The Answer to all the Questions

Wiley had a post showing that Republicans, as a rule are happier than their Democratic counterparts/. I was reminded of this when I read this piece in the American Thinker. The opening paragraph is too precious to miss:

Every now and again our learned scholars in the liberal university come up with a study, financed by taxpayers' money, that concludes what every liberal already knows. Conservatives are rigid and not very intelligent. In fact, as one study by two Berkeley professors claimed, the the "whiny, insecure kid in nursery school" probably grew up to be a conservative.

Now, that study was based on one classroom in Berkley. Which leads to the question - What is a "conservative" in Berkley? My guess, he's a Trotskyite.
The article goes on, but here is the nut:

Either way, Schweizer's findings make sense.

Liberals are more materialistic than conservatives, he finds. Of course they are. Believing in equality, differences in material things are very important to them. Not surprisingly, when they discover material differences in society, liberals are offended. There is a word for this feeling of offence: Envy. And so it is that liberals are more envious than conservatives.

Liberals celebrate anger. No, we are not just talking about Bush Derangement Syndrome. "Since the sixties, modern liberals have embraced anger as a sign of genuine commitment to the cause," writes Schweizer and their political rage leaks into their personal lives. The General Social Survey shows that liberals are more angry than conservatives and "three times more likely (17 percent to 6 percent) to have actually done something to get back at someone who had hurt or offended them in the past month."

Liberals are stingy with their money. Again, this is hardly surprising. Liberal political philosophy says: People Have Needs, and the government should provide. Thus liberals, when they actually spend money on anyone other than themselves, give money to the activist organizations that advocate for bigger government. Conservatives, on the other hand, give money to organizations that actually help people. Schweizer shows us that the headline liberals of recent memory-the Clintons, Gores, Kerrys, and Obamas-don't give much. But headline conservatives like Bush, Cheney, and Limbaugh do give, and give generously.

But then they would. Conservatives believe that people should help people, and governments should stick to the stuff that governments do best, defending society against enemies, foreign and domestic.

Liberals are less honest than conservatives. Peter Schweizer compares liberals and conservatives using the World Values Survey and the National Cultural Values Survey. Liberals admit that they don't value honesty as much as conservatives. They are more willing to sell "Aunt Betty a car with a bum transmission" than conservatives, and "twice as likely as conservatives to say it is okay to get welfare benefits they were not entitled to." Schweizer's poster boy for welfare cheat is billionaire George Soros, who once "tried to get a Jewish charity to give him money while also receiving public assistance."

Did you know that liberals are not just angrier but whinier than conservatives? Peter Schweizer samples liberal Whine Country using the Clintons, Bill and Hillary, as representative varietals.

But at least liberals are smarter than conservatives. Everyone knows that Calvin Coolidge was "weaned on a pickle," that Ike fumbled his syntax, that Reagan was an amiable dunce, and that President Bush is too dumb to be president. But navy veteran Sam Sewell found one liberal dumber than President Bush. Browsing presidential candidate John Kerry's website he happened upon the results of "an IQ-like qualifying test Kerry had taken in 1966." It showed that Kerry belonged in the 91st percentile on intelligence, a bit lower than President Bush in the 95th percentile.

This raises interesting questions about how a conservative should deal with a liberal (Standard disclaimer-not all liberals are as above, but there are a significant number to make the hypothesis interesting).
For instance, when claims are made about income inequality, conservatives seem to be more solution oriented, i.e. get a job, then get a better job, complete your schooling, get married and stay that way, and stay out of jail. But the real issue for the liberal is not the problem to be solved, but the envy of those who have more. But how would that explain the rich liberals? You might notice that they actually give less to others than the rich conservatives. That seems to be because they want the government to extract the good, so that whatever amount the government takes is deemed sufficient, and no more has to be brought forth as an individual, thereby exempting them.
But the biggest problem for conservatives, is that liberals value honesty less highly than do the conservatives. If you cannot have an honest discussion, what are you accomplishing?
Integrity used to mean something. A man's word was his bond. Now, a promise or a statement of fact are reneged as swiftly as the conditions warrant. Perhaps, I am too rigid in my thinking, but if I can't trust the other side, why would I want to listen to anything that they say?

