Pullitzer Winner

The essence of wit is truth. This is just too true. Have you ever noticed how bad the economy always ends up at the end of a Republican Presidency. Did you notice how we are still better off than during Clinton's miracle years?

Economic oddities

When Dave and I met over the weekend, as usual, our conversation went all over the place as two elderly sufferers of ADHD is wont to do. One of the things we were talking about was the price of oil at over $100 per barrel is not having that great of an effect in Europe because the Euro is over 50% stronger than the greenback. In essence, while we are paying the higher price, because of our devalued currency, the Europeans are paying the equivalent of $66 per barrel. Obviously, this is a tremendous benefit to them. But how long can it last?
Forbes magazine has this article which is predicting the end of the Euro within three years. The interesting thing about the article is its prescription to horde dollars because the Euro will suffer one heck of a sell off if and when Spain, Italy and France bail on it. The effect on the hording will rally the dollar, making our imports cheaper and our exports more costly.
I have a bucket with old currencies that I thought were worthless since the creation of the Euro. Maybe I should dig around and find them again. While they were often quite colorful and interesting, they could be worth something once again.

Budge is Busy

setting up my campaign web site Steve 4 HD 96, but we had a meeting in real life, and we were discussing the Clinton tax returns. Dave pointed out that the Clintons gave a lot of money to charity. Then he made the salient point: Is one of the charities the Clinton Library?
That would change the perspective of their "benevolence" if true.

Grown Ups are Finally Showing Up?

Thanks to Instapundit, I found this McCain ad, which I have got to admit has sent a shiver up my spine. Just for fun, listen to the words without the imagery. It is some pretty powerful stuff.

Interesting Reports

I had been considering the purpose of blogs, doing a little navel gazing as it were. I mean, I just don't go out and get the real story like GeeGuy at Electric City, nor do I have the time to dig up the skewing of commissions like Craig at MTPolitics. Most of my posts are in the nature of commentary on other news or postings.
I decided that I'm okay with that. Especially when you get these two YouTube postings to compare:

First - Thanks to Mike at The Last Best Place:




And if that wasn't fun enough, Criag at MTPolitics has this:



As the Good Book says, "By their fruits shall you know them." Now, if we can just get people out of the "feel good" Obama nonsense to actually listen to what they really mean, we might be able to make some progress in this country.

Soooey, Pig, Soooey

The LA Times has an article about pork spending. You remember pork. That was one of the things that caused Republicans to sit on their hands during the 2006 elections. You might also remember how the Democratic leadership was going to make all pork spending transparent.
Well they did. Make it transparent that is. They have done nothing to reduce it. Seems as though the good citizens represented by the junior Senator from New York are being bought off at the tune of almost $300 million. This year. So far.
Barak Obama on the other hand has only 53 earmarks for nearly $100 million. Boy, that fiscal responsibility thing seems to be catching. Good thing all those politicians learned from the last election.
Oh, and John McCain, no earmarks.

The Problems with Education in Montana

Michael Nicosia, who is a Superintendent of Whitefish Schools and vice chair of the Montana Quality Education Coalition, has penned a guest editorial in the Missoulian today. He is attempting to explain why a 7% increase in state wide funding did not result in a 7% overall increase in money to the schools. He doesn't mention that approximately 51% of all the State money goes to administrative overhead. Having been in business for 8 years, I know that overhead is the thing that kills you when it comes to making any money. Surely the same must apply to teaching our chillins, doesn't it? How many senior policy analysts at the OPI would we have to let go to raise teacher pay by 10%. No matter how you answer that question, the answer is going to be pretty scary.
While the Montana Quality Education Coalition is suing the State, I think that they should be worried about being sued for malpractice themselves.

Welcome Your Highness

The Viceroy's Fuguestate has been added at long last to the Dextra roll. And boy am I glad of it. His post on everything that is dangerous had me laughing so hard, I 'bout fell off my chair.
And a special thank you to Craig of MT Politics for putting together Dextra that lets me read the newest posts from the Viceroy and others. Over the weekend, Dextra was down. You never know how much you appreciate something until it is gone.
Great job Craig, and welcome aboard Viceroy.

The End of an Era?

While providing hours of entertainment, the Democratic presidential campaign is beginning to reveal something that I thought would never happen. Are the Clintons finally toast?
During the 90's, Bill ran as a centrist DLC member who wasn't going to shake things up too much, even though he would have liked to. Gays in the military? After the disastrous introduction, it settled into the perfectly unsatisfactory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Throw in welfare reform, which he opposed until he knew it was going to pass with bipartisan majorities, and which he promptly trumpeted as his idea, and you have someone who was always so quick to exploit a situation to his advantage. Even if it meant compromising on his principles. Okay, that may not be true, since I am not even sure that he has any principles besides winning.
But the height of chutzpa, had to be the Lewinsky business. When the story first broke, his polling told him that if he admitted it, he would have to resign or he would have been impeached. But by dragging it out, he was able to get enough people outraged at Republicans for noticing that the emperor had no clothes, and somehow conveyed the idea that lying under oath was just about sex, so it was okay. Never mind abuse of power, perjury, or just plain fecklessness, his political jujitsu made his prosecutors the bad guys.
He could only do this with the complicity of the main stream media. Their unwillingness to ask questions that they knew would result in embarrassment offered a shield of invincibility that could not be broken. In fact, I sometimes wonder why the whole Superdelegate group isn't populated by the media, since their impact has been so great in protecting Democrats.
But that aside, I assumed that Hillary would benefit from the same protectionism that Bill had enjoyed. Now, there is no way that Hillary is as astute as Bill in being able to manipulate people, but surely, Bill wanted back in the White House so much, he would do anything to make her get there. If he is, it isn't working any more.
Mark Steyn has a good commentary on the present Hillary situation. I keep waiting for her to start complaining that Obama is a part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that has been haunting her and Bill since they first emerged as the power couple of Little Rock.
Without the power that Bill used to wield, the Superdelegates just may not hand her the election like she expects. The problem for the Democrats though, is that I don't think that the "Smartest Woman in the World" is going to pick up on that until the convention.
After she is denied that which she feels is rightfully hers, there are two possibilities that come to mind. First, she withdraws gracefully, goes on to win the Senate Majority leader position, and carries water for the Obama Presidency.
Sorry, it's hard to type that while rolling on the floor, doubled up with laughter.
The other possibility: She uses every tool in her toolshed to defeat Obama. That way she will be in a good place to go again in 2012 without all the unpleasantness of a Carter-Kennedy feud.
In my lifetime, there have been some impressive achievements. The Space Age, Viet Nam, Watergate, Reagan, the end of the Cold War, the end of the Soviet Union and the rise of Islamo-fascism. Now I get to add to that the exposure of the hypocrisy of the Clintons.
Aren't you glad to be alive to see it?

How Courts Should Be

The Corner has an article where Scalia is complaining about the press coverage of their decisions. As noted:

He singled out for criticism a New York Times editorial on the case headlined "No Recourse for the Injured." The media often make it appear as though the court is reaching policy judgments on its own rather than basing its decisions on the text of the law at issue in a case, Scalia said.

The Court's purpose is not to create new policy - like Affirmative Action. It's purpose is to discern what the law is, not what it should be. Fixing it is the province of the Legislature.
Now, if everyone would just get to work doing their own jobs. . . .

New blog in Dextra

Wiley Coyote of Big Sky Cairn has been added to the Dextra feed, and I want to be one of the first to officially welcome him. He always has a good read, and is well worth your time.
Craig set up Dextra, and it has been a real help to see the new posts pop up and go straight to them. Makes navigation and keeping informed easier yet. Thanks Craig.

Arrogance defined

Al Gore is at it again. He says that

"those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat."

His arrogance is worthy of those in Galileo's opposition, rather than those who dispute the "consensus" idea as being evidence of a scientific fact.
It is easy to explain if you consider that the 1969 moon landing has occurred. That means that you can either prove it happened, or it did not happen. Global catastrophe as Gore is peddling is a prediction. Predictions are not yet proof. You can say that you have indications that support the prediction, but that still doesn't mean that it is going to happen.
But it is indicative of the weakness of his argument that he resorts to ad hominen attacks. Hey, when all else fails, call the other side stupid. You won't be right, but it will put them on the defense.

You Will Suffer, and You Will Like It!

