More Krugman idiocy.

Below, I made mention of the mendacity that is the former Enron advisor Paul Krugman. Then I came across this.
American Thinker is one of those hard to find spots on the Intertubes that is well worth the time to seek them out. And while I normally only link to cites, this is too rich to risk you not taking a look.

Paul Krugman, a man so wise that he alerted us to the looming economic disaster inherent in the very Bush Administration policies that have produced high growth, low unemployment, and a falling deficit, now explains why conservatives like me laugh at Al Gore's global warming theory campaign.

"...the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore [was], I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration."

So scientific skepticism is ruled out. That's very convenient for Krugman because global warming theory isn't holding up very well under examination. No mention of the British Court requiring a corrective message appear before Gore's film when it is force-fed to British school children. This enables Krugman to blithely write:

"The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right."

Krugman is good at suggesting those who disagree with him are villainous or obsessional. Check out this sneer at the work of AT contributor (and my friend) Monica Showalter, who exposed in the pages of Investors Business Daily the inconvenient truth that Soros entities have been funding James Hansen, a NASA official whose recent actions we have questioned.

Investor's Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of - who else? - George Soros.

Krugman's attempts to marginalize those who follow the tradition of scientific skepticism will no doubt be lapped up by those readers who know about conservatives from what they read in the New York Times. But for anyone familiar with the actual arguments against global warming, they are laughably self-serving delusions.

I have come to believe that anyone who references Media Matters or Paul Krugman is either a fool or an idiot. To those who do reference them, I would welcome a contra argument.

If it could be done.

Krugman, Dionne and other idiots.

Jay Stevens clips some "interesting observations" from two liberal icons of the Misguided Senile Media. Krugman, the former Enron advisor, who then went on to a career with the New York Times, where he had been blissfully hidden for quite some time (but not long enough) and Dionne, who always give me the impression that he is going to start shrieking hysterically, are two people that I just cannot take seriously. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and try to consider their view as coming from a rational and thoughtful person. It just can't be done with these two "gentlemen."
And yet, Jay seems to think that their thinking is important.

All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate.

Well, there you go, those Republicans are doing character assassination. Hmm, I wonder why the Democrats never did this? Judge Bork, would you care to give an answer if you could, or any one of thousands of others since.
Then we get this:

Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has universal health insurance, but in America , insurance is now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they have incomes some might call middle-class.

Excuse me? If some have found health insurance quotes of less than $400 per month for the family, why is that considered "out of reach for many hard-working families?" Now, it could be argued that with pre-existing conditions that the costs would be so much higher, and I would agree with them.
But WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THEY BUY IT BEFORE THE ACCIDENT? Oh, that's right, because the taxpayers can be counted on to pay for their greed (for putting the money in other places instead of health care insurance). What? How dare I call someone only making $45,000 greedy! It's easy, there are limited resources for everything. You make your choices.
In the Montana of my youth, if you needed help you could always count on your neighbors. But you didn't demand their help, and if you were really stupid, after awhile they would quit helping. Relying on natural selection to solve your problems. But somehow, we have created this mentality that someone else owes us, just because they may have something more than us. How this came about is still amazing to me.

Have they no shame?

Dave Budge takes on the silliness of Jay Stevens for being outraged at the Free Republic for pointing out that the spokesman that the Democrats relied on, a twelve year old boy, to reply to Bush's veto of the excessive SCHIP bill, is part of at least a middle class family.

Some of the amusement, is when Jay says:

First, this particular family has nothing to do with whether CHIP is a good program. We don't know 'nuthin' about the family. Anecdotal evidence proves f*ck-all.

So, the Democrats have this twelve year old kid who asks to rebut Bush, and they just say, "Sure!" "We don't know 'nuthin' about this family?" Oh yes we do. We know that they are being cynically manipulated by the Democrats. We know that the Democrats are reverting to the old school, "It's for the children" argument, because so few people are willing to think or ask questions. And using children has worked so well for them. Remember all the kids that would start crying because they knew that they were going to be killed in a nuclear war started by Raygun? Those kids knew nothing about the real situation, but they were being scared unmercifully by the Democrats for political advantage.
But Jay's comments that:

You can pull this rhetorical bullsh*t, slime the folks getting CHIP as undeserving n'eer-do-wells sucking off the teat of government,

triggered something when I read this comment below Mark Steyn's quoted piece which pointed out the

faux outraged leftists accusing conservative bloggers of waging a “smear campaign:”

and further down:

Harry Reid spokesman Jim Manley complains: “This is a perverse distraction from the issue at hand” and accuses questioners of attacking children.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Obviously the marching orders went out, and Jay and his ilk must realize how dangerous for their silly argument it is to be taking advantage of children in this way.