Obama's Social Security Plan

Okay, that's not exactly fair, since he hasn't presented one yet. But he has given us hints, in that he intends to remove the Social Security tax on all of those now paying it, and transfer the entire burden to those making over $250,000 per year. This has the instant appeal of being a 6% tax cut for all those paying the FICA tax presently. Whoo Hoo. How are you going to spend that windfall?
But what is the net effect of using this proposal? Since those making $250k are in the top 1% of all earners, I would have to assume that they will be paying around 30% of their pre-tax income for this tax in order to keep it revenue neutral. Besides, what are they going to do with that approximately $75k anyway? Sure, they might not buy a new car this year causing unemployment in the auto industry, or they may not construct a new house causing further contraction in the construction industry. Or they may not invest it in a company preventing further enhancements to keep the company competitive, allowing all of that business to be speedily and orderly transferred to China. No, the rich won't miss that money.
But we will.
Another problem with this proposal: Does it change the basic social contract? For instance, at the moment everyone who works pays into the Social Security trust fund and expect to receive money back when they retire. The more you make, the more you are able to draw in retirement. But all workers would receive something more than just the equivalent of Social Security Supplemental Income, otherwise known as "federal welfare."
Under Obama's plan, what would be your claim to receive benefits? That you worked? So what, so did everyone else. How about that you deserve it because you were promised it for your entire working career? But the new system would not count for more if you worked hard and made a lot of money. It would be nothing more than welfare. And as such it could be means tested, since you didn't contribute to the plan, but instead relied solely on the contributions of others. (Admittedly, this is when the current workers have cleared out of the way, and the entire burden is financed by the over $250k crowd).
This rending of the social fabric that would turn once proud workers into welfare recipients strikes me as appalling. I can only hope that Obama's comments on his plan carry the same weight as support for Rev. Wright, or NAFTA, or clean campaigning, or campaign finance reform, or . . . well, you get the drift.

The Return of Show Trials

James Hansen, who originally thought we were going into another ice age, is now using the 20th anniversary of his pronouncement that he was wrong, to call for the prosecution of the heads of EXXON/Mobil and other companies for crimes against humanity. And what are those crimes, you ask? Knowingly disregarding his advice that global warming is real. Or, at least, real in his mind. He is also going to campaign against anyone who denies global warming. Him and Cindy whatshername, would have a dramatic effect no doubt.
I suppose part of the proof may be that as Andy Hammond noted, the Brits are just not afraid of global warming, nor do they believe that it is man caused. Maybe, because they have learned that Mars is getting warmer at about the same rate as the Earth. Or maybe, they are just not willing to be stampeded into surrendering all that they have worked for, for a questionable theory based on flawed computer models.
Either way, his announcement shows that he is in the death throes of his 15 minutes of fame, and will soon be as irrelevant as old what's her name.

Investment Opportunity?

My friend Dave in his new role as a Registered Financial Adviser has provided plenty of interesting tidbits to consider for investing your money. A little more tongue in cheek, I would recommend that you invest in bus manufacturers should Mr. Obama be elected in November. Starting with his white grandmother, then his pastor, then his opposition to NAFTA and possibly an Iraq pullout, he now has thrown campaign finance reform under said bus.
With all these people and ideas being tossed under the bus, there are going to be a lot of buses high centered on formerly lofty rhetoric and principles, and as such, we will need more buses.

May be part of his economic plan, I guess.

WTF?

Pardon the language, but I just learned that the Dodd payback bill for being a friend of the head of Countrywide has included a provision that all credit card transactions are going to be reported to the IRS. The infringement of our privacy by the one governmental organization that has the least amount of accountability or supervision should frighten everyone who isn't living in a shack in Lincoln.