The requirements to provide basics of life to a guest (known as the inkeeper rule) such as air, water and sanitary facilities was just too onerous for the airlines. So they sued, and they won. All of us whiny passengers are just going to have to put up with it, so sit back, shut up, and don't expect anything from the airlines.
The funny thing is, that if a prisoner is being transported on one of the planes stuck out on the tarmac, the prisoner could sue. Because it would be court ordered transport, this would certainly fit a violation of the cruel and unusual clause.
The paying passengers? Well, ya pays your money, ya takes your chances.

We're #1 (Almost)

In corporate tax rates among developed nations. We are working hard on catching up to Japan which is only about .3% higher than our rates. The data are shown on tables at this link.
And no one seems to understand that at less than 100% tax rate, corporations don't pay a dime in taxes. It is just a cost passed on to us the consumer.
The only reason I can see for complaining about corporate tax rates as being too low, is because they are non-human entities and can't complain. The truth is, they don't care. Yes it reduces the amount of dividend to be paid to their investors, but the consumer is always going to be paying the tax, so no big loss right?
Unless you are the consumer.

They Just Won't Give Up

According to the Corner of National Review, the DC government is in fear that their oppressive gun control ordinances are going to be tossed into the garbage (as they should be). So, in anticipation of this, the police are now going door to door and asking permission to search houses. If you voluntarily give up your gun then you won't be charged with a law that is about to become unconstitutional.
In the meantime, you are being asked to give up your right to remain free from unreasonable searches, and to be secure in your home and papers.

Aren't these the same people that we want to hand health care over to?

Sometimes, You just have to say "Wow"

Pogie at Intelligent Discontent has an excellent post that everyone should read. At first, I will admit that I was waiting for him to drop the straw man setup and then lower the boom. To say that I was wrong about him is not enough. I am ashamed that I did stereotype my prediction of what I thought he was going to write. But I am also proud of the examples that he gave.
And he is right, that as conservatives we should call out those uncivil sorts who degrade the discussion. We don't have to wait for the Left to do it. We should just do it because it is right.

Well Done Sir.

Isues in Affirmative Action

JLK in comments below raised the issue of Affirmative Action, which is something that I have been thinking about posting on for some time. Part of this is due to Senator Obama's call to have a dialog on race, and part of it is just plain old fairness. For a primer that isn't very long, nor very nuanced (those conservatives are wrong to oppose it) this piece is a good start.
As Lyndon Johnson once said, you don't just take the chains off a man and expect him to run the 100 yard dash and be successful do you? Affirmative Action today also relies on the notion of a stigma for having suffered from slavery and Jim Crow laws that somehow has been buried in the genes. Which makes Obama interesting, since his father did not suffer from being descended from slaves.
But the problem with Affirmative Action is the general illogic of it. In the most recent AA case to be heard by the Supreme Court, Justice O'Conner said that AA is fine for 25 more years, but after that it would become unconstitutional.
Think about that for a minute - the calendar being used to decide what is constitutional or not. How is that possible? Because the Supreme Court punted on a constitutional issue, instead of sending it back to the Congress. You got to love outcome based decisions. Think Plessy v. Ferguson as another.
The real issue for Affirmative Action is the idea that there are limited slots that are coveted for something, whether schools or jobs, and that based on historical analysis that one group has been overrepresented at the expense of another group. But the people who are competing for the slots have not necessarily benefited from that over representation and they are being made to sacrifice for that which they had no actual fault.
When competing for the scarce resource, you can divide the applicants into three groups: Those who are so exceptional they would get the slot anyway; those who are so unqualified, that should they even get the slot, they would be unable to compete and will be let go for the good of the institution, and; those in the great middle. The bubble that is being used to adjust for past sins.
So, let's run some thought experiments and see where we come out, shall we. Let's say that two people are competing to enter college, both are black and male and both have identical scores. Now, let's make one the son of a black millionaire and one the son of a sharecropper from Alabama. The preferred result should be the sharecropper son who gets the slot. Affirmative Action would work most effectively by giving the sharecropper's son the opportunity to break out of the poverty that he comes from.
Now change the sharecropper's son from black to white. The argument is that the son of a black physician should get the slot because he has not benefited from being white. Ask the son of the sharecropper how much advantage he has over the son of the physician. Change it again, and make the son of the sharecropper into the daughter of the sharecropper. Does that change who gets in?
Affirmative Action has been shown to be more palatable if it is based solely on economic class, than racial makeup. This would still have a benefit for the white sharecropper because there are more whites in poverty than blacks. But black poverty is proportionately over represented as a share of the general population, so that they would have a greater opportunity to take advantage than the poor white applicant.
Of course, this does not take into account so called "legacy" allotments. (Cue Mark T.). But to use Mark's argument against him, legacys are not necessarily successful beyond the original generation (think GWB).
We need to help people rise up from an economic disadvantage and maximize their potential. That is always going to be preferential to trying to remedy past wrongs based on the actions of others.

Obama, "Conversation on Race" and Steyn

Mark Steyn does an excellent analysis on Obama's problems with his "pastor." For the few people in the world who do not know about it (which incidentally includes my oldest who is a firm Obama believer) here is an example:



Obama's speech last Tuesday, was to open a dialog on race in America. While doing so, he threw his grandmother in with the likes of Bull Conner in order to explain why Obama has not said anything before about his "pastor." But it is interesting in that however you feel about his speech, it has opened a dialog that we have been forbidden to have, as Steyn has above.
Prior to the whole kerfluffle, White America was not allowed to address racism. That was the exclusive province of Black America. If a white person was to say "My God, the Black community is destroying itself with violence, out of wedlock births and drugs" that person would be considered a racist. If a black American addressed the same issues, it was usually in the context that it was all the result of racism. (See video above)
Fifteen years ago, I shared an office with the head of the Junior NAACP in Europe. We would often have wide ranging discussions, but I remember something that he said that essentially blamed all whites for some adverse impact on black Americans. When I pointed out that that was a racist statement, he corrected me by saying that blacks could never be racist. In other words, he used a racist statement to say that he could not be racist. Apparently the irony was lost on him. When you watch the video, you know that he was not alone in that assessment. I told him that it is hard to be considered an oppressor if I was to walk through Watts, or if your name was Reginald Denny. To be fair, the only reason that Denny didn't die that day was due to the courageousness of four black men who saved him from the mob and took him to the hospital.
Watching the news coverage of the Wright-Obama problems led me to see a member of the Black Panther Party who was explaining his party's support of Obama, support which was later taken off of his web page. During the segment, the interviewer asked the spokesman if what he was saying wasn't racist. The spokesman replied by again saying that blacks could not be racist because they never enslaved anyone, nor did they make up the KKK, nor pass Jim Crow laws.
Hmm, I have never owned slaves, find the KKK to be atrocious and have no understanding why the Democratic party would tolerate one in their midst and never passed nor relied on Jim Crow laws. Either I am black, or I am not a racist. But we are told so often (as shown by "Pastor" Wright) that all whites are racist. Again, assigning a quality to a whole people based on color is just another racists statement.
But even assuming arguendo that the travesties listed above by the BPP spokesman are the cause of all the evil in the black community, could someone please explain to me why in the 1950s, black high school and college graduation rates were three times what they are now. Or why out of wedlock births were only a fraction of what they are now.
Maybe the greatest thing about Obama's call to have a dialog on race is that we will actually have one, instead of saying "it's all whitey's fault." After all, there may be some benefit to people actually saying "Are you nuts?"

Troops in trouble

Everyone who reads this blog knows that I love the troops. But as a leader, you spend an awful lot of time keeping them from hurting themselves or someone else. Not necessarily through malicious acts as much as just unthinking acts. (think teenage boys, although in the military, it doesn't really matter what their age is).
But it was always a hoot to see how a troop could go beyond your best planning to keep them in line. This video is just such an example.

Ghost ride tank
by omurap666

God bless the troops.

On Freedom, Control and Morality

Roger Kimball has this thought provoking piece which starts out by noting Arnold Kling's discussion of Elliot Spitzer, and how the real issue is not a sexual liaison with a high priced prostitute, but rather how he and his ilk have this inflated view of themselves, and their own perceived need to impose on the rest of us their versions of how we should live our lives. It is this notion of self importance which leads them to "making extravagant promises that only result in expanded government power."
The article is too good to pass up, and I urge you to read the whole thing. But I would like to excerpt some of the best lines:

At the center of the totalitarian impulse is the belief that, at bottom, freedom belongs only to the state, that the individual should not be treated as a free actor but rather, as Lenin put it, “‘a cog and a screw’ of one single great Social-Democratic mechanism.”

“What socialism implies above all,” said Lenin, “is keeping account of everything.”

and finally:

What we have seen in recent years is a hideous marriage of political correctness and bureaucratic triumphalism. The offspring are the multitude of soft tyrannies we see all about us today—that and an enervation of spirit that renders the public ever less able to respond to the casual indignities that have become such a prominent part of daily life.

Why have we surrendered so much control to those who are ostensibly our servants? I supposes like above, we grow weary of the constant battle with tyrants who man every barricade erected by the government - from the DMV to the local justice courts. But everyone of them derives their power and authority from us - the sovereign people who have agreed to form the government for our own interests.
But we also have to acknowledge that friction caused by our own fellow citizens. Political correctness and moral relativism are two tools used to control us as well. Political correctness by circumscribing our language, and ostensibly our thoughts, seeks to limit speech, usually by claiming some version of victimhood as a way to paralyze those who would disagree with our supposed moral betters. Moral relativism being just another variant. For instance, in my earlier post on Islam and Evil both Mark T. and Missoula Pagan don't decry the barbarism complained of, instead they point out that at some time or another, Western Civilization was just as bad. Hmm, in that case, only the perfect could denounce beheadings, female genital mutilations, or other acts of perfidy. I guess that would leave it to God to be the only entity that could criticize such acts. I bet that thought would drive Missoula Pagan crazy.
But as I have said to Mark before, moral relativism is neither moral, nor relative. Instead, it is a call to inaction. A demand that no criticism be broached because of whatever happened in the 15th Century or something more recent by no organized or official group means that those who would enact 7th Century barbarism are not to be challenged. Excuse me? I have not led a morally exemplar life, but right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it ain't that hard to tell the difference.

Political Follies

At the end of December, I had made some predictions about who the nominees would be for their respective party nominations. I followed it up with an update about two weeks later which presciently analyzed the state of the Democratic race. So far, my predictions that McCain will be the nominee has come true. The Democratic race is far more fun since it isn't over yet. But as Jonah Goldberg notes, the race is coming down to the wire, and it looks like one of those old time movies of two locomotives racing headlong to a collision with each other.
The tenacity of Hillary Clinton to persist, even though she can't win the nomination without the help of superdelegates is definitely having an adverse effect on Obama's coronation. Of course, Obama is not doing such a bad job of self destructing either. So, maybe Hillary has grounds to hang around. After all, should she drop out and Obama gets the full scrutiny that he has avoided for so long, she could become the nominee simply because of Barak's inability to deal with adversity. It would be just as valid as if she had won all of the delegates herself. Except, there are going to be a lot of bruised feelings by the former Obama supporters. And let's face it, Hillary cannot make a plausible case for taking the superdelegates if Barak hangs in there that will satisfy anyone. It also reinforces the idea that blacks will "have to wait their turn." I think that they are through waiting, and will take it out on Hillary by either sitting this one out, or possibly even going to McCain.
Right now, McCain is tied with both Hillary and Barak, and this without all of the press that the two Democratic candidates have been given to his exclusion. If you figure that either Democratic candidate would secure approximately 46-47% of the electorate, which is the same for McCain, the battle will come down to the 6-7% who don't like either of the major party candidates. And since Hillary will have to take a hard left to try and recapture disaffected Obama voters, that will alienate the magic 6-7% who are going to decide the election. McCain will do better with them than she will. In fact, the thing that Republicans hate most about McCain is his ability to connect with the disaffected and unaligned middle, which could give him a 3-4% victory, which nowadays is considered a landslide.
Should Obama somehow prevail and get the nomination, Jonah thinks that Hillary will use the vaunted Clinton machine to actively destroy Barak. Can't you just imagine candidate Obama's anger when they find out that Hillary is feeding Republicans negative stories that will drive down his numbers? Even if they just ask the question - "Why is there no 'there,' there?" they will probably end the best chance for Barak to become President.
The upshot of all this is that if Hillary is the nominee, her negatives will be so high that she cannot win the election against McCain. If Obama is the nominee, he will be fighting a two front war that the Democrats have never had to deal with before.
Sorry folks, but it looks like the old geezer will become President in 2009. The question will be if the Democratic party can withstand the damage that they will do to themselves.

Stop Digging Geraldine!

The above post starts with the headline, and I am not making this up: "Geraldine Ferraro: Don't call me a racist, you racist!!" Apparently, it stems from her comment that the only reason that Barak Obama is doing so well is because he is black. (Why am I always the last to know?)
When you compare her comment now with what she said 20 years ago:

And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Now, Jesse Jackson is a race baiting hustler who was only taken seriously in 1988 because of white guilt. Barak Obama is no Jesse Jackson. While I disagree with almost all of his positions, and have the nagging feeling that I am being fed a bill of goods, he does not exploit the fact that he is a black man to get where he is.
If anything, he underplays it, which enhances his appeal in my opinion. For Ferraro to fail to realize that what she said is stupid, and then to assume the glorious mantle of actually being the one who is the victim here is absolutely delicious.
In times of stress character is revealed. Geraldine is obviously under a lot of stress.

On Islam and Evil

The Corner has this which details an attempted "honor killing." In relevant part:

A 19-year-old Israeli Arab woman has survived an attempted "honor killing" by her brother on Tuesday in the Arab village of Na'ura, near Afula, after two bullets fired at her head shattered on impact, failing to penetrate her skull.

Paramedics said the girl survived by playing dead, leading her brother to stop shooting and kicking her. He proceeded to dial emergency services, telling paramedics: "I just shot my sister."

The 24-year-old suspect was warmly praised by some members of his family for the attempted murder. He is in police custody.

What brings this to mind, is that I had just finished reading this which asks the question "Should Islam be banned for barbaric acts?" Try to find another more inflammatory headline, I dare you. But there were some interesting points made in the article. Such as:

The issue of Muslim "barbarism", including honor killings and other forms of violence against women, has risen in prominence in Europe's political agenda. The question appears to be: Do Muslims commit barbaric acts because they are bad Muslims or because they are good Muslims? Does Islam as such promote barbarism or suppress it?

The Arab News, which is the widest read English language news service in Saudi Arabia published this where they threaten all sorts of violence against Western Nations that portray the Prophet Mohammed as a cartoon crazy.
Ah, Life imitating Art, or vice versa?
One of the things that you learn as you grow older, is to not bother the crazy guy who is mumbling to himself. You try to be polite, as you would with any other human being, but your guard is up because you just can't predict their actions. This seems to be the technique that the West has been using with radical Islam.
Try to defend female genital mutilation, or wife beating, or beheading, or suicide bombings of markets, or . . . .
If you can, I would consider your argument, in a polite way, hoping that your mumbling doesn't suddenly explode into an irrational rage. Just like the Middle East.

McCain Channeling Churchill?

Bad Lawyer Joke

CrimProf has this piece about a prison paralegal who helped an inmate to write a successful appeal to the US Supreme Court on the legality of his sentence. Getting heard by the Supreme Court is just about impossible, but to do it pro se is even more incredible.
Then, to top it all off, the South Carolina Bar is looking to prosecute the paralegal for practicing law without a license (I guess because he was successful).
The South Carolina Bar Association would be better off admitting the paralegal. At least he can recognize a justiciable case.

Hats are Flying

Well, it's that silly time of the year, when an old man's fancy turns to saying "What the Heck" and submits his name to be a candidate for public office.

Yes, it's true, I am running for House District 96, to try and protect the fundamental values as enshrined in the Montana and US Constitutions. My basic campaign last time was that I would leave everyone alone, and somehow, some people still voted for me. We'll see how it goes this time. Last time, Carol of Missoulaopolis was my opponent in the primary and she trounced me. Of course, she worked for it. I was hoping that she was going to run for this district again, but rumor has it that she may be going for bigger game. Good Luck Carol.

This time, I think that my campaign should be - "First do no harm." We have too many eager busy bodies who are out there trying to tell us Montanans what to do, think or say. I plan to stand astride the bulwark of this sort of nonsense.

Wish me luck, or if not, send a campaign contribution.

Reminiscing about Eastern Montana

Craig Sprout does an excellent review of the movie "Class C." I saw the movie on Monday as well, and I am really impressed with it. The movie should be up for an Oscar for best documentary if there is any justice in the world.
What was very impressive was the cinematography of the flatter side of this great State of ours. Watching a train in the distance rolling across the vast empty, or an abandoned schoolhouse watching the tormenting clouds roll along the skyline, it reminds me of my limited time in Dotson, where my grandparents lived until they died.
My grandfather was typical of people in that area of his generation. Part time farmer/blacksmith/mechanic/and anything else that needs to be done. He had the best garage in the world for a kid to play in. Filled to the brim with tools, although we loved the pedal powered grinder the best. Makes me think that if he were to harness such a device to a turbine we could solve most of our electricity problems by having kids jumping on the pedals.
He used to take me to Claypool's General Store where you would present your shopping list to the clerk who would then run around and pull it off the shelf for you. Wasn't a lot of choices, but maybe we don't need all that we have now. After shopping, the clerk would wrap your purchases in brown paper with twine to hold it together, and we would trudge dutifully home, sucking on the penny candy that he always offered.
I will never forget the mosquitoes that were the size of hummingbirds, or the snowdrifts that would pile up on the lee side of buildings, leaving the rest of the ground bare. Nor will I ever forget the most fantastic sunsets, something that we in the mountain regions don't have. I remember riding with him when he would do the RFD mail deliveries and watching the antelope keeping pace with us, and the carcass of one of them that decided to go through the wire instead of over it.
We moved to Deer Lodge when I was seven, and to Hamilton when I was ten. When my grandmother came to visit us in the Bitterroot valley, she always complained of claustrophobia, but when I was older and visited her, I had the feelings of insecurity, especially when it was overcast and you had no idea what direction you were heading.
The movie brought back these and so many other memories, but it is also detailing what we are losing as more and more farms turn to CRP and the farmers move to Arizona and live off the checks for growing grass. The disappearance of people from the highline, from Shelby to Scobey is something that we are going to all miss someday.
And we will all be poorer for the loss.

Why Hillary won?

NRO had this:

The media picked McCain and Rush picked Hillary.

Apparently, Rush told his listeners to vote for Hillary to keep the race alive and throw it to the convention.
It would be a heck of a deal if the margin of victory for Hillary in Ohio and possibly Texas would be due to ditto heads.

Just for Mike H.

Humor always has an element of truth to it. This is just such an example.

Dan Rather, Katie Couric, and an Israeli commando were captured by terrorists in Iraq. The leader of the terrorists told them that he would grant them each one last request before they were beheaded.

Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan, so I'd like one last bowlful of hot spicy chili."

The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili.

Rather ate it all and said, "Now I can die content."

Katie Couric said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end."

The terror leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and Couric dictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy."

The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. Israeli tough guy, what is your final wish?"

"Kick me in the ass," said the soldier."

"What?" asked the leader? "Will you mock us in your last hour?"

"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Israeli.

So the leader shoved him into the open and kicked him in the ass.

The soldier went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9 mm pistol from under his flak jacket, and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he jumped to his knapsack, pulled out his carbine and sprayed the terrorists with gunfire.

In a flash, all terrorists were either dead or fleeing for their lives.

As the soldier was untying Rather and Couric, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them in the beginning? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass first?"

"What?" replied the Israeli, "and have you two assholes report that I was the aggressor?!

Hat tip: The Israeli Insider

Why Hillary is Failing

At the above link is an article from the LA Times about why Hillary's campaign is failing. I think that they need to go a little further back, and they will find that the real reason is the power of the activists on the Democratic side.
Last summer, Hillary was the presumptive nominee. She had the name, the Clinton machine, and lets face it, no real challenger. As a result, she started to run a general election sort of campaign, where she tacked right. What she failed to appreciate was the charm and charisma of the junior Senator from Illinois.
Since Hillary was taking a more moderate approach, she quickly became vulnerable to those on the Left whose only issue was to end the war. Popular and easy to explain, even though the reality is that it is extremely complex and the consequences are not easy to understand or predict, the issue was used by Obama to beat the heck out of her for her vote in support of going to war. At first, she refused to apologize, (what horror), but by January, she had to renounce for the first time her vote. Blaming it on Bush seemed to be the right move, since in the Democratic circles, Bush is the source of all evil.
But then she started to run on her "experience." This opened the door to attacks on her judgment, when coupled with her grudging acknowledgment that Bush fooled her, and her message becomes not only muddled, but vulnerable.
Once Hillary lost Iowa, her aura of invincibility faded quickly, to the point where she has lost the last 11 contests in a row. Amazingly, at least according to CNN, she is only around 100 delegates short of Obama.
Hillary is complaining that none of the media are treating Obama the same as she is being treated. I even heard some of the Sunday talking heads say that it is sexism. I don't think that it is, rather, I think that this is the normal level of inquisition that the press uses on Republicans. (Think about the coverage of Obama's supposed denouncement of Farrakhan versus Trent Lott or "Maccacca Allen).
The only hope that I see right now for Hillary is that the media are starting to take a more objective look at this "nice young man" and are finding problems. Like the last debate in which they are falling all over themselves to drop out of NAFTA, despite the damage it would do to the economy as a whole.
The only problem with waiting, is that Ohio and Texas are tomorrow. If Hillary loses both, she will probably be expected to drop out. Just about the same time that Obama starts to implode.
Gotta hand it to the Democrats - They have that circular firing squad down to a science.

Just for Mark T.

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Color me confused

Last night, I watched the Democratic debate because my wife (The Good Democrat) wanted to know what Obama's positions are. She has been in that classic constituency that is identified as being for Hillary, but the daughters are working on her to go with Barak. I was expelled from the room because I kept asking silly questions like "Is s/he nuts?"
But I have to give Tim Russert credit for his question on what would happen if after either Hillary or Barak removed all of the troops from Iraq, what would they do if Al-Qaeda established a base in Iraq. It was a brilliant question because it played on the Democrats desires to run away now, not later, and not think about the consequences. By forcing them to address what those consequences are, there was some stuttering and stammering, but Obama said that he would re-invade Iraq if Al-Qaeda established a base in Iraq. Well that had me going for quite awhile, let me tell you.
Then, John McCain

mocked Democrat Barack Obama today for saying he'd take action as president "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas "I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called 'al-Qaida in Iraq.'"

Obama responded by saying: "

Well, first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets," he said. "But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.

So, Barak admits that al-Qaeda is in Iraq, but he is going to withdraw anyway, so that he can reinvade later? Or does he think that if we leave Iraq, al Qaeda will leave as well? I can just see it now - "Well the infidels are outta here, so we'll be going as well. You Shiite heretics have fun without us, okay?"

I'm trying to keep my head from spinning on this one.

FISA Follies

With the expiration of the Protect America Act, we are facing an interesting question: What will happen now? The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece which describes the current situation pretty well, noting in part:

"[W]e have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act," Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in a letter dated Feb. 22 to Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Breaking it down in simplest terms, the occurrence of a terrorists attack is probably 50-50. That is it will happen, or it won't. Factors that increase the likelihood include the stated desire of the terrorists to commit just such an act, combined with our lack of ability since the expiration of the Act to sniff them out in advance. There really isn't that much to decrease the probability, except for the hope that by electing a Democrat the murderous thugs will realize that we mean them no harm, and will quit trying to kill us.

Right.

So, what's holding up the renewal of the Act? Some would argue that it violates Americans protections from being secure in their persons, houses and effects. And this has been demonstrated by, . . . er, . . ., I mean, . . . .
Actually, one of the problems with this argument was clarified when the Supreme Court bounced a case against the telecoms because the plaintiffs could not prove that they had been harmed, or for that matter, that they had even been monitored. For the plaintiff's attorneys, this problem can only be overcome if they can find someone whose communications were actually monitored. Now, I am not necessarily one to deny those members of the bar who are able to get really rich, while throwing a few crumbs to the named plaintiffs, but I think that this sort of suit would be a bad idea for the rest of the country.
If the trial attorneys are able to sue the telecoms, all they will need is one sympathetic judge (how can that be you ask?) who will allow for discovery. This discovery is having all of the telecoms produce records of what numbers were surveilled and when. Contact those people, and you have a case for millions, at least for the attorney.
But in the interests of making my fellow barristers lives easier, I would propose an advertising campaign, much like those for asbesteosis, or the use of certain drugs that were later found to be harmful. It would lead off with a voice over along these lines:

Were you planning an attack in America, and have that attack fail because your conversations with certain caves in Afghanistan were illegally monitored? If you have, you have the right to recover damages. The law firm of Dewey, Cheatam and Howe stands ready to act on your behalf in correcting this trampling of your constitutional rights. Call 1-800-SHYSTER with details of what attack you were planning, how it failed, and when you made calls to Afghanistan and we will see to it that you are allowed to carry on with your mission unimpeded. Call now, operators are standing by.

Makes one proud of the legal profession.

Let's all Sing Along

Mother Jones has a list of songs that are played to detainees as a way to keep them disoriented. Now, Mother Jones claims that these are "torture." Since the definition of torture is the infliction of "severe" pain, it seems hard to argue that these songs really qualify. Except for the Barney song, and the theme from Sesame Street.
Why, the more I think about it, that really is inhumane for anyone whose kids are older than six.

Another Passing

William F. Buckley has died. NRO has a link to look at here. Buckley was a class act, His sense of humor, wit and intelligence will be missed.
When you couple his passing with that of Milton Friedman's and the world is a far worse place for the loss.

Oh yeah, my favorite blurb from Buckley, was that he wanted to create an organization of Veterans of Future Wars, so they wouldn't have to wait around and join a cool drinking club.

They're Coming

Instapundit has this, and I am reproducing it in its entirety.

I’d like to say something pithy and cutting regarding this newest asininity spewing forth from the bloated arse of the European Union, but that horse is seriously dead, no sense continuing to beat it.

Ted and I spent much of this last weekend discussing various things that are wrong, and how to fix them, and it really comes down to the fact that everything leading to the rise of the nanny-state cannot be fixed. There are too many corrupt bastards too happily taking advantage of too many acquiescent sheep. The number of sheep isn’t going to decrease, therefore there will always be corrupt bastards. And until we can start lining them up against the wall wholesale, nothing about that dynamic is ever going to change.

There are always going to be people who want to be told what to do. They need someone more powerful in charge and are fine with giving up whatever personal liberties they possess for a sense of security. How do the rest of us, who are perfectly frippin’ capable of providing our own sense of security, fight against that? There’s more sheep than there are wolves, that’s for damned sure, so how do we win? Do we all pack up and move to Montana? Buy up all the property we can get our hands on and secede? Limit immigration to those capable of demonstrating self-reliance and an IQ over 150?

How do we win?

(Emphasis added)

Don't they know that we really aren't that much better here either?

Pride in Country

Michelle Obama has said that “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country,” she told a Milwaukee crowd today, “and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”
I notice this at the same time that National Geographic channel is running "Inside 9/11 Zero Hour." One of the survivors of the North Tower was recalling as he went down the stairs, he met a fireman going up. He said "I looked into his eyes, and I knew that I was going down, and I saw that he knew he was going up. And he didn't miss a G_d D_mned step."
If that fireman was the only thing that this country ever produced, (which he is but one of many) this is still a country to be proud of.

An Interesting Dilemna

NRO has the answer to the question of how many Democratic delegates are left to be selected. Although the dateline of the piece is February 12th, or the date of the Potomac primaries, it does contain this interesting tidbit:

After today’s races are done, there will be 1,071 delegates left to be selected by voters and delegates in 17 states and territories. Obama would have to win more than 90 percent of them in order to win the nomination without the involvement of the remaining 443 superdelegates — who still have not publicly declared for either candidate at this point. Of course, that is impossible. And if Clinton does indeed perform well on March 4, she might erase Obama’s lead and return the contest to a near-tie

While the superdelegates are free to change their vote, assuming that Obama does win all of the 443 uncommitted superdelegates, he would still have to pull around 500 of the pledged delegates to claim the nomination. This is not impossible given the proportional allocation, but I think that if Hillary pulls off Texas and Ohio, that he will be unable to obtain the magic number.
Throwing it to the superdelegates will open the doors to cronyism, bribery and outright threats to secure the nomination. In this regard, I think that the Clinton machine will still excel, although their vulnerability is being exposed by Hillary's flagging performance. Throw in John Edwards and his delegates, and you could have some more fun. I think that if Edwards would be offered some post that he really wants, say Attorney General, he will throw in with whoever offers it first.
As a political junkie, I have to admit that I relish the idea of chaos. The Democrats are certainly creating some interesting scenarios.

Road to Hell Paving Co. Reports

After all of the hoopla about how ethanol is the holy grail for reducing greenhouse emissions comes this.

Who would have thought that after all of the consideration for reducing greenhouse gases, our best solution just really sucks. Kinda makes you wonder what else they have wrong.

A Tale of two Americas

John Edwards used to rail at the "Two Americas." Right, one where people have a house with more square footage than my block. And one where he would put on his pedestrian Levi shirt and his plain front Dockers and would walk around nodding his head knowingly, while listening to all of the woes and laments of being victims of hedge funds.
But I am beginning to think that there may be Two Americas, just not the ones that Edwards envisioned.
In one America, I see a people who are optimistic, hopeful and happy.
In the other, I see a people who are pessimistic, dour and angry.
In one America, I see people who value achievement and accomplishment.
In the other, I see people who rage in jealousy at the fact that they have not achieved or accomplished anything, and want the other group to pay for their failures.
One group that thinks that all people are intelligent individuals who can exercise smart choices.
Another who think that we can't be trusted to make choices for our own benefit, and that those choices should be transferred to some higher power of their choosing.
One America that sees 9-11 as part of a continuum of attacks by Islamic terrorists.
The other that sees 9-11 as either a criminal conspiracy by the Bush administration, or a minor blip that needs to be disregarded at the earliest opportunity.
One that sees Iraq as in the process of transformation, and hopefully the model for the future of a dysfunctional Middle East.
The other that sees Iraq as impossible to change, and that sees the Iraq war as a political tool with which to seize power.

My fear is that the second America will be in the ascendancy. The one hope that I have is that the Republic has been through tough times before and emerged stronger than those who would have pulled it down. Unfortunately, a smart man I know added the comment after the above: "I am sure that is what the Romans thought too."

The Coming Deluge

Arnold Kling has an excellent piece on what is going to happen when we have a Democratic President combined with a Democratic Congress. As he points out, the Democrats will not really be able to offer "Middle Class Tax Relief" because the money just ain't there.
Kling posits that the only remedy for them is going to be over regulation of all aspects of public life. Some bureaucrat is going to be able to decide what services you will be able to get, what products you can buy, what jobs you can have, in short, he will decide for you how to live your life. Mainly because you can't be trusted to make the right decisions. The sad thing is, that I think that there are enough underdeveloped adults who will be willing to sign on to being told what to do.
When I was in Europe the first time, I got to go to East Berlin, Socialism's showcase window on the world. I can see that we will be soon going down that road to end up where the East Germans were in the early '80s. The worker's paradise was never what it was promoted to be. Why we in the West are so interested in repeating a failed experiment is either a product of hubris (we know how to do it right) or stupidity. Neither of which is particularly appealing to me.

The Solution to All of Our Problems

Bill Clinton is telling a college audience that Hillary will "Stop bad things from happening." and that she will cause good things to happen.

Ah, the wonderful simplicity of it all. And here I thought campaigns are supposed to be substantive. The bad thing of course, is that there are those people who honestly do believe that by replacing Bush, all that Bill has promised will come to pass.

And they have the same right to vote as someone who actually thinks? Well, as someone once said, even idiots have a right to be represented.

What a country.

The Pain of Betrayal

Rolling Stone has an article that documents how the anti-war crowd was betrayed by the very Democrats that they elected. Now, I don't agree with the anti-war crowd, mostly because I think that we cannot afford to lose, and there does seem to be progress because of the "Surge." (Trademark pending).
But nonetheless, I can sympathize with those who believed that the Democrats would make a change, only to have that belief crushed under their booted heel.
There ought to be a special ring of hell for those who cynically betray the naive for their own political purposes.
Oops, that would be a pretty full ring, now wouldn't it?

Contemptible Congress

This Wall Street Journal article details the typical running roughshod of innocent people who suffer from being of the wrong party while serving in government. It ties in with a report that I heard on PBS's News Hour (Which I still think of as McNeil Lehrer) where Waxman is going after Dr. Michael Jarvik for pimping a cholesterol drug. According to Waxman, Jarvik is practicing medicine without a license by prescribing the drug. I am sure that I can run down to the local pharmacy with a video copy of the commercial and get my prescription filled.
But Waxman's real anger is directed at the fact that the commercial shows Jarvik rowing a boat, and Jarvik only did this for the commercial. Quelle horreur! It is just this sort of attention to inanities, and it is not specific to Democrats (Spectre's calling for an investigation of the Patriots intercepting signals for one) which leads to the lowest opinion of Congress ever.
I have always thought that if I was called before Congress, I would have to decline on the grounds of the Vth Amendment. For anything I would say would be contemptible of the less than august body of blowhards. And there would be no defense.
"Yes I hold you idiots in contempt!"
Hire the Handicapped: Elect someone to Congress.

Why I am now for McCain

Viceroy's Fuguestate has a good piece on why having a McCain Presidency may not necessarily be a bad thing. Watching Harry Reid get slapped around could be fun. Which compliments a piece by Confederate Yankee who has created the bumpersticker: Vote for McCain, or we're really screwed.
I guess that I have become a broken glass Republican for McCain: If confronted with eating broken glass or voting for him, I am heading to the polls.

Montana GOP caucus

I was invited to the GOP caucus here in Missoula to try and persuade the voters to consider Fred Thompson. Unfortunately, Fred dropped out before I had a chance to use stirring oratory to persuade the voters that he was the one.
I decided not to go, mostly because I lack inspiration for any of the remaining candidates. But I missed my chance to use the best line ever:

"I represent the Party wing of the Republican Party."

Party on Dudes!

Musings

Odd thoughts for no other reason than it has been two weeks since I last posted.

Whatever happened to cold fusion?

Whatever happened to the vaccine for cavities?

If there really is a patent for a carburetor that gets 100 mpg, why is it that all of these car companies are not using it to capture market share?

Why are there conspiracy theorists who believe that there really is such a thing as a carburetor that gets 100 mpg, but that the car or oil companies are not letting anyone use it?

Why does the US Congress believe that tax cuts are bad, but giving $185 billion in borrowed money is good?

Feel free to add your own musings.

Fred is Out

It's official. Read it and weep.

"Rise child, a great man is passing by."

Why there will never be a Clinton/Obama ticket

The Most Powerful Law in the Universe

The New York Times has an interesting article about the unintended consequences of otherwise desirable laws. The authors show how the Americans with Disability Act and the Endangered Species Act created a reaction that totally nullifies their respective intended results.
Primarily, these adverse effects come about to prove the ingenuity of the human mind. Like the tax code, it is a stimulus to become creative. And meanwhile, the proponents of the legislation are left scratching their heads.
From the article:

So does this mean that every law designed to help endangered animals, poor people and the disabled is bound to fail? Of course not. But with a government that is regularly begged for relief — these days, from mortgage woes, health-care costs and tax burdens — and with every presidential hopeful making daily promises to address these woes, it might be worth encouraging the winning candidate to think twice (or even 8 or 10 times) before rushing off to do good. Because if there is any law more powerful than the ones constructed in a place like Washington, it is the law of unintended consequences.

Have you ever noticed that the ones who propose laws or regulations are never as creative as those who find a way around them? I am reminded of this effect whenever anyone starts talking about using the government to solve the health insurance "Crisis."
I blame it on the impetuosity of youth that actually thinks that government regulation can always make a difference. Luckily, they almost always grow up, unless they stay Democrats.

Sometimes, You Just Have to Laugh

I think that I know where Mark Tokarski gets his fabulist notions about the supposed suppression of voters. The funny thing is, that it isn't mentioned at all when the Democrats do it to each other. One of the best lines is at the end:

Either voter suppression is real, threatens democracy, and ought to be investigated at every turn, or it is just a made up issue that progressives whine about whenever it suits them politically. At least now we know what TPM really believes.

Fun Little Game

I had earlier posted my feelings about how the Left views soldiers. In the comments, Mark T. and Krim used examples of news stories that reinforced my point of the soldier as victim being their main meme. Whether the Nation's article on 50 soldiers, or the idea that soldiers are either dupes of Bushitler, Cheney Haliburton, uniformed torturers, sadistic guards at Abu Ghraib or modern day Nazis, who are "Chust Following Orders."
So here is the game: Find a story that details the bravery of soldiers in Iraq, or one that shows their humanity and benevolence in the generally accepted Main Stream Media. But, you can't use Mudville Gazette or any of the other Milbloggers.
The absence of such stories in the general media implies one of two things. Either they never happen, or they are being ignored. Why would anyone want to ignore stories of heroism and bravery? Because if the soldiers are victims, they can't be brave can they?
And if you are going to keep the soldiers as victims, in order to feel good about your own lack of service, you don't want any contradicting information.

A Small Victory for Justice

You may remember Dave's Biggest Asshole of the Year Award, the lawyer who keyed a Marine's car because it had Marine license plates. The lawyer, a self described "Radical Liberal" got lucky, and through a plea bargain, knocked it down from a felony to a misdemeanor.
The sentence would have been appropriate except for one thing: He's a lawyer for Pete's sake. He is supposed to uphold the law, not ignore it. Now there may be differing interpretations of the law, but I see no way to construe his act of vandalism as anything but childish, petty and self absorbed. Because he is given certain authority over others, i.e. the right to subpoena, to depose under oath, he has a greater responsibility than normal people.
Atticus Finch would not be proud.

Is Fred Done?

Mike at the Last Best Place thinks that it is time for Thompson to gracefully exit from the Presidential race after his third place showing in South Carolina. He has some very good points, such as:

Can we perhaps now all agree to give up on the illusion of a viable Fred Thompson candidacy? Yes, he gives a great speech and under other circumstances, at a different time in history, probably would have made one hell of a president. However, that time is now past.

and;

So, be content and comforted with the fact that Fred Thompson has more class on a bad day than Edwards will ever possess, and will withdraw from the race sooner rather than later with his dignity intact. Small comfort for some, no doubt, but at least he'll exit in a gallant manner...which is more than we can say for some.

Nooooo! I still believe. Okay, I might be aware that it isn't going to happen, but I see very little that would inspire me the same way in the candidates who remain.
Huckabee? The man who wants to change the Constitution to conform with God's word, at least as interpreted by Baptist preachers? Aren't these the same Baptists who don't have sex standing up because they don't want anyone to think that they are dancing?
Romney? The very definition of plastic. Malleable in all circumstances, fixed in none.
McCain? Two words: McCain-Feingold.
The range of virtues of the current field stretches from A to B, and not much in between either. The only thing that will save the Republicans will be the Great Uniter: Hillary.

Holding Their Manhood Cheap

Ralph Peters eviscerates the New York Times report showing that all the returning vets are psychopathic murderers. Carol noticed this type of reporting, with the Independent's article on why anyone would join the military during an unpopular war.
This recurring theme was curious to me, but I think I may have finally come onto an explanation: The Left hates soldiers because they represent all that they are not. Is a soldier an innocent dupe, or an economic refugee? If you look at them that way, you can feel better about your own lack of service, because you are too smart, and you have a job that means that you don't have to enlist.
But the problem for the Left is if they actually encounter a real soldier, that is, not one as portrayed in the movies, they don't fit their nice, neat preconceived notions. The real soldiers are more likely to stand up straight, and look you in the eye. They are inherently polite, while at the same time exhibiting a certain disdain for those who are not one of them. Sure, they are a little rough around the edges, more likely to swear, smoke, and have a wicked sense of humor than their supposed betters, which can be really infuriating since they refuse to be victims.
Soldiers also remind the Left of how little importance they really are. I remember a bumper sticker that said "Some people wonder if they will make a difference. Marines don't have that problem." If you are ever asked "What have you done for your country?" How would you answer?
Could you say "I marched and picketed and protested the war." Great, that must be really tough. Stand around on a street corner with a bunch of like minded dolts, annoying people, then retire to the after rally party, and hope to get laid. Yeah, that's significant. Or maybe you wrote letters to the editor, or made comments on blogs. Well, there you go. Everyone should recognize how smart and caring you are.
But measure that against the person who does what is ordered, even while scared, and works to protect the innocent, while eliminating those who run actual torture chambers.

