were executed by the Islamic butchers.
But even looking at it amorally, there is still a difference between the two: Taking the worst that has been said about Rumsfeld, the purpose of such "coercive interrogation techniques" is to extract useful information to prevent future atrocities; Here, the barbarism was done for its own sadistic sake.
Don't tell me that we are no different.

I still think that we need to contract with Hormel for all the pig skins that they can produce so we can bury each and every one of these "holy warriors" in them.

The Experiment is over.

I decided at the last minute to throw in for the legislative district representative that I live in. I chose the Republican side of the ticket because I believe in the ideals of the Republican party, not necessarily what they have been doing.
I promised to not bother people nor to solicit nor spend money. My entire campaign consisted of going to anyone who invited me (except when I had trials), newspaper interviews and the blog, Steve for HD 96.
Interestingly, my opponent was selected by the Central Committee since she had paid her dues, and they gave her money and assistance. In addition, she actually did knock on every door in the district. She is a nice lady, and I am sure that she would be okay. But here is the rub: she only won by 120 votes.
So, if you spend money to put up signs, get volunteers to help you and go door to door to talk to all of your future constituents, you only win by 120 more votes. Seems to be cost ineffective.
However, to be fair, there is the possibility that there are those who only voted for me because she is a woman, and they should remain at home and raising children. Although at 57, she, like me, has little to do with child raising at the moment.
The only other thing that was different between us, that I advocated Libertarian ideals. I think that this is where the majority of my support came from. As evidence I would propose that we consider the absentee ballots. Of the 39 cast, 21 went to her and 18 went to me. Since absentee voters in primary races are more involved and interested in campaigns, I think that the only reason I did so well was the fact that the Missoulian interviewed me about 5 days before election day.
May have to ponder this some more, but I think that it gives hope to those of us who think that the Republican party would do better with Libertarians than without.

On Memorial Day

This is a good article by a Marine Reservist who has served in Iraq. But it has brought to my mind a question that I hardly dared to ask before: Are we worthy of the people who are serving in our military? Or are we like the children who benefit from trust funds established by those who have sacrificed for our improvement, and fail to appreciate what has been done for us?

Too often, people regard those who serve as economic victims, people who had no choice to escape poverty but to go and fight and die in order to escape our malicious economy. Such tripe is disgusting to me. The reasons that people join the military, like all human decisions are complex and complicated. To reduce them to one simplistic reason is an insult to mature, independent human beings who see more to life than simply providing food for their table.

There is one thing that I do not agree with in this article. When the author says:

If we can put 2003's debates behind us, there is a swath of common ground on which to focus. Both Republicans and Democrats agree we cannot lose Iraq. The general insurgency in Iraq imperils our national interest and the hardcore insurgents are our mortal enemies. Talking of troop reductions is to lose sight of the goal.

I am not so sure that all sides agree that we cannot lose. When I think of Rep. Murtha, and most of the senior Democratic Party leadership, I do not hear that we need to complete the job we set out to do. Instead, I hear calls that our efforts there are futile and pointless, and that we should immediately "redeploy" (otherwise known as run away) and turn Iraq over to the insurgents. Evidence of this attitude is best described by those who point out that President Bush's handling of the war will lead to a Democratic majority.

I am not saying that the Democratic Party is more interested in helping the insurgents to win. But it is more interested in attaining their return to majority status and if the insurgents win, then so be it. This would not be the first time that one party has placed its priorities over that of the national interests, but it is still disgusting nevertheless.

The sad thing though, is that the Republicans are trying to do just the same thing in many belated ways. The unpopularity of the war is leading them to abandon their party's leader in their own self interest of being re-elected.

If you look at the conduct of the war without a prism of ideology, you see that we are on the whole largely successful in Iraq. Bush was right when he landed on the aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished." That is, it was true that organized units were no longer in existance. The problem is that the enemy changed on us, and we failed to realize it in time.