Dicta?

Dicta is the term that lawyers use to explain excess verbiage in an opinion from a court that provides guidance to understanding the opinion, but is itself not considered to be the law of the case. In a case that just came down from the SCOTUS that I agree with the majority, I do have to appreciate the dicta of Justice Scalia, even if he is in the dissent:

Rather, the dignity at issue [in this case] is the supreme human dignity of being master of one’s fate rather than a ward of the State — the dignity of individual choice.

"Master of one's fate." What a concept!

But I doubt that it will catch on.

Harsh Sentencings

Much as I complain about outrageous sentences given out by judges here, I don't think that even they can top this. Death and life imprisonment? Seems to me that one would negate the other, but it is Sharia law, and I am not admitted to that bar.

Questions about Obama

Wiley has an amusing post about Obama's flip flop being considered as an asset by someone at LITW. Obama's shift was only common sense, since on the whole, NAFTA has been beneficial to this country, although maybe not as much in Ohio, where he made his original statement.
Overlooked, however, is the potential problem for Obama. During the primary campaign, he was able to get to the left of Hillary, because her perceived inevitability caused her to take a more moderate stance in anticipation of the general election in November. Because he was able to stake the ground, many in the Democratic Party went to him over Hillary, and he was able to hang on to secure the nomination. The problem for Obama is that the general electorate is not as left as the Democrats are. As a result, he now has to tack right for the general election.
But looming on the horizon, is the "suspended" campaign of Hillary Clinton. Remember, that Obama has only clinched the nomination based on the pledges of the superdelegates. Those superdelegates however, can switch their vote at any time. So, suppose Obama goes too far right, can Hillary go to the convention in Denver, and say that it is time to elect a real Democrat, not someone who's views are, shall we say, flexible?
You have to hand it to the Democrats, they can provide hours of entertainment when they are sure that they are going to win.

The End of Democracy?

Dave has a good post on truth in campaigning that details yet another example of how we are being lied to everyday. So, why do we let ourselves be manipulated in this manner? Partly, I blame it on the perceived complexity of life in general. Thirty years ago, I would spend many an afternoon tuning up my car. I could change the points, plugs and rotor and change my own oil. And I could do it by climbing into the cavernous space that held the engine. Today, my Passat is computerized, and even has the engine compartment effectively sealed to prevent me from accessing anything beyond the oil dipstick and the washer fluid reservoir. Now, I have to take it to a mechanic who has the proper computer testing equipment to read what the fault codes are saying. I have surrendered to the experts, which is not a bad thing in this case.
But politics is different. We seem to have forgotten that we the people are the sovereigns, not the government. All power flows from us, and is used to our benefit by the tools that we have chosen: Our federal, state and local governments. The fact that we have forgotten how this relationship is supposed to work is leading to the downfall of participatory government. We simply hand off responsibility for our lives to our elected representatives, who declare themselves to be our "leaders" when they are really just our representatives.
So, what caused our abandonment of our responsibilities? One thought, is that the use of the Internet has resulted in widespread ADD in the general populace. Because we no longer have to actually stop and think, we search for that which confirms our views, and disregard anything which contradicts us. One example is the large number of people who believe that Obama is really a secret Muslim, another would be Mark T.'s assertion that somehow, McCain was not really tortured, and that it is all made up. Both are demonstrably false, yet they are spread about with the same sense of urgency as any truth could be.
And somehow the people who vote are just as likely to succumb to the glib falsehood, as to any considered argument. I see it all the time when I campaign that many people agree with my positions, but will simply refuse to vote for me, because I am running as a Republican. This sort of thinking is just laziness, in that they have identified with some group or organization, and ceased to think beyond what they are told to believe. It allows them to swiftly change their deeply held convictions and to in effect, drink the Kool-Aid. It certainly saves time and effort. If you know that this or that group is inherently evil, there is no need to consider their positions on the issues and ask the question of why someone who seems rational would have a completely different view of a situation. This results in our Internet conversations becoming teaching sessions where no discussion is actually held, but instead, in a chiding manner, we expect any opponent to see the value of our logic and facts, and if they disagree with us, we consign them to the hopelessly inept, bereft of common sense or intellect. While childish, it does have its adherents.
The question now is, what are we to do about this shortfall in critical thinking? We could rely on professional journalists to keep us fully informed, but that presumes that they actually can honestly and dispassionately tell us the necessary facts without manipulation, and who won't actively campaign for someone who sends a shiver up their leg. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen.
What is to be the future of our democracy then? My prediction is that we will withdraw further and further into our isolated perceptions as delivered by our chosen advocates. Substantive issues are going to be reduced to nothing but sound bites. And both sides are guilty of this. From the "tax cuts only for the wealthy", to "tax and spend liberals" we are going to be segregated farther from any real truth.
And the real truth, is that it will be our own fault.