Shakespeare had it right, when he wrote:

This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

If I am upset with the New York Times, or the Independent's style of reportage, it is because those soldiers are my brothers and sisters. Although at my age, they are more my little brothers and sisters. And those who would criticize them for their service may think themselves the "gentlemen in England now a-bed," but they know, just as the soldiers know, that their manhood is quite cheap.

Nevada Developments

This is interesting. Seems as though the judge has thrown out the lawsuit brought by Hilary supporters to keep down the participation of Obama supporters.
Throw in denying Michigan and Florida any reps, and it makes you wonder.
Is it rank hypocrisy trying to deny a vote that doesn't go their way, ala military absentee ballots in Florida 2000, or simply inept heavy handed approach to control votes?

Rational Self Interest

The campaign season is in full swing, and the Presidential contenders are all trying to buy my and your votes. Hillary is planning $170 billion plus another $70 billion for her stimulus package, and Obama is no slouch either by promising over $180 billion in spending. And the Republicans (except Thompson) are trying their best to match their generosity with our money. Romney wants to get Michigan back into the lead in automobile production. All the while ignoring that its not the lack of interest or ability to make automobiles in this country, but the problem is in Michigan itself. Not to mention Huckabee's national no smoking policy, the New Nanny State will be arriving with the Beaujolais Nouveau next January.
So, how are we going to pay for this largess? One solution touted by the Democrats is the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. Except that is already programmed in. Not to mention that the withdrawal of those cuts means that the economy is going to tank in 2010, the additional taxes are going to drive the economy further into a hole.
Thus the question: What should a rational, self interested voter do? I am beginning to think that the rational self interested person should just quit their jobs and live off of public support. Think about it, no more striving to better yourself, no seeking greater responsibility, it will be great. There is obviously nothing wrong with mediocrity, after all the government seems to be encouraging it.
So what if we have to give up our own personal choices or liberties. We can trust the government to take care of us right? We can then sit at home and watch TV, thereby getting rid of all of that stress to succeed. With a new motto replacing "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" our future presidents seem to be saying "From the rich to the rest of us." So why on earth would anyone want to be more than lower middle class?
It seems clear to me that the answer is to just give up. Let everyone else provide for your needs. They will be richer than us so it has to be alright.
Right?

Hillary's Economic Solution

I watched Hillary on Meet the Press this morning, where she outlined her stimulus package for when she becomes President (God Forbid). Among her items was to put a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures. Sounds good right, means that you get to live in your house for another 90 days while you catch up on your arrears. Except it won't work that way.
If she got the moratorium, what is going to happen to the debtor? Are they going to somehow magically come up with the money that they didn't have before? Or are they going to be saying that we got 90 days free rent babe!
And what about the mortgage holders? Do they get to suck up the 90 days loss of principle or interest just to be patriotic? What about their shareholders? Which probably won't be an issue, because as soon as it starts looking like this is what is going to happen, they will be bailing on any stocks that have financials in them. Which will reduce the amount of liquidity, which will reduce the amount of loans that they can make, which will reduce the new buyers who aren't reckless from being able to buy a house at a reasonable price. But at least she will be doing something! Right? Even though it will be made much worse.
One area that I predict that will increase in value will be companies like Best Buy and Wal-Mart. Watching Hillary on TV made me want to look for a large heavy object to cast in her electronically reproduced image. If she is elected, I don't think that I will be able to afford the number of tvs that I would have to buy.

The Democrat's Dilemna

A leading paper in South Carolina analyzes some of the flare up between the Clinton and Obama camps at the above link. If the analysis is carried farther, I think that the Democrats could be in a real pickle come November.
So much of the Democratic Party seems to be based on identity politics. Whether its John Edwards saying that a multimillionaire trial lawyer is just one of the working stiffs, or Hillary being all things to all women or Barak being all things to people of color.
It seems that a good portion of the electorate that carried Hillary to victory in New Hampshire were single and older women. Barak seems to have turned around attitudes in the African American community that a black man actually can garner votes from white Americans, thus making it realistically possible that a black man actually could become President. With both groups saying their time is near, there is just one problem - Only one could get the prize.
My earlier prediction that Hillary will get the Democratic nomination is still possible, probably due more to the Clinton machine's ability to get out the vote for their candidate. But you have to give Barak his due, that he is inspiring a whole bunch of young people to actually vote, which is something they haven't done much in the past.
So, let's look at the three potentials: 1. That Hillary wins the nomination,; and 2. that Barak wins,; and 3. That both enter the convention without the necessary lock.
If Hillary wins going away, I think that black politicians will coalesce behind her. I am not so sure that if Barak wins that the Clinton machine will reciprocate because whether or not he is elected, she could still run in 2012.
Now, this is where it gets interesting. Both candidates enter Denver with less than the necessary delegates to grab the nomination. At that point, the "Superdelegates" come into play. They comprise roughly one third of the votes necessary for the nomination, and have traditionally gone with the winner. However, with no clear cut winner, I predict that there will be a lot of arm twisting on the Clinton's behalf to put her over the top. The best argument in her favor is that African Americans are reliably Democratic and don't have any option but that party. While Hillary seems to have some pretty strong appeal with women. Just based on pure numbers, if all of the women and all of the African American vote went to Hillary, she would win in a landslide.
If that did happen, I think that the crashing of hope that America would elect a black man will cause the majority of the black vote to just stay at home come election day. Without black support, and with her high negatives, which will only go higher the more people have to listen to her, I think that Hillary would lose to any Republican other than Huckabee.
One way to counter the disappointment might be to put Obama on the ballot as the VP. I just don't think that Clinton can get past her calculating nature and do that. A black man or a white woman are probably going to have to put a safe white male on as the VP. Although I think that Hillary and Barak could run together and be effective, it would go counter to the perceived wisdom, and so is unlikely.

Sometimes, ya just go Aw Sh*t

One of the lead plaintiffs in the appeal to the Supreme Court on the voter ID case is apparently registered to vote in both Florida and Indiana. And apparently, they didn't find out about it until today.
So, the problem isn't that she has difficulty voting, just voting somewhere that she isn't supposed to. I could see where some people would want to protect the age old Butte and Chicago tradition of voting early and often. Certainly does double the Democratic vote count don't you think?
Makes me start to wonder if Al Gore really did receive more votes than Bush.

John McCain

The Comeback Coot?

Ron Paul a Racist?

I heard about this first showing up at TNR, but I couldn't get to the web site because apparently everyone else was at the same time. But Ann Althouse seems to have collected some of the more vile pieces and posted a blog article here.
I understand that Ron Paul is saying that when he was in his private medical practice that a magazine carrying these disgusting articles was published in his name, but that he had no oversight. Okay, no oversight of something that carries your name? How in the heck is anyone supposed to believe that?
For a professional, especially one in private practice, your business rises or falls based on your reputation. To think that anyone would let their name be used fails the credibility test.

Read the Whole Thing.

I knew that this was going to happen

Jay Stevens of Left in the West thinks that he is vindicated by the Missoulian article about the Justice Department probe of Burns had been "chilled." When I saw the headline, I thought, could it be that I was wrong? But then I read the article and realized that it was the usual low quality of analysis that passes for "professional journalism" these days. The ruling that the article mentions relates to Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA who objected to the taking of documents from his office and home by the FBI. The Appeals Court ruled that under the Speech and Debate clause, those are protected and could not be seized.
Now, how does this apply in Conrad's case? IT DOESN'T! Conrad voluntarily turned over the documents, they were not seized. This is analygous to the police entering your home without a warrant, or being invited in. Police are trained to come to the door and say "May we come in and talk to you for a minute?" Because it would be rude to refuse, you let them in. Once that happens, you have surrendered your expectation of privacy.

I didn't blog on this when it came out partly because I read the whole article and not just the headline, but I was waiting to see if anyone would pounce on this.
Thank you Jay for confirming your consistency, if not your accuracy.

Fred Coming?

Okay, this might not be reliable, but worth putting out nonetheless. Fred Thompson may be coming to Montana in advance of the Republican Caucus on Feb. 5th.


Update: Source may not be credible. Stay tuned.

Good Description of Ron Paul

No, I am not doing this just to generate hits. But Viceroy's Fuguestate has the best description of anyone about Ron Paul:

Have you joined the Ron Paul Revlovelution yet? I personally don't see what's so goddamned exciting about the guy. He's Ross Perot, Rosie O' Donnell and Pat Buchanon all rolled into one quivering mass.