Child abuse I tell you!!


Have they no shame? In the final analysis, have they no sense of decency left?

Nope!

The Rich Need to Pay Their Fair Share!!!

If the top 1% of the tax payers pay 90% of all taxes, as the TaxProf Blog says, then don't they deserve a tax cut? And if the top 25% of earners pay out 86%, kind of makes you wonder what the other 75% are doing.

Update: Montana Headlines does an excellent analysis about this question. I am sure that Wulfgar would appreciate it, when he gets his reading comprehensions scores up.

Patriotism is the Highest Form of Dissent

When Hillary screamed that "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism" it gave me pause in that way when you know something is seriously wrong with what was said, but you don't want to take the time to parse it out. And like a low grade infection, it gnaws annoyingly at you, but you just don't take the time to deal with it.
Then, along comes the doctor who pours some iodine on it, and makes it go away. The good doctor wrote:

The great, truly patriotic reformers of American history have the country for what it is despite its flaws, which they dedicated themselves to amending. It's only of late, under the influence of Marxism and the tumult of the '60s (perhaps the Kennedy assassination, if you believe that guy's new book) in which you see large numbers of people expressing the loopy theoretical proposition that you can despise your country out of love for it, which seems to be the bottom line for a lot of petty university-educated intellectuals these days.

Another great mind that I hadn't considered said this:

The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong. . . . How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny. How dare you call yourselves patriots and heroes.

I say to you, all of you, . . . there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities.

(Hat Tip to Instapundit.)

This problem often manifests itself in strange ways. Some are openly hostile to our soldiers, while others wallow in a form of manipulated self loathing even though they get it so completely wrong that they seem to be furthering enemy propaganda.

Others, come to the defense of soldiers only when it suits their cause. Yet they do not come to the side of any soldier who would offer support for what the soldiers are doing. In fact, they are more than willing to believe a fabulist, who has since recanted. Amusingly, in their efforts to avoid jingoism, some are becoming jingoistic in their anti-jingoism.

When nearly 20% of a major political party think that it would be a good idea for the US to lose the war, and the major leadership of that party remain mute, I have to wonder. Couple that silence with the news media, those "arbiters of information" who will jump on anything that looks bad, but ignore any good news has me concerned about their reliability.

I am willing to make a deal: I won't question anyone's patriotism, so long as they don't give me a reason to.

A Death in the Family

I have always enjoyed Christopher Hitchens' writings. He wields the English language as a rapier in slashing apart weak thoughts and arguments. But this piece brought tears to my eyes.
Each of us may think that we are creatures of our own making as we stumble through life. Never realizing that what we might consider to be just a glancing blow at the most, leaves instead, an imprint of more magnitude than we had thought. The young man in the above link was just such a case. What he may not have appreciated, is that he has more than returned the favor to Hitchens.
The line that is quoted from his letters:

Anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).… Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics.

(emphasis added.) touched me deeply, because, even after all these years, I know these men and women. Not these individuals, but their type. These people are the strength of our nation. They embody what is best in America. Which is probably why I get so ticked off when they are used and abused for political gain.

How many of us could say that at nineteen we were actually doing something for democracy and individual rights? And I mean this especially for those who seem to think promotion of a certain political agenda is the same thing. Don't insult these fine soldiers by equating that service with theirs.

Look at your own life, and see if you are worthy of those who serve. As I have said before, they serve without being servile.

God Bless each and every one of them.

Spiralling Downward?