Where the enemy has been spectacuarly successful is in the manipulation of public opinion. The constant barrage of car bombs and IEDs has accomplished little of military value. They are unable to use these tactics to destroy their opponents, nor seize key terrain. The real target of these tactics are the television cameras that will rebroadcast the images to those of us sitting here safely at home. And their tactics are working, as evidenced by the drop in support for our actions in Iraq.

So, while the finest people that our country produces are striving to actually change a country, and through that metamorphosis the region, we here at home have let them down by failing to recognize that Bush was correct when he said that this would be a long hard war.

Kinda makes me wonder.

Scientists and Global Warming

In the above article, they have actually done a pretty good job discussing the ambiguities with global warming. The problem with the discussion is that it relies on the consensus of scientists. As someone very smart once said. Consensus is not science, and science is not consensus.
My problem with the scientists who rely on computer models, is that from my experience, you can make the models say anything by tinkering with the assumptions, and the weight given to the variables. For instance, if you increase the amount of heat, and assume that will result in more moisture being pushed into the air, you get more clouds, which serve to reflect sunlight back into space, and can actually lead to global cooling. So, which is correct? Darned if I know. But until they can tell me with 95% accuracy what the weather will be like in two weeks, why should I believe them when they say it will be warmer in 100 years?
Part of the problem is that science is being mixed in with politics. The same people who say that Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools are saying that Kyoto is the only way to save the planet. Just one problem though, Kyoto does nothing to reduce emissions of CO2. It just transfers it to Russia, China and India.
I did find it interesting that the scientists were complaining that the argument was taking on a legal nature, in that they were arguing like lawyers. Too true it seems. The problem is that as a lawyer, I have to argue for my side by maiximizing the positive side of my argument, and minimizing the negative, and hope that the jury can sort out what the truth is. Scientists are supposed to be open to the idea that they might be wrong. The way this argument is shaping up, neither side is willing to admit that they may be wrong, all to the detriment of real science.
Too bad.

More Lies Exposed

In the article linked to above, the writer puts in a more cogent and coherent form what I have argued for before. Somehow, myths become more important than facts, especially by those who claim to be "speaking truth to power." How they can use this cliche with a straight face is beyond me.
Doesn't anyone get angry at being manipulated anymore?

On the Real ID and voting business

Amusing article, especially since it is published in a Canadian newspaper.
Kind of reminded me of the sign I saw during a recent immigration march: "We're here, we're illegal and we vote!"

On Health Care and Lawyers

Dave Budge has had an interesting discussion with Touchstone about universal health care, and the costs of health insurance. I am for universal health care just as soon as we get that perpetual motion energy source going too. It's a great idea, but making it work seems to defy reality.
But my comments here refer to a quote about some possible solutions. Specifically:

. . . 4) Reform malpractice lawsuits, at the very least, by requiring an affidavit from a medical professional that actual malpractice has occurred, and by allowing insurers and customers to enter voluntary arbitration agreements.

5) Suspend the medical licenses of negligent physicians on the first offense. This should not, by the way, be an AMA responsibility. We want this decision to be made by some body independent of the AMA, whose primary goal, of course, is to protect doctors.

In Montana, like a lot of states, we use the Medical/Legal malpractice panel to evaluate suits. If the panel feels that there was malpractice, then the plaintiff is given a letter of right to sue. Should the panel find against the plaintiff, then the plaintiff has to sue without the letter. Big Deal.

The first thing that needs to be done with regard to malpractice suits is to admit that medicine is as much art as science. In science, you have to control for the variables. In medicine, there are approximately 6 billion variables, or the total population of the planet. Everyone can react differently to the same procedure.
Sure doctors wear the white lab coat and are well versed in physics, chemistry, biochem etc. But like all of these stupid commercials telling us to see a doctor about a condition that we probably don't have, in order to determine if we should get a medecine that we don't need, there are a string of caveats that follow at the end of these commercials that warn of side effects. And those are only the ones of any statistical significance.

Let's start out with the assumption that most doctors are professionals, using their best professional judgment. Now let's throw in the exceptions; the doctors who are drunk or stoned (they are human after all), so how do you resolve treating them all the same in a court of law? Beats me.

The cure for the malpractice litigation may lie in the imposition of penalties and lawyers fees. For instance, your child has been born with brain damage. You are in such anguish, you want to make someone pay for the terrible tragedy so you sue. But the fact is, sometimes, some really awful sh*t happens. It's really nobody's fault. Now if the doctor was coming straight from the jail where he had just been arrested for DUI, you probably have a good case.

The old standard used to be "Gross negligence" in order to recover in a suit. Now the standard really is can you convince a jury that your client needs to recover. I am thinking of the former senator from North Carolina who bought a seat from the proceeds of his suits against doctors for something that has since been proved to be totally not their fault.

But in order to begin fixing med mal, you need to look at who is making the money. And the answer is that the lawyers on both sides are. My limited experience in malpractice (against another lawyer for sending a guy to prison wrongly) is that the defense lawyers made a killing. I would send a letter to the opposing counsel, let's say one and a half pages. He would spend and hour and a half considering all of the legal issues at $250 per hour, another half hour drafting a response, and then include my letter back to me stating that he was in receipt of my letter. Why did he do that? Because he would charge a buck a page to copy it, when the real costs were less than 5 cents, or $501.90 in profit. What a racket.

Plaintiff's lawyers aren't much better. Typically, a lawyer will charge 1/3 to 1/2 as a contingency fee. Sure they bear all of the costs, but those are removed from the client's settlement first. I read somewhere that only 10% of plaintiff's suits pay out. That is why they get such high fees, in order to make up for the 90% that fail. This is grossly ineffective.

So, my solution is instead of universal health care, let's make national legal care for malpractice. Take malpractice out of the hands of lawyers looking for a killing and make it only possible for government lawyers to sue or defend med mal cases. You take away the profit motive, while still preserving the patient's right to recover for gross negligence. Sure, government lawyers would lack the incentive to fight to the death on every issue, but that may not be such a bad thing.

Could be just as effective if not more effective than anything else that I have seen for fixing the problem.

What to do about Iran?

Much smoke and noise is being made about the Mad Mullahs making their own nukes, and what we are going to do about it. In the article above, it points out the problems with using military forces against Iran, and how that may solidify support for the regime.
We could also continue to use economic sanctions, which almost never work. In fact teh only one that comes to mind is South Africa. Otherwise, pariah states are always able to find someone to trade with for what they need.
My solution is the complete lifting of all economic sanctions in Iran, then bombing them with Victoria's Secret catalogs and credit cards. How long do you think that the mullahs can keep control once the Iranians have access to soft porn and the ability to buy it?

Generals vs. Rumsfeld

Belly at Left in the West has a posting about the confrontation between the generals who oppose Rumsfeld and those who support him. He argues that this is a good thing, that it is healthy to have debate and dissension in the military. Oh, the lack of military experience is so telling these days.
Kind of reminds me of February of 1993, when the FIRST thing that Clinton did in office was the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. There was a lot of grumbling among the field grade officers that I knew until the Colonel came out and called a formation and informed us that President Clinton is the President, regardless of the fact that he had not garnered a majority of the popular vote. Our duty was to uphold the Constitution, and the fact was that he is our Commander in Chief. If we couldn't support him in his legally prescribed duties, we had a duty to offer our resignation. Pretty much shut us all up at that moment, because it reminded us that we are servants of the civilian leadership.
These generals that have retired and now, 3 years later are saying that Rumsfeld was "abusive" or didn't take their advice are playing a dangerous game. To think that generals are unable to deal with abusive behavior is like the pot calling the kettle, yada yada yada.
If they really did have a problem with Rumsfeld, they could have announced their retirement/resignation (there is a difference) and not participated. Instead, they seem to wait until after they are safely drawing their retirement pay to start carping. Very curious indeed.
But these are not moralists remedying a problem at the cost of their careers. These are like General Maxwell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who stayed on with President Johnson, even though he knew that what was being done was wrong or criminal. Trying to claim the moral high ground by complaining about the civilian leadership while safely retired is more an example of cowardice than heroisim.
We in the military are tasked with enforcing the Constitution, but are not allowed to take advantage of it. For instance, if you are on active duty, you cannot place a partisan sign in your yard. An infringement on the basic right of free speech, not to mention that of your spouse. But it makes sense.
Elections change parties, and the military has to serve whoever the American public selects. To be able to pick and choose between who you want to serve is the first step in the destruction of the Constitution.