Sitting Shiva

Candace Elizabeth Hummel

June 2, 1936 - June 7, 2008.

The source of my mitochondrial DNA.

Montanaopia?

Suppose you could live in a state that had no income tax, no sales tax, yet fully funded just about every scheme of government, and in addition, provided every household in the state an annual check of up to $10,000. Oh, and lower gas prices to around $2 per gallon. Sounds too good to be true? Except that it could happen right here in Montana, thanks to the generous gift of the Bakken oil reserves.
With possible production of over 400 Billion barrels (Yes, that's a Billion times 400) of oil that can be extracted with existing technology, the potential for revenues from the royalties are huge. Just look at what Alaska did with the North Slope oil field royalties, and you can imagine the amount of wealth that could be used to help improve the lives of Montanans.
Now, if we just don't blow it. Looking at the map, it's obvious that the majority of the formation is located under North Dakota and Eastern Montana. Because the oil does not respect artificial boundaries, it would be entirely possible for North Dakota to completely sop up the entire field, including that under Montana, while we dither.
North Dakota already has an advantage, in that there is no business equipment tax on any of their oil production equipment. Montana on the other hand, does tax oil rigs, drills, pipelines, or, just about anything that it can. If you are a business, where would you rather operate?
The next legislature needs to remove the tax on oil production equipment and do everything that we can to help promote domestic energy production that is reliable. The benefits are too large to ignore, but there are those that will attempt to prevent the exploitation of this benefit for their own ideological reasons.
Those people need to be ignored for right now.

Obama gets slammed

John McCain seems to have the ability to skillfully dissect foolishness that I had never appreciated before. While the empty suit with lofty rhetoric (but only when reading from a teleprompter) is attempting to make political hay, McCain does an excellent job of showing just how shallow and juvenile Obama really is. And as a bonus, he does it with grace and style.

Read the whole thing.

Hunt, Meet the Hatch Act

Lt. Col. Jim Hunt, Democratic candidate for no other reason than no one else was willing to run, has a posting up on that great source of information for all soldiers, the Daily Kos. Now, I have heard that Mr. Hunt is actually an okay sort of person, but his ignorance of the law, especially as a lawyer, and an officer at one time are astounding.
Let me begin with his first line - "Lt. Col." Jim Hunt. In the Army, at least the Army I left 13 years ago, we abbreviated the rank for Lieutenant Colonel as LTC. The Air Force uses the abbreviation that Mr. Hunt has in his posting, but I thought that he was supposed to be in the Army. Maybe he's confused.
Then he goes on to make himself a victim by saying:

Yesterday, the Montana Republican Party and Rehberg attacked me and my 23 years of service in the Montana Army National Guard – citing an obscure, new Pentagon regulation regarding photos of candidates in their old uniforms.

Obscure, new Pentagon regulation? When I was in the Army, we used to have our biannual lecture on the Hatch Act, which is a federal law, and applies to the Reserves as well, and was passed in 1939. I do understand that the laws were relaxed a little bit in 1993, but the prohibition still includes that you cannot use your uniform in any political activity. In fