Who are Democrats?

I added MT Pundit on the right, and there is an interesting post with the comments that got me to thinking about something that I have been pondering for quite awhile. Who are the Democrats?
If you go back about 150 years, they were the heart and soul of the soon to be Confederacy. They were primarily interested in state's rights especially when it came to owning property (read slaves). After Secession, there were a few Democrats in the North, although they seemed to be concentrated in the slave states that stayed in the union (Maryland, Kentucky e.g.) After the Civil War, they were pretty well kept out of power by the victorious North, but remained a great part of the soul of the South, even if they were only demonstrating their solidarity in activities that were related to the Ku Klux Klan. (Please don't start beating me for saying that Democrats are for the KKK or lynching today, okay, except for Robert Byrd, this is just an historical review in gross generalities, but I'm not writing a book, just a post).
From the end of the Civil War until the rise in Irish and German immigration, Democrats were almost a purely regional party. With the increase of immigrants, especially those living in tenements, who were useful for the political bosses of New York, Boston and Chicago, the Democratic party expanded from being a purely regional party. From that time until the Great Depression, there was a certain social stratification that dictated if you were rich enough, you were supposed to be a Republican, and otherwise if you were a working man, especially one who was lucky enough to belong to a union, you were probably a Democrat.
The fiasco of the Great Depression, and especially the ineffective methods of Hoover dealing with the world wide economic collapse opened the door for FDR, and started a legacy that would last for more than 35 years.
These were the leaders who could inspire us with the words "This generation, has a rendezvous with destiny." This was when my father was born. He grew up in poverty in Malta, with an outhouse and no inside plumbing. This was a man who as a grown adult, had size 8 feet, because his parents bought him some really good shoes when he was in third grade, and they were the only shoes he had until high school. But my father, like his truck driving father before him, idolized FDR.
I had pointed out to him that none of FDR's economic programs ended the Depression, but it was WWII and the aftermath (none of our infrastructure was seriously damaged, but that of all of our competitors had been pretty well destroyed. He didn't care about facts, he just knew that FDR had ended the Depression, and that was all that he needed to know.
After FDR, Truman came along, and was the definition of having "greatness thrust upon him." But Harry saw to the end of the Second World War, and the aftermath which included the demobilization of 18 million men. He also saw that the Soviets did not demobilize, and instead cut off access to Berlin, which could easily have been considered an act of war. Instead HST ordered the Berlin Airlift, which succeeded more from the Russians getting bored than anything else. Harry also had to confront the problems of the Korean peninsula. Luckily for him, the senior political leadership at the time recognized that there was a threat to our interests, and both sides supported him, even though the end result was a stalemate.
After Truman, there came what I consider to have been the best Democratic president of this century, John F. Kennedy. Now when I say that he was the best, it doesn't mean that he was perfect. He ran on the "missile gap" issue, even though he knew that was a false issue. But his inaugural speech had a line that we seem to have totally lost: Bear any burden, pay any price in the defense of liberty. Today we seem to be saying that everything is too hard and costs too much.
I am not sure how we came from JFK to Harry Ried insisting that "The war is lost." Except, (and now I finally get around to the point I started) I think that the Democrats are in the midst of a titanic struggle for the soul of the party. During the Clinton years, the Democratic Leadership Council was in its ascendancy. They favored a business friendly environment, and compromised with the Republicans. Apparently, they were also sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Because now, we have the Daily Kos crowd, who in concert with MoveOn directs the Netroots in a slash and burn strategy.
The fact that all of the Democratic presidential candidates appeared at YearlyKos, and maybe one showed at the DLC convention shows who has the power in the Democratic Party at the moment. And Kos and Co. are not above flexing their muscles. They took on Joe Lieberman, who was as good a Democrat as any, except for one thing: Iraq. The fact that Kos failed doesn't seem to matter to today's Democrats, who are looking over their shoulder to see if the Kossacks are after them next. Doestn't seem to be a good time to be a Trotskyite Democrat at the moment.
But this is really the point of the post (I know finally). Who are the Democrats of today? They don't seem to be the FDRs or the Harry Trumans. JFK would have been run out of the party as a neo-con. There are no Scoop Jacksons, Sam Nunns, or my personal favorite Patrick Moynihan.
I sense that the Kossacks are riding a tiger, and either they are going to conquer the party, or they will destroy it. I also see the moderate Democrats cowering, as in their failure to address the MoveOn ad about Gen. "Betray Us."