I am running

At the last moment, I threw in my nomination for MT House District 96 candidacy as a Republican. I am of course, really more Libertarian, but of the two major parties, the ideals of the Republicans line up more closely than that of the Democrats.
After I submitted my nomination paperwork, I had initial misgivings, and thought about withdrawing. But then I thought, "What the heck?" The worst that would happen is that I would get elected, and be sentenced to 90 days in Helena during the winter.
I am running as a fiscal conservative, and therefore, won't spend any money nor solicit donations. No signage, advertisements or anything else that cost money.
Nor am I going to harass my neighbors by banging on their doors at dinner time. If they want to know where I stand, I will set up an appointment and come to see them.
Could be a hoot.
I started a campaign blog at Steve for HD 96 here.

Good analysis of politics at the moment

The article above is a very good synopsis of the present situation. I especially liked the comment "There are too many politicians and not enough statesmen."
At teh moment, I can only think of two potential statesmen, Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Neither of which is expecially beloved by his party at the moment.
Maybe that is the secret to being a statesman.

Jimmy Carter on being a Democrat

I borrowed this from the Best of the Web, mostly because I couldn't believe it:

John F. Sugg interviews Jimmy Carter for Creative Loafing Atlanta:

Carter fittingly used a parable to illustrate how he'd like to see the political/religious debate unfold.

"I was teaching a Sunday school class two weeks ago," he recalls. "A girl, she was about 16 years old from Panama City [Fla.], asked me about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

"I asked her, 'Are you for peace, or do you want more war?' Then I asked her, 'Do you favor government helping the rich, or should it seek to help the poorest members of society? Do you want to preserve the environment, or do you want to destroy it? Do you believe this nation should engage in torture, or should we condemn it? Do you think each child today should start life responsible for $28,000 in [federal government] debt, or do you think we should be fiscally responsible?'

"I told her that if she answered all of those questions, that she believed in peace, aiding the poor and weak, saving the environment, opposing torture . . . then I told her, 'You should be a Democrat.' "

Sugg doesn't say if Carter was talking with his eyes closed.

So, let me rephrase Mr. Carter's answers for the sake of discussion

Are you for surrender, or do you believe that freedom is worth fighting for? Do you favor taking money with the threat of incarceration for no better reason than you can, in order to buy votes? Do you want to destroy all forms of employment in the name of protecting the environment, or are you willing to actually do some deep and hard thinking? Do you think that it is fair to torture the American people with trite and contrived accusations or do you believe in finding out the truth?

Sheesh, Just goes to prove the axiom "Never listen to anybody who's philosophy can fit onto a bumper sticker.

McKinney as a verb

Politicians know that the worst thing in the world is to be laughed at, especially when you didn't mean it to happen. But the best ones to laugh at, are those who don't even realize that they are being ridiculous. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D. Ga.), recently attacked some poor security guard of the Capital Police, because he didn't recognize her new hairdo, and she wasn't using her ID pin as she walked around a security check point. Trying to stop the good Congresswoman, he came under attack from her and her cell phone.
Now McKinney is claiming that the only reason she attacked the policeman is because he is a racist. In fact, her lawyer is now claiming that the Congresswoman is guilty of being in Congress while black and female. I am sure that Shirley Chisolm is rolling in her grave over the legacy that she had created.
McKinney's baseless accusations of racism have brought to mind a new verb to deal with warrantless allegations of racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever: To McKinney someone. As in, "You called me a racist? Are you McKinneying me?" To show the ludicrousness of the accusation.
Charges of racism are easily laid, and impossible to disprove, shifting the burden unfairly onto an innocent victim, who can never recover. Now, the victim can just ask the accuser; Are you McKinneying me? to show that the accusation is without merit, absent some real evidence.
Could be fun.