Earlier, I had posted why I thought the Democrats may be in trouble in 2010. Because of certain structural problems, I think that the Republicans are going to lose even more seats in Congress in 2008, unless they can change the perception that they are fiscally irresponsible.
So, let's all get ready for a future of President Clinton with a Democratic Congress in charge at least for a little while. But I am willing to make a prediction: It ain't going to be that easy for Hillary, and most of the problems are going to be coming from her Left. However you might feel about her, and I definitely do not want to listen to her cackle every day, she is shrewd enough to figure out the difference between campaigning and governing. She has recently appointed Michael O'Hanlon as her foreign policy adviser. You might have forgotten who he is, but he is one of two men from the Brookings Institute who said that the the surge is working. O'Hanlon was widely attacked for such heresy, mostly because it could have been perceived as verifying Bush, which is of course a total no-no.
So, Hillary is confident enough to disregard the Kos and MoveOn crowds. Why, you might ask? Because she has more than enough money she doesn't need their Dean dimes to get elected. And she needs to reassure the majority of Americans that she is not one of the Loony Left in order to get elected.
Of course, that doesn't apply in every election, and like here in Montana, in a close election, MoveOn can certainly have enough of an impact to get their candidate elected. But any candidate who wins, is going to have a MoveOn member whispering sic transit gloria, or as translated: We own you Baby!
Reinforced with their increased majority, the Democratic Party is going to be doing a sharp veer to the Left, and with it, the ruining of the right to private property, the economy, and just possibly, Western Civilization as we know it.

Nothing exceeds like excess.

More funnies

Scoop has a great piece that you just have to chuckle at.

Humor requires a certain element of truth. This clip is only too true.

Oh, How Quickly They Forget

Left in the West has Baucus's newest campaign ad which ostensibly castigates Bush. I remember in 2002 when Max was busy trying to get every photo op with Bush that he could.

You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.

Update: I try to stay on top so that I am not duplicating other ideas that I want to post. But Mike at The Last Best Place beat me by about 20 Minutes.

To Mike, great minds and all that, even if I am 20 minutes behind you.

More Funnies

Fred Thompson has it right!

If brevity is the essence of wit, Fred has it.

The idea that equating a MoveOn ad attacking a serving General who is apolitical and what a political commentator says is ridiculous. As someone else I know is famous for writing:Stop writing stupid sh*t.

The desire to make them the same shows the shallowness of their argument.

The Source of Montana's Future Riches

In their never ending search for ways to create revenue for the government, Sen. Inouye is allowing the moratorium on the sales taxes for the Internet to expire. Since Montana does not have a sales tax, all we need is a new law guaranteeing the right to privacy, especially in commercial transactions, and a way to make Montana the point of sale, and Montana could get rich.

Too easy. It will never happen.

But you can bet that the Internet tax will prevail. Too much money to pass by.

I'm doing it for the Children.

Carol at Missoulaopolis links to an article that says that the SCHIP program will require 22 million new smokers by 2017.

Thank God. I am tired of the health Nazis who want to tell me that "Smoking kills."

So, if I don't smoke, I'll live forever?

Nah, I think that it is my personal responsibility to take care of the poor urchins whose parents are making up to $80,000 per year.

So, the next time that someone gives me grief for smoking, I will just have to ask them: "Why do you hate kids?"

I'm Baacck

After a hiatus, in which the aphorism "the only thing that justice has to do with the justice system, is the abuse of the name," is proved once again, I have returned to comment on some of the things that have passed since I have been tied up.

Communication Silence Imposed

Got a trial on Monday, will not be posting until after, unless something really good comes up and I am taking a break from prep.
Rabid Out!

The Economics of being a MoveOn Member

Scoop had a piece that reflected my thoughts about MoveOn running a "real" anti-war candidate against Max in the Democratic primary. It kind of mirrored a post by Missoulaopolis where she was rather amazed that MoveOn would do such a thing.

This got me to thinking. There is a cap of $2,300 per person per election that can be contributed in a federal election. So, let's take a typical MoveOn couple in Montana and see what happens to them. Using a rough estimate of $40,000 for the household income, (based on the idea that MoveOn members tend to be better educated and wealthier than the average blue collar Democrat), the two adults of the presumed household could each contribute the $2,300 to the challenger of Max, for a total of $4,600. Then, after the challenger loses, they could repeat the $4,600 contribution in the general election to Max, for a total contribution in the Montana Senate race of $9,200, or nearly 25% of their gross income for one election.