It's possible we are watching the beginning of the end for a major political party, or the radicalization of whatever remains. I will be interested to see how it all comes out.

Good for John Kerry

Boy, I never thought that I would ever say that. But at the above link, he is the only Democrat (other than Lieberman) to actually denounce the MoveOn ad in the New York Times. He went so far as to say that the ad was "over the top."
Well better than nothing I guess.
But what about the other Democratic Senators, including our own Tester and Baucus?
It could be that their silence condones this despicable ad. Or that they hope that we will forget.

I will always remember.

They just can't help themselves

Let's see, "Everybody knows . . ." Isn't that the weakest form of argument?

What if someone doesn't "know?"

What if they know something else?

Then MoveOn and their minions are flipping traitorous idiots.

But I repeat myself.

Why the Democrats are Wrong

One of the best lines: "Iraq is too important versus who wins the White House in 2008"

Another view

Michael Yon has done a great series about what is actually going on in Iraq. A former Special Forces soldier, he now works as an independent reporter, and has some fantastic stuff to read. He is nor blind supporter of the war, but instead looks at it from the perspective of a professional soldier. No BS either way, and is well worth a read.
This reminds me of the word Weltanschauung. It's German, and we usually translate it as "World view." But this is inadequate as a definition. the word is really better understood as the way you look at the world around you, based on your experiences, and what you hold to be important.
Right now, the Democrats are continuing their assertion that the war in Iraq is lost, and any further continuance is a mistake, and may be possibly criminal. The leading Democrats all repeat the same mantra that the war cannot be won militarily, but instead has to be won politically. Well, Duh! They forget the axiom of Clausewitz that war is just politics by other means. They are inseparable.
But another problem with the Democrat's Weltanschauung is that they look to a strong and centralized government to solve their problems. Local governments serve only to carry out the mandates from on high. But Iraq is not the same as America (Another Duh!)
Tribalism carries more weight than what we are used to. But the Sheiks of Anbar may just be the start of making a change that the elected government in Baghdad cannot make. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Our troops on the ground under Gen. Petraeus are having an effect on the direction that the tribes are making. If we can continue in this way, it is entirely possible that the local situation will improve without the assistance of the Maliki government.
That is not necessarily a bad thing.

Further evidence

that the gulf between the military and the citizens they defend is at the link above. The Democrat's peremptory dismissal as basically being a lie is already taking off through MoveOn's minions. I saw a letter to the editor in the Missoulian which was along the same lines.

What these people fail to understand is that since Viet Nam, an officer's integrity is sacrosanct. To imply that Gen. Petraeus is anything less than honorable is disgusting, especially when the report hasn't been presented yet, and there is no evidence that Petraeus is Bush's stooge.

They forget that one of the main lessons of Viet Nam was based on a guy named General Maxwell Taylor. When Johnson wanted certain actions that Taylor deemed unsound, Taylor later wrote in his book that he wished he would have resigned. Instead he carried out his orders.

This is the example that is now taught on how not to do it. If Petraeus honestly believes that further sacrifice is pointless, he owes his loyalty to his soldiers and will say so. If Bush rejects that assessment, Gen. Petraeus is expected to resign.

No one wants to be this war's Maxwell Taylor.

Republican Debate

For the most part, the Presidential debates are nothing more than joint press conferences. A candidate is asked a question, and then gives an answer on what he/she really wanted to talk about, which usually has nothing to do with the question.

But because there was nothing on the History or Discovery channels worth watching, I did end up observing last night's display with a certain amount of amusement. But what I really enjoyed was Ron Paul, with his classical Libertarianism. I wish someone would ask him if his version of being libertarian is still applicable since 9-11.