Well done, and well said.

Republican Debate

Since there weren't any good games on TV, I ended up watching the Republican debate, and I must say that I was impressed with the format that Fox News came up with. No audience, the candidates being able to interact with each other, it was certainly more interesting than anything else I have seen. Good job Chris Wallace!
One of the things that would have made it better though, is if Chris would have jumped in at times and asked the questions that the other candidates wouldn't. For instance, for McCain, if you are going to get Osama bin Laden, why do you think that you would do better than what is presently being done? Are you saying that there is a deliberate indifference, or is this just a catchy idea that you came up with?
For Huckabee, your evasiveness on raising taxes is annoying. Either answer the darned question, or say that you refuse to on the grounds that you know the answer will kill you politically.
Giuliani: You talk fast, but do you really say anything intelligent? You say that you are the only one that has to deal with the results of an Islamofascism attack. True, but wasn't the 9-11 attacks the second such attack on the World Trade Center? What did you do to prevent the second after the first?
Romney: Do you really want to rely on the fact that your being a governor is a good basis for dealing with foreign policy? Do you remember Jimmy Carter?
Thompson: You have obviously written off New Hampshire, why aren't you in South Carolina then?

Sorry, just a little bit cranky, but I still like Thompson the best of all of them. And anybody other than Huckabee more than Hillary.

False Dichotomies

I have already explained below why Conrad is actually innocent. But that is not good enough for Mark T. of Piece of Mind or one of his commenters. Rebecca brings up the tired canard about John Kerry and the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth, and makes their accusations the same as what Tester and the Democratic Party did to Burns.
Once again, it is just so wrong, but nonetheless, requires clarification. Although I have little hope that clarification will change their rigid mind set. So, with that understanding, let's take a look at the two, and see if they are comparable.

First, Conrad is tarred with the accusation that he profited from Abramoff. This has since been disproved by the dropping of the investigation. Burns did receive campaign contributions from Abramoff and his lobbying firm, but so did Sen. Harry Reid, in spite of his denials. Conrad hired a lawyer after the election when the investigation began, but he also turned over all of his records and computers to the Feds. As a direct result, they found - exactly nothing.

Now, let's look at Kerry. Democrats seem to feel he should have been given a pass because he was their war hero. But they forget that it was Kerry himself who made an issue of his being a war hero, when at the convention, he saluted and announced that he was "Reporting for Duty." Because Kerry made the assertion, it became fair game to be investigated. To cry foul because it was investigated is disingenuous. But there is another difference. Kerry could easily disprove the SwiftBoat vets if he wanted by simply releasing his records. Something that three and a half years later, he still hasn't done. I wonder why that is? Could it be that he has something to hide? He certainly has a financial interest in proving them wrong.

Selective moral outrage is never a pretty thing. But accusing others of it when they are not guilty has to be worse.

Levels of Proof

One of the many legal fictions in the justice system (which in itself is an oxymoron) is that people are presumed innocent. Sure, we all pay lip service when we are called for jury duty, but you know that everyone is already thinking "What did he do?" before the charges are even read. The unfortunate effect of this, is that the burden has shifted from the State proving a case, to the Defendant having to disprove it.
I bring this up, because so many on the Left have decided that Conrad is probably still guilty, even though the investigation into his ties with Abramoff has been dismissed. So, in the interests of educating the public, a short primer on the levels of proof required by our legal system.
Particularized Suspicion
This is more than a hunch, but enough for law enforcement to stop you and ask your identification, and what you are doing. The foot in the door by the State to begin the investigation.
Probable Cause
Slightly more proof is required in order to charge you with a crime. This is nothing more than "it could have happened." This gets you into court to answer the charges. But remember, you are still innocent until the case is presented to the fact finder.
Preponderance of the Evidence
To win a civil suit and get a court to order that you are entitled to money, this is the standard. Medical Malpractice, trespass, all sorts of torts are covered by this level of proof. It is nothing more than 50%+.
Clear and Convincing
If you are an unfit parent, the State has to present Clear and Convincing evidence to take your kids from you. So, take your money, just over half, take your kids takes quite a bit more.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The highest level of proof. Not beyond any doubt, but such that if it could reasonably have an alternative answer, the only result must be Not Guilty.

So, take your money - just over half, take your kids - quite a bit more, but to take your freedom, well, that is the highest level and for good reason.

The fact that the investigation was closed against Conrad means that he is still "innocent" in the eyes of the law. He may not be innocent to partisans who are more than willing to believe the worst of anyone who is not a Democrat, but he is still considered to be legally innocent.

There have been some false comparisons with OJ Simpson in Conrad's case. This just betrays their lack of understanding. OJ went to trial, where the only verdicts are Guilty or Not Guilty. That doesn't mean that OJ was innocent. Since Conrad hasn't been charged, the only determination is that he is innocent.

Did You Hear?

Colby Natale has decided that even though the investigation against Conrad Burns is dismissed that he feels: "it is also quite possible that he is guilty but there is insufficient evidence to prove it. That is the bitch about these things; you never can know for sure." He then goes on to close with:

While I am willing to admit I could be wrong about him, I flat out refuse to apologize for what I believe, and I don’t think any of us should (short of perhaps anyone who declared that an indictment was guaranteed).

So, in the spirit of guilty until proven innocent, let's play around with this one a little bit, shall we? For instance, did you know that Sen. Baucus is a founding member of NAMBLA? Now, it might not be true, but until he proves that he is not, I am just going to believe what I want to.
Or how about Gov. Schweizer? I heard someone say that he has been evading taxes even though he is rich, by using the same accountant who came up with the amount of money to be given back to taxpayers from the surplus. I have also heard from some people who should know, that this accountant is really in the Mafia, and is blackmailing the governor, and that he is using state funds to pay the blackmail.
Might not be true, but you never know until he disproves it.

Right, Colby?

Conrad Exonerated

Western Word is reporting that the AP says that the investigation of former Senator Conrad Burns and his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has been dismissed. Not acquitted, because that would require a trial, but dismissed because there was a lack of evidence.
I apologize to Conrad for my succumbing to being manipulated by the politics of the damned thing that caused a good man to be slimed. I am sure that Matt, Shane, and others will be posting an apology as well soon.
If not, then may their victory be as hollow as their integrity.

Fred Surge?

According to NRO, Zogby is showing a sudden uptick in support for Thompson in the Iowa caucuses. I have liked Fred more than any of the others, except on occasion McCain, although I still have a tough time forgiving him for his assault on free speech with McCain-Feingold.
This new information seems to be in line with some anecdotal observations that my friends in Dextra are adding his widget to their sites, just as I did.

Fred's video to Iowa is here:

What's going on with those wacky Republicans?

According to the American Thinker, Rasmussen has self identified Republicans rising to 34.2% as compared to self identified Democrats who are at 36.3%. How can this be you ask? Surely these people recognize the ultimate tide has turned and the country is returning to a Left vision of how we are supposed to live our lives.
Hmm, maybe not, and if you couple this with the Lee newspaper survey that shows Montana is still a majority Republican state, you have to wonder. Could it be that Democrats overplayed their hand?

I have always used the line that Democrats promise that if they are elected, they will make you taller, smarter, better looking, and get rid of the crab grass in your lawn, while Republicans say that government doesn't work, and when elected they prove it. Gotta give cred points to the Republicans for being honest about it.

Be Very Afraid

When I read the article at the above link, I thought that it must be some sort of parody. Did I once again, accidentally stumble onto the Onion? But then I started looking into it, and H.R. 1955 actually does what the writer warns us of. Soon, it will not be hard to tie any objections or complaints of almost any American Institution into grounds for investigation. The legislation as proposed covers almost anything under the Act that "aims to identify and stigmatize persons and groups who hold thoughts the government decrees correlate with homegrown terrorism, for example, opposition to the Patriot Act or the suspension of the Great Writ of habeas corpus."
The Act calls for the creation of a commission to investigate all such connections to any supposedly "home grown terrorism." If you don't think that such a tool is not going to be used to persecute political enemies, you aren't paying attention, and can go back to your TV shows now.
How in the hell did this happen? The Act passed the House in October, and we are just finding out about it now?
And for the record, I love all things American, and everything that our beneficient government does, is just hunky dory with me.