The reason that this is interesting to me, is not that someone would be so committed to the idea of supporting their cause that they would spend one fourth of their gross income on a candidate, rather, there is a limit in the amount that they could practically donate, and without a challenger against Max, they would concentrate their giving to Max.

However, since Max is an incumbent, and according to some on the Left, he is soliciting bribes, er I mean donations from lobbyists, it seems highly unlikely that the MoveOn couple will have any real effect in the primary, and Max will be able to move solidly to the center, like he usually does. The net result is that the MoveOn couple will be out their contributions, Max will survive the primary and again run as a Demopublican like he always has.

I tell you, Dave is looking better and better every day. (In a figurative sense anyway)

Dave in 08!

And so it begins

At the above link, are some of the recommendations that Cong. Dingell is going to be proposing. Some of them are:

_A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

_A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.

_Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

I can hardly wait!

Who values the truth?

I have been thinking about writing a post about some of the lies that have been so recklessly flung around in the political debate. Unfortunately, the time and the effort haven't been available.
Well, lo and Behold! Someone else has written it for me. Some of my favorite graphs:

[H]ow much truth is valued may be different for the right and the left.

In the hierarchy of leftist (as opposed to traditional liberal) values, truth is below other values, such as equality, opposition to war, the promotion of secularism and a number of other highly regarded values on the left.

This does not mean that the number of truth-tellers among individuals on the left is necessarily smaller than the number of individual truth-tellers on the right. It means that truth-telling is not high on the left's list of values.

And:

Few liberal activist groups tell the truth. Not because their members are liars — in private life they may well be as honest as anyone else — but because whatever the left advocates it deems more important than truth.

This does not mean the right is always honest. For example, conservatives who say that "pornography causes rape" are doing what the left does — putting their agenda, in this case a loathing of pornography, above truth-telling. I have seen no credible statistics linking the proliferation of pornography with increased rape.

Read the whole thing, it will be worth your while. It does raise an interesting issue though. If one side values the truth, and the other feels that the means justify the ends, can there ever be a fair debate?

M___O_ has a thin skin

Above, is a story about how MoveOn is now going legally after someone for making a T-shirt that pokes fun at them. You have to give credit to CafePress for refusing to buckle.

It also cause me to look around their site (good marketing strategy by the way) and there are a whole lot of amusing libertarian t-shirts.

Give em a look see.

Meet the New Boss, yada, yada, yada

Found this at Roll Call. Seems to verify that nothing changed after 2006.

The hard part: I don't know if that is good or bad.

On the Failure of Campaign Finance Reform

Although I like Sen. McCain for a lot of reasons, I absolutely despise his part in the so-called "campaign finance reform" of McCain-Feingold. In an attempt to remove money from influencing campaigns, they instead allowed money to have an even greater impact in campaigns through the use of "bundlers" like Norman Hsu, the Pioneers and Hillraisers just to name a few. And that's not counting every darn 527 organization that wants to poke its head into the fray.

Trying to get money's influence out of a campaign is like trying to stop the Mississippi. There is just too much pressure, and it will always find a way around any obstacle that you put in front of it. Does anyone think that capping the amount that you can give is really effective when you have people like Hsu and Feiger who hand the individual donations over as a lump sum. Those bundlers have much more influence than their individual donations, and yet we know almost nothing about them.

My proposal is to take all caps off of contributions, but make known each and every donor. In this way, it becomes obvious who is trying to buy access to a candidate. But I would also recommend a change to the law like I saw in Germany: No campaigning more than 60 days before an election.

This is not really an infringement on 1st Amendment rights, since the SCOTUS has already held that restrictions can be permitted. But what it would do, is to limit the amount of money that could be spent just based on time.

Plus, it would only annoy me for 60 days, instead of the perpetual campaign that we now have to suffer under.

Deconstructing Wulfgar

I have been amused by Wulfgar's sense of self importance, in that he has taken a break from playing Doom and taken me to task for my postings. While I really don't care what Wulfgar thinks of me, he did ask that I clarify for him what I consider to be his errors in his tendentious reviews of my postings. And in that regard, I will undertake to show him where he has gone so horribly wrong. He can take it or leave it, but I am sure that he will react in an utterly predictable way. So, this review is probably pointless, but since it is raining out, I can't go play golf and might as well give him a shot.