Feingold Hearings

So, the Senate judiciary committee is holding hearings, and the first witness up is John Dean (Yes, that John Dean of Watergate fame) who is going to say that this is worse than what Nixon did.
I want to know how Dean knows more about the program than anyone else who is not working it. Could it be that he is making it up?
I thought so.
But here is the $64,000 question. Should the censure hearings go forth, and yield nothing, could Feingold be censured by his fellow senators for bringing a frivilous motion against the President during war?
Hmm.

Why I have been away

So, I was over at Chico Hot Springs in Pray Montana for our annual Criminal Defense Continuing Legal Education. There is nothing more fun than all that drinkin, smokin, cussin and braggin that goes on with criminal defense attorneys.
I was standing outside and telling one of my best war stories. It involved a sexual intercourse without consent charge. The prosecution during voir dire was explaining that the defendant was alleged to have forced a woman to perform oral sex on him.
About that time, the first juror in the box, a single female, 60 years old raises her hand and says "Miss, Miss, can I ask a question."
The prosecutor, sensing an opportunity to establish rapport with a potential juror said "Sure, what is your question?"
The juror then asked what the punishment was for this crime. Now in Montana, juries only decide guilty or not guilty, except in capital cases, so it would have been inappropriate for the prosecutor to say what it was.
However, wanting to take the sting away from telling the juror to shut up, it was none of her business, she turned to the judge and asked if he would answer the question. Hoping the judge would tell the juror that she was not supposed to be concerned with punishment.
Instead, the judge, a former prosecutor turned to me and asked if I had any objections?
No objection your Honor, I replied. Whereupon the judge started intoning "The maximum punishment for this crime is life in prison, with not less than two years, nor more than 100."
At this the juror blurted out "That's an awful long time for a blow job isn't it?
Just as I finished telling this story, I heard someone laughing, and looked over to see Karla Grey, the Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court laughing along with us.
Only in Montana.

An Iraqi view 3 years on

Mohammed at Iraq th Model has a very cogent examination of the results of the last 3 years. I especially liked the line: Are we free or are we lost?
The problem with freedom is that you have choices. I know that doesn' seem to be a bad thing, but we are used to haveing choices. Imagine someone who had their choice dictated to them for years on which clothes to wear, and then were suddenly thrust into a mall and told they could wear anyting that they wanted.
The overwhelming variety can result in overstimulation and (at least temporarily) a withdrawl to the simpleness of no choice.
Iraqis now have a choice. As I have said many times before, war is a catalyst, it is not an end to itself. It simply creates the condition for change. Think of razing a slum to make way for new and better apartments. The razing is a destructive act. But you couldn't improve the apartments without removing the slums.
Read the whole article. If you can get to the end without a bittersweet tear in your eye you have no soul.

Gary Hart, Military Genius?

The right to freedom of speech means that even if you don't know what you are talking about, you can sound just as self assured as someone who actually understands the problem. Hart here, shows himself to be a dilletante of the highest order. Unfortunately, as his future obit will say, the former senator from Colorado and Presidential candidate, carries a certain amount of weight, especially among those who hold like opinions, and who will use his stature to verify their posisitons.
Perhaps he is just like so many of our fellow citizens who believe that right now, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Of course, a higher percentage of Americans believe in UFOs, but no one except for the nuts around Area 51 have actual proof of them existing. Poll numbers do not reflect facts, they reflect manipulation. Hart must be influenced by these poll numbers to write this tripe.
This seems to go hand in hand with Murtha saying that we have lost the war. Hmm, did I miss the news where our forces have surrendered to the Iraqis? Which divisions have been destroyed? What brigades or battalions are no longer operational? What company was massacred? Which platoon pulverized? Saying that we have lost the war does not make it so. Unfortunately, no one is interested in the facts, just confirmation of their opinion.
I am coming to believe that politics in all forms should be labeled as fiction.
If you want to know what is going on in Iraq, and lack the ability, or the heart to go yourself, check out Will to Exist on the right. I believe him far more than I would anyone who isn't there.

The CIA is at it again

So, now the CIA is saying that it wants to prevent the Libby defense team from access to material that they say is needed for their defense. On the face of it, it looks as though Libby's team is overreaching.
But maybe, the real story is that the CIA wants the case to be dismissed by the judge so that no one will be really able to dig deeply into the story and find out the CIA is mucking about in politics.
Hmmm. Makes you wonder.

Idiotic Idiots

Lucianne.com has a picture of Barbara Streisand and the following underneath it:

Barbra Streisand accused President Bush of having 'the arrogance of a 'C' student'

Misspellings from her most recent web posting:
• Irag
• curruption
• dictatoriship
• crediblity
• Adminstration
• warrented
• desperatly
• preceedings
• ouside
• subpoening
• responsibilty

Is there anything worse than an idiot who thinks that they are a genius?
Me, I know that I am dumb.

Crash the Movie

James Taranto of Best of the Web (you have to scroll to the bottom) feels that Crash may have been a good movie but that it was "manipulative and unrealistic as the day is long."
My wife (the good Democrat) and I watched the movie on Sunday just before the Oscars, and I have to say that I really enjoyed it. Now, I may be putting too much into this, but it seems to me that what the movie was saying is that racisim is essentially laziness; a sort of shorthand way to react to the frustrations of life over which we have so little control.
It does add in two examples of racisim that show the absolute worst form which is racisim by the authorities. Watching the charachter played by Matt Dillon grope the female passenger in front of her husband after a stop about made me quit the movie right there. Then later, when the LA County District Attorney and his assistants allowed a white detective to be blamed for the death of an off duty black officer, it showed that while our personal racisim is bad, at the institutional level it can destroy our entire civilization.
It is a good movie and shows the corrupting effects of racisim. Go see it if you get the chance.

Deblogging ideas

Dave and Matt are busy deblogging each other. I would just like to say:

Both of you, just put down your keyboards, and slowly back away, and no one will get hurt.

This is not the only instance of "purifying" by all sides of any ideas that are uncomfortable. Pretty soon, everybody will be pointing out to commenters to just stay on their own side of the Internet.
I list on my blogroll all that I am interested in. It has always been my experience that I need to fully hear someone else's argument and weigh it against my own. If I am right, I have a better argument. If I am wrong, I learn and become better. If I ignore the other side, I become even more ignorant.
Both sites will remain blogrolled here, even if I am kicked off theirs.

Update Dave corrects me that he is not changing Matt's link from his page. Sorry for the mix up.

Sorry to be so slovenly

I spent a week in a golf school at Las Vegas. Golf is reaaly like remarriage - a triumph of hope over experience. But the good news is that I have learned that when I do something wrong, I now know why. Doesn't stop me from doing it, but at least now I know why.
I read this piece by Ralph Peters, and it reminds me once again: Never trust the news you haven't seen with your own eyes, and never think that you can ever really understand the Middle East.
When I was in Saudi Arabia, I learned that the phrase, "I will see what I can do" is really code for , "Sorry bud, your are on your own." When the Golden Dome shrine was blown, I was afraid that the Sunnis in Iraq would become only a distant memory. Instead, the Shias have responded with a certain amount of measured restraint that has to be admirable. The fact that all out civil war has not taken place gives me a great deal of hope, and this article by Peters just adds to it.
Now, it is possible that I am being manipulated in the same way that I think that the MSM is doing, but my own experience has taught me that there is more of value to believe in Peter's reporting than that of the NYT.