But what really tickled me, was when he was talking about ending the use of torture. This echoed John Edward's speech, but Paul did it in front of John McCain. I keep waiting for McCain to ask Paul, or any of the Democratic candidates "What do you understand torture to be?"

Seems to me that he knows very well. And it is not this.

Edwards hates your privacy

At the above link, John Edwards has decided that we need a further leap in the erosion of what it means to be an adult. He wants mandatory preventative checkups for everyone.
In a way, it makes sense. If you are going to provide universal health care, you need to control costs. So, when you go to the doctor, you will be told to eat less, drink less, give up smoking, quit skydiving, motorcycle riding, etc. Otherwise, your choices will probably bankrupt the system.
So, what happens if you don't comply? Does the doctor violate doctor patient privacy in order to rein in costs? Will you be cut off from health care services until you comply?
What happens if the doctor fails to report your unhealthy activities? Will he be cut off from providing for you or anyone else?
No, let's all just go out and get identical uniforms, and line up like the cogs in the machine that we are supposed to be. No deviation from right thinking will be allowed.
So, this is what has become of the Revolution.

A Petition Not to Lose

At the above link is a petition to not lose the war just yet. With all of the one sided publicity against the war, there are a few of us who still believe that not living under a murderous tyrant is a good thing.
Not to deny the problems in Iraq. But not to deny the possibility that there can still be success.

Click and sign it.

The problems that Democrats have

David Brooks does an excellent take down of the pseudo-science that thinks that the Democrats should always be winning. In his opening, Brooks notes that Democrats just don't understand why it could be that:

Serious thinkers set to work, and produced a long shelf of books answering this question. Their answers tended to rely on similar themes. First, Democrats lose because they are too intelligent. Their arguments are too complicated for American voters. Second, Democrats lose because they are too tolerant. They refuse to cater to racism and hatred. Finally, Democrats lose because they are not good at the dark art of politics. Republicans, though they are knuckle-dragging simpletons when it comes to policy, are devilishly clever when it comes to electioneering. They have brilliant political consultants like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, who frame issues so fiendishly, they can fool the American people into voting against their own best interests.

To say that the Democrats are condescending is woefully inadequate. Remember the book "What's the matter with Kansas?" Why didn't the writer do another book "What's the matter with the people who live in D.C.?"

Further proof that the narrative is more important than the facts.

The Problem with Liberals

At the above link, is an excellent analysis of the problems with those people who call themselves "liberals" but are instead no different from fascist jack booted thugs.

I really liked this in the introduction:

In fact, considering that I was raised as a good Democrat and a proud liberal, it pains me to have to admit such distaste for the current state of liberalism. But how can I remain silent when so many people tell me that they agree with my ideas, but are afraid to speak up for themselves because of the names they will be called? How can I remain silent when I have a position of power to defend myself, and I know that young people in colleges across this nation are afraid to turn in papers that contradict the liberal social agenda of their professors? How can I remain silent when there is so much at stake?

Week after week, I endeavor to write columns which raise questions and propose answers. Week after week I am told by my liberal friends that my questions are foolish and my answers are stupid. Yet I wait in vain for anyone to read my last two columns on global warming and show me where I went wrong. What I hear instead is that “all” the climate scientists in the world agree that global warming is man-made and ruinous, with the implication left hanging or spoken aloud that I am supposed to shut up, get in line and do what I am told.

Read the whole thing. It does clarify that the word "liberal" has been hijacked.

Good read

The essence of good literature, is to point out and make obvious, that which you already know, but that you forgot that you know it. Peggy's essay at the above link is a reminder of what we all too often forget: The Americans are basically good fair and decent.
I know that some are too quick to point out Abu Ghraib, and Guantanomo. Both of these seem to be more the aberration than the rule, yet we are so quick to tar with a broad brush all members of the military with the perfidy of the few. But what they forget is that their mere presence is changing the Middle East every day. In the past, regimes in the area have always used propaganda to portray us as blood thirsty killers intent on ravaging their women. But instead, when troops show that they are kind to all who don't shoot at them, the narrative comes into question.
Too bad the narrative in this country wouldn't also be given a second look.

Who not to vote for

Okay, I wouldn't tell you who to vote for, but I have to warn you against anyone that ActBlue is for. At the above link, you can see where the money is going. The fact that most of the Presidential money for ActBlue is going to John Edwards is good enough for me to say that those people should not be accepted by anyone who thinks.

I am opposed to John Edwards mostly because he is a trial lawyer. I am a lawyer too, but I fight for people's freedom. Edwards and his ilk fight for money, and regret having to pass it on to their clients.

Edwards is good looking, smooth, and has the natural ability to charm people. He is also a pandering idiot. This is just my opinion, but if you look closely at him and his hypocrisy, I think that you will join me in this opinion.

The problems with being a Libertarian

As a general rule, I have always considered myself to be of a Libertarian bent. But the article at the above link, states some problems that need to be worked out. Some of the best lines

Jeff Friedman, editor of Critical Review. . . noted this problem in his compelling essay several years ago entitled "What's Wrong With Libertarianism?" In a nutshell, he observed that libertarians make a moral case for their philosophy (i.e., it is wrong for government to push people around) which they are unwilling to push to the extreme, namely, to the point where they argue that their system of governance would be best even if one could prove that people would be materially better off in some system of stronger government. At that point they switch to what we call consequentialism, and argue that not only is the libertarian system more just by virtue of its minimal coercion, but that it is also produces more prosperity for its citizens.

The problem, Friedman rightly observed, is that we have shown no such thing. To be sure, economists have done a good job of demonstrating that heavy government management of the economy reduces economic growth by destroying property rights and incentives. Nobody has shown, however, that a libertarian system of nearly non-existent government would make people better off. We have anecdotes, we have some notion that we can extrapolate from partial analyses of more ostensibly libertarian times at the turn of the century, and we have the rational profit-maximizer of economics -- but we do not have a methodologically rigorous study that can even explain, for example, the inescapable correlation between sizable government (say, 20-40% of gross domestic product) and sustained economic growth.

Okay, just because the theory isn't perfect, doesn't mean that it's wrong. I will have to think about this some more, but I agree that libertarianism has a strong and compelling moral argument. Now, we just need to refine the details.

Additions to the Blogroll

I'll admit that I am basically lazy. I have always went to the sites on the right to hook into the links that I might want to review. I need to update and actually include those links that I do regularly read, so I have added the Last Best Place, Missoulaopolis and the Conservative Cowgirls.

Thanks to you all for having such fine and interesting blogs.

Kleptocrats

During my travels around the world, I had often the opportunity to observe the petty friction of graft, mordida, baksheesh, that is so often prevalent especially in the Middle East. This sort of corruption is taken for granted by those that live there, but it is also corrosive for a society. Don't have enough money to get a bureaucrat to do his job? Too bad, someone else will always find a way to grease the right palm, even if it is at your expense.

The difference from that form of corruption and that of our country is one of degree only. In the USA, we use the FBI to chase down direct payment ala William Jefferson, D-LA. But there is still a group in this country that finds the confiscation of wealth is just fine They always seem to be saying that the rich need to pay their "fair share." If you were to take this as anything other than a slogan, you would appear to be saying that the rich need a tax cut. Analysis of the top tax rate sure doesn't seem to allow them to shirk their share. If you figure that in 2003 the top rate was 35%, which is before all of the other taxes, it seems to me that this is confiscatory at the minimum. Under what theory do we allow this to happen? Do those making $300k+ a year use more services than their population should expect?
Why do we take it for granted that this is right, moral or just? I can't find anything to support it except the continuing hyperbole of William Jennings Bryan and his "Cross of Gold."

Would someone please explain it to me?

You gotta stay on top of things.

So, I'm busy trying to stay on top of what the world is saying, and I usually try to check out some of the Fanatical Left, just to see what they are saying, when I found this from Intelligent Disontent. It was rather amusing, because I had already read Instapundit's link which explains how the NYT got it so horribly wrong. Instapundit linked it at 10:26 a.m., which I am assuming is Eastern Time, or 8:26 our time. Intelligent Discontent doesn't show what time it was posted, but surely, after reviewing the shortcomings in the NYT article, you would think that ID would relook their posting.

Unless. . . .

What if the narrative doesn't fit the facts? Well, soldier on boy, we can't let facts get in the way of our mission.

But what about credibility? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . . Aren't the Left blogs even mildly concerned? Maybe they don't have to be, since "everyone knows" they mean well, right?

Maybe their audience deserves them.

Discussing Delusions

I have noticed a recent trend by my friends on the Left that is repeating itself throughout the political spectrum: The use or variation of the term "delusional" for anyone who disagrees with you.

Wulfgar seems to like this a lot. This is interesting because of the almost schizophrenic rants are so different from what he posts on his page versus what he posts in comments under other blogs. He seems to take his time and thinks in an orderly and sequential fashion when he posts on Dave's site but his own postings seems more like a stream of consciousness.

Mark Ochenski of the Missoula Independent does the same thing as most Global Warming conspiracists in saying that if you disagree with him, you are either evil, or worse delusional. Never mind that the facts are not nearly as settled as he thinks they are. When they can forecast weather accurately two weeks out I may be more willing to consider their ideas. Right now, I see this as a group with an agenda hijacking some questionable science.

Then there is the national level, with such a prime example as Doonesbury that if you don't agree with his assumptions that you are living in a bubble, immune from reality.

The thing that these examples have in common, is that they try to curtail discussion not through the use of superior argument, but instead through ad hominem attacks that question their opponent's sanity. It has the advantage that if you take them on, you are forced into trying to prove a negative (that you're not nuts) before you can address their arguments.

Interestingly, it seems to me that the old Soviet Union used to use its psychiatric hospitals for dissidents as well. Maybe it's time for me to be committed to Warm Springs, because I don't see their argument as being as effective as they do.

Only problem, if you want to go to Warm Springs, you can't be nuts, so they won't take you. It's only if you don't want to go that they will make you.

Maybe Wulfgar et.al. can change that and just walk around the blogosphere shouting J'accuse, and we will all be carted off by the nice men in the white coats.

One way to deal with illegal immigration

At the above link, two non federally recognized tribes are selling memberships in their tribe to illegals as a way to avoid being deported. While the cases are probably just a scam, they do raise interesting possibilities.
For instance, being a member of a tribe is a political decision, not a racial one. Because the US Supreme Court has determined that the tribes are "quasi-sovereign" (like quasi-virgin maybe?) they can decide who is a member and who is not. It is not based on a blood quantum, unless the tribe decides that is the minimum standard. However, with each succeeding generation, the quantum will be reduced, to the point that it will not be sustainable as a measure of "Indianess."
By selling memberships, tribes will be able to increase their population, and possibly increase their claim to federal benefits. This is really quite fascinating in a way.

Further signs of delusions

At the above link, the creator of the Daily Kos, and one of his co-writers are proclaiming that they have won the "center" of the American electorate. One of the things that I have learned as I got older is to never believe your own propaganda. Moulitas seems to think that the reason that the Democrats won the Senate and House is because they pushed the Democratic Party leftward, and were rewarded for their desire to be more socialist than the DLC was.
Let me posit another theory as to why the Democrats won both chambers: The general electorate was fed up with Republican corruption and pork barreling. Take for example Conrad Burns. Tester beat him by less than the margin of votes who went to the Libertarian candidate. Suppose that Conrad had been able to attract those votes, would the Senate still be in ostensibly Democratic control? Maybe not.
The advantage that the Democrats had was the manipulation of the media. Remember Abramof? How much do you hear about his relationship with Harry Ried and other Democrats? The fact is, the Democrats are not more moral or honest than the Republicans. They just receive less coverage for their crookedness in the general media. But suppose more of this sort of corruption is exposed. Would the American public react with the attitude that the Democrats may be crooks, but they are on our side, or throw those bums out too?
As a basically Libertarian Republican, I want decent, honest and effective candidates who are able to exercise independent judgment. I don't see that in the Democratic party at the moment. Instead, I see Tester and to a certain extent Baucus becoming captive to the Left Wing noise machine. This is probably reasonable, since look what Kos was able to do to Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary. On the other hand, look what Ned Lamont did in the general as well.
In the past, Baucus would always become Republican just before his election. With the Netroots so active, I am not sure that he will be able to do so now. Keenan may be an unknown quantity at the moment, but if Baucus is pushed too far left, Keenan may be able to upset the senior senator from our fair state.

Too cool to be true

I've always been a Skynard fan, but this is proof of the continuing integration of the world.

The Red Army choir, which I once had a mono recording of, and can still send chills up your spine has now sunk to a new low.

More Lies

So, Scott Beauchamp, the supposed war diarist is outed, and the Left is defending his stories, like Jay Stevens. Stevens seems to believe everything that Beauchamp writes as true and he turns any question of disbelief against the questioner. (How dare you question how bad war is, Scott Beuachamp is there)
Of course, even TNR has had to address that the appalling incident with the disfigured woman took place (if it happened at all) in Kuwait before Scott even made it to the horrors of war. Powerline has some good quips, and comments regarding this so called diarist.
The amusing thing like so many others (Jason Glass, etc.) his lies seem to give him authenticity because that is what people like Jay want to believe.
Reality based community? I think the better term is one I read elsewhere: The community based reality.

How to lose a war

At the above link, bloggers from the Left are taking to task the two gentlemen who had the temerity to suggest that the "surge" in Iraq may actually be working. One of the interesting parts:

The rhetorical ruckus ignited by O’Hanlon and Pollack was partly a matter of timing, coming as the White House and military commanders argue that they need several more months to prove their latest strategy is working, while Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress say time will be up in September.

It was also partly due to their provocative conclusions: “Today, morale is high. … [T]hings look much better than before. … [A] new emphasis on micro loans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.”

Apparently, this is disturbing to those on the Left because it may ervive feelings of hope that the war could still be won. Hmm, I don't suppose that is the same objective of those who are doing the terrorist acts is it?

Both the Left and the terrorists seem to realize that perceptions are far more important than actual "ground truth."

On Stopping judges

Volokh has some good comments about Sen. Schumer et.al. who have decided to stop all Bush judicial appointments. While the Volokh article addresses that turnabout is fair play, I don't think they really appreciate that hypocrisy is an asset for the Democrats.
As my wife (The Good Democrat) said when I asked if those who thought divided government was such a good thing would support a Republican House or Senate, she said no, "That divided government is only good for Republicans." "Democrats know how to run a government."
Ah life. Ain't it grand?

Colby Natale, Savant?

Colby at MtNetroots has been trying to understand the conservative mind, but without much success. I think that this is because he is surrounded with like minded individuals who all believe that they are smart, cool and caring. Nothing wrong with that by itself, but what if they aren't really as smart or cool as they think? Could throw a glitch into their entire Zeitgeist don't you think?
I think that it is easier for a conservative to understand a liberal than the other way around. My theory is that many conservatives used to be liberal, but as they got older, they found a lot of reality doesn't coexist with their dreams. When they get done pondering why that is so, they become conservatives.

Okay, maybe we aren't the lamest generation

After taking a break from his PhD to take Queen to the top of the charts, one of its members has returned. Maybe if the rest of us would go finish what is important, we could change the whole "Lamest Generation" sobriquet.

This brings tears to my eyes

“Guard jealously your memories of him,” said Phillips. “Fight against the haze of time, struggle against whatever might steal from you the fact that you worked and lived alongside one of the finest men to walk this earth.”

This is what being a soldier is all about.

Guard jealously your memories. Finer words have never been written.

What happens when we lose?

At the above link is a good analysis in Iraq when we execute our "withdrawl"/defeat. I know that some on the Left are already broadcasting that such scenarios are only playing on Bush creating fear. What they don't say, is what they think will happen.
Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

On Father's Day

Okay, it really is the day after Father's Day when I post this, but I still wanted to say it without having to wait for next year.

I went to dinner with my two daughters yesterday after having my son drive 250 miles to take his old man out golfing the day before. I realized that the greatest gift any child can give to their father is to be a good person, and be willing to be a friend to your father.

I am thrice blessed.

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.