First, in order to understand someone, you need to gather all of the information you can about them. Wulfgar is a minor character in Beowulf, but he is a major character apparently in some video game, where synthetic violence substitutes for reality. According to Wikipedia the character Wulfgar is

roughly seven feet tall, blond-haired and blue-eyed (common for the barbarian tribes he hails from), and developed his awesomely muscled physique when he was in servitude to the dwarf Bruenor Battlehammer for five years--working alongside dwarves, who are renowned for being tireless. Wulfgar is broad-shouldered and thick-chested with a wiry waist, and his arms have been described as thicker than a fat dwarf's thighs.

I can't find the photo that the Missoula Independent ran of him online, but as I remember it, the real Rob Kailey bears nothing resembling the physical attributes of his alter ego. The article also included this "Though an amiable fellow in person, as Wulfgar! Kailey’s anger gets the best of him online and it comes through in his rants, which are usually directed at conservative bloggers and commentators." Apparently, Wulfgar is Rob's personna allowed to run wild. Too bad, because I am sure that the real Rob Kailey is an interesting person, and I wouldn't mind meeting him.

Examining his front page, we find a snarling wolf with glowing eyes, Ooh, scary. Just under his title is some link that includes the overuse of exclamation points. Psychologists say that all of our choices reveal a part of ourselves. Rob's use (or overuse) of the exclamation point is probably his way of dealing with his own awareness of his inability to be in! your! face! in real life.

It would be easy at this point to fall into the same trap that Wulfgar lives in, and simply use insulting and taunting language in place of any logic or facts. I do not want to do this, and I hope that Rob realizes this is not personal, since Wulfgar is an imaginary creature.

So, let's take Wulfgar's most recent tirade and examine it, shall we?

First, what was it that I said about Congressman Murtha? My point, when viewed in context of the video, is that Congressman Murtha accused the Marines of murder without knowing all of the facts. Then when the facts became clear, he has refused to apologize for the slander, or even to say that he might have been wrong. Admittedly, the subtext is that Murtha is remaining adamant, because it conforms with his political agenda. But still, the reckless accusation of such charges are dangerous for the accused. In the military, commanding generals are the ones who order the convening of a court martial. They are prohibited from entering any opinion of the accused's guilt or innocence in order to prevent "undue command influence" from tainting a fair trial. The purpose being that you don't want the court martial panel to be swayed one way or the other because of perceptions of what their commander wants to have happen. As a senior member of government, and a former Marine, Murtha has to recognize that fact. Because he refuses to retreat on his accusations, says more about Murtha than who he accuses.

So, how does Wulfgar address this point? Mostly by making some nonsensical accusation totally alien from the original post. Here is his opening paragraph:

The foot-stamping defenders of appropriate speech are at it again, demanding that the leftlibdemocomfascists do what the children want, when they want it done. It's always fun to point out that what they are demanding is the same as always, that the lldcfs (read 'Democrats') aren't sacrificing one of our own to appease the god of rightful thinking (which would be the whiny little children's view of themselves.) Here's a tip, kids: if you want Murtha sacrificed to sate your outrage and hate ... do it yourselves, if you have the balls.

Notice the use of scurrilous names. Why is this necessary, and why does he do it so often? One can only assume that Rob is attempting to demean his opponents as a substitute for logic or reason. And it does have a certain level of effect, especially at the junior high playground level. But within the body of the paragraph, is the idea that I have called on anyone to sacrifice Murtha. Apparently, this is a figment of Wulfgar's fervid imagination. My entire post was directed at Murtha. Sure, I did ask why Democrats are given a free pass. But then Wulfgar reinforces my point. As below, there is a significant difference between a political operative who relies on his past military service for attaining a certain level of credibility, and that of a serving military officer who is doing the job that Congress gave him.

In the next paragraph (omitting the usual trite attempts at insult) Wulfgar says:

He missed completely the story that CREW (you know, that left wing organization that so viciously slandered Conrad Burns) has placed Murtha on their Most Corrupt Congress-person's list. I guess CREW didn't get the memo from MoveOn.org, did they Steve?

Now where did I mention CREW in the original post? Is the real Rob starting to come through in recognizing that Murtha is corrupt, even though I didn't mention that at all? But this is typical of a Wulfgar argument. I am sure that there can be no room to move about in Rob's apartment, what with all of the straw that he has amassed for his strawmen arguments.

In his final paragraph:

Of course Steve didn't notice it. That would have meant he would be honor bound to acknowledge the 18 Republican congressmen on that list of 22. Or perhaps, Steve would have had to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of people who grant mythological power to military service are Republicants, such as himself. Murtha isn't immune to attack from the left because of his military service. He's only immune to cheap shots from lying chicken-hawks because of his military service. And Steve, that's a problem for your side ... not mine. Whine all you want for the cookie. The only kids who will whine with you are those who want one to. It shouldn't be at all surprising that we adults just don't want to give you one anymore.

This is amusing on so many levels. Where do I defend anyone in the original post? No, again, in his own mendacious way, Wulfgar creates arguments that don't exist. And this is not the only example. If you read any of his posts, he almost invariably will fall into the same pattern. But the best line, is the one where he refers to himself as an adult. The adults that I know don't write, think or speak like Wulfgar. Maybe he should get some new adults to hang around with.

In short, Wulfgar is an imaginary creation of Rob's in order to vent his spleen. As Wulfgar has said himself in the past, "Sometimes I just write to piss people off." I suspect that is true of all of his writing. Why on earth anyone needs a cartoon caricature from a video game to piss people off is a mystery to me.

Rob, put the silly costume away and come out as yourself. I am sure that you are far more interesting than Wulfgar.

It's HillaryFest

Hillary is running from news show to news show today, which is probably indicative of her feeling that she has the nomination sewn up.

On all of the shows, she is questioned about her vote against the MoveOn Petraeus Betray Us ad, and she delivers the same stock answer: I voted for the motion to condemn that ad, and the ones that attacked Sen. Cleveland in Georgia and Sen. Kerry with the Swiftboat ads.

There is just one difference - What political office is Gen. Petraeus running for? To equate a political campaign victim where they made their military service a prime issue versus a serving military officer who was directed by the Congress to report to them is itself shameful.

But, in her own inimitable way, she carefully fails to answer any question, and instead makes it seem as if Kerry and Cleveland are the equivalent of an officer who is supposed to be apolitical.

You gotta giver her points for chutzpa.

MoveOn as a Racist Organization?

I'm sure that he didn't mean to do this, but Matt has a posting of groups that he thinks need to be censured before MoveOn. They include: Ku Klux Klan, National Vanguard, Prussian Blue, Aryan Nations, the American Nazi Party, NAMBLA, Westboro Baptist Church, pretty much anyone on this list, some of the various fundamentalist Mormon sects.

Okay, I don't know what he means by the Mormon sects, but I agree that the KKK and the rest of that list certainly merit approbation ahead of MoveOn. But did he really mean to include MoveOn with these racist groups? I am sure that it was an oversight.

However, Matt does have to admit that MoveOn has far more political impact than any of the other groups. Since their impact is so large, they need to be considered more seriously than the fringe groups that he listed.

Or accidentally included.

Meet the owner of MoveOn

Which by the way, owns the Democratic Party.

New Blog Added

I just found Western Word and he seems to be an interesting blogger from Billings.

Give him a look.

Interesting take on the Anti-War Movement

Dan Gerstein, a Democratic strategist, has some analysis of the way MoveOn et al has messed things up for the Democrats. His analysis is interesting. A few choice quotes:

To most war opponents, the blame increasingly lies with the Democratic leadership in Congress, for not taking a hard enough line with President Bush and not fighting to cut off war funding. And their frustration is visibly bubbling over — the provocative group Code Pink, for example, has actually taken to protesting outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home in San Francisco in recent days

But there is a growing feeling among many Democrats, particularly within the D.C. establishment, that just the opposite is true. They may not say it publicly, for fear of arousing the grass roots’ wrath, but the realist wing of the party seems to think the Democrats’ biggest problem on Iraq these days is not that there’s too much Bush Lite but that there’s too much Bush Left.

Under this view, too many anti-war activists, not satisfied with berating the president, have too often wound up behaving like him. They have gone beyond fighting back and holding the Decider accountable to adopting the same divisive, dogmatic and ultimately destructive style of politics that Democrats have been decrying for the past seven years, with the same counterproductive results.

Another good graph:

The very same activists who angrily denounced the Rove machine for broadly questioning the patriotism of war critics, and in particular for smearing disabled war hero Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, turned around and attacked a decorated general commanding troops in a shooting war as a liar and a traitor in one of the most visible ways possible.

Read the whole thing.

I think it would be very helpful for our friends from MoveOn. I just don't have a lot of confidence that they will be able to look at the problem dispassionately, and a s a result, will continue their path towards the final destruction of the Democratic Party.

Murtha Still Adamant

Wow, so much for innocent until proven guilty, or for that matter, "Boy I may have really screwed this one up." No, instead, the good Rep. Murtha, chanllenges the questioner by asking if he served in the military.

Why is it that if you served in the military and are a Democrat, you are immune from criticism (Murtha, Kerry to name but two)?

On Game Theory

If I was any good at higher level math, I would have gone to medical school instead of law school. However, in the sense that law is a competition, game theory has some very interesting applications. Although I don't always rely on it, Wikipedia has a pretty good summation of how it came to be and some of the subsequent off shoots of the theory and how they apply.

In politics, especially lately, we seem to be operating under a Nash equilibrium in that neither side has any incentive to change their strategy. However, the probability of things remaining static forever is unlikely, due in part to the trembling hand perfect equilibrium where a player may make a "slip of the hand" and choose an unintended strategy.

The curious thing about this concept is if one of the players is clever enough to induce an opponent to make that step. While this is getting too deep for this blog, it is still nonetheless interesting.

Hmm, I wonder how I should play this?

Defeat at any Price?

The author of the above link raises a very interesting question. Do the Democrats want us to lose in Iraq, no matter what?

To leading Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards, America would be better off if she lost. And this has been true from the start.

To rephrase the question: Why did Harry Reid announce months ago that the war was lost when it wasn't, and everyone knew it wasn't? The wish is father to the deed. He was envisioning the world of his dreams.

That is a scary proposition. But as is so often said, the Democrats support the troops by wanting to bring them home. A noble sentiment, but is it enough? Again, from the article:

"Bring our troops home," says Harry Reid, and adds the incantation "responsibly"--which magically protects him from all charges of irresponsibility. ("Abolish the Constitution and sink the Navy--responsibly!") When MoveOn held a candlelight vigil over the summer to support Senate Democrats, the symbolism was plain. We light candles to remember the dead.

But if we only remember the dead and not the cause for which they died, we dishonor and make nonsense of the noblest of all sacrifices. And we mock a president who asked that "from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain." That is the issue when Americans die in combat. Do we finish the mission and invest their deaths with meaning? Or do we shrug them off, inscribe their names on some sepulchral black wall in a ditch, and walk away?

I realize that it is hard for most people to understand, that soldiers do not want to die, but if they do, they want their death to have a meaning. In today's world, so few people alive live lives with meaning. These soldiers recognize that there is a greater good: Their fellow soldiers and their nation.

So, let's conduct a thought experiment, shall we? Just suppose that the war could be won. (I know, most are saying that this is an impossibility, but work with me here). Okay, if the war could be won, would the Democrats want to win it?

If the answer is no, that is very telling, and there is no further need to discuss it.

On the other hand, if the Democrats did want to win the war, now we have to ask the question - what would it take to win? And if it's resources, time, money or more troops, why don't we want to do whatever it takes to win?

And So It Begins

Intelligent Dissent (curious name, but I will leave it to the reader of the site to determine the validity) is attacking Max and by extension, the AFL-CIO's support for him.

I have long thought that the greatest threat to Max's re-election was the election of Tester. It seems like it is only going to get worse for Max, because MoveOn (We bought it, it's ours)is playing such a big role in the Democratic party right now. Traditionally, Max has always quietly become a Republican right in time for re-election. But the current climate took away a lot of his wiggle room.

If you are a MoveOn supporter (or employee) you want to keep Max on the straight and narrow. But is that what Montanans really want?

Just another vote for Chuck Schumer?

Maybe it's time to give Max a break and let him go home after all those years of sacrifice in our nation's capital.

Err, which home, McLean, VA or Montana, I'm not sure. But then, neither is he.

Emos and Hand Wringers

Will to Exist is linked at the right. I first found him when he was blogging from Iraq. Now he is safe and sound back in North Georgia, but he kept his keen sense of the ridiculous when he returned. One of his more recent posts deals with Emos.

What's an Emo you ask? Well, as he put it so well:

Emo is short for emotional, and emos are a fairly new type of subculture in the society of American youth.

These are the kids who replaced goths in the pyramid of hopeless self-pity and absolute despondence and helpnessness that we are creating for our future generations of leaders. Emos are completely unable to deal with reality, because they live in a fantasy world that is emotionally unhealthy and, not surprisingly, devoid of real logic. The world of an emo is a dark one filled with tears and no real direction unless you count the downward spiral into death as a direction.

This kind of ties in with Dave's Neo-Socialist Hand Wringing Pussies. It explains a lot about where the youth who populate the Left take their cues from.

Very enlightening, if terribly sad.

More Shennanigans

In addition to the Hsu flap, now we see that prominent Bush critic and sanctions buster Oliver Wyatt is tied to Mark Rich. You might remember Rich as the multi-millionaire who fled the jurisdiction for tax evasion until he was pardoned by Bill Clinton. Of course, it helped that Rich's wife donated quite a bit of cash to the Democratic party before the pardon.

But I'm sure that it's all innocent.

1st Monthly MisCon Blogger Meetup

Okay, so I'm the last to post, but I really did have a good time with the other MisCon Bloggers, Dave, Carol and Some Other Dude Scoop.

Like they have already said, it was a truly magical moment, more for the humor at the expense of the Left (Yes, Wulfgar, we laughed at you too), but also for meeting the personalities behind the writings.

I would encourage others who are like minded and have a sense of humor to contact the Blogfather Dave for the next meeting.

As an aside, after we were done, I was talking with Dave, and renewed my request for him to run for national office (Senate). Dave seems hesitant at the moment, but I think that we could count on him if enough of us push for it.

Dave (Not Just Another Pretty Face) for Senator '08!

(And no, he doesn't need the exclamation mark to define him)

What Liberal Media?

Two years ago, I proposed a test to determine if there is a liberal bias in the media. Since then Instapundit has added it as his "Name that Party" entry.
But that doesn't mean that the media are actually liberal does it? (Disclaimer: I am using the term liberal to mean Leftist. This is different than the liberalism that refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.) After all, Johthan Adler says there is bias the other way because news organizations are corporations, and corporations will always act to protect their interests.
Except corporations like any organized hierarchical structure are often taken over from the bottom up. So that logic fails in the face of evidence. For proof of that fact, I give you the New York Times. If they were a purely commercial venture, why would they give MoveOn a break of approximately $100,000 for their ad that slandered the commanding general in Iraq?

No, deniers of media bias are I suppose either clueless, immersed in self righteousness, or just plain daft.

But Don't Question Their Patriotism!

Above, a writer has compared and contrasted the statements of some of the leading Democrats with the taped statement released by bin Laden. At the end, he points out that the none of the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination have addressed nor refuted these statements.
Now, when two parties agree on an issue, there are several possibilities: 1. Both are right; 2. Both are wrong; and 3. One is right and the other wrong. But how can that be you ask? How can both be in agreement, but one be right, and one wrong? Maybe there is a fourth category. Both are pursuing agendas that require cooperation with what would otherwise be an opponent.
It's not that I think that Democrats want to cooperate with bin Laden. Rather, I think that the Democrats seek to maximize their political holdings by going after Bush. And OBL recognizes that having this division is beneficial to him as well.

Too bad the Democrats seem more interested in protecting their Party's interests and not that of the nation.

But hey, I'm not questioning their patriotism.

Right again

The fact that MoveOn owns the Congress is shown in the above link. Failure of the Democrats to even have a vote, shows the fear that they have.
Obama saying that the ad doesn't criticize Petraeus' patriotism is especially amusing.
Calling someone a traitor is not challenging their patriotism?

I've gotta try those drugs.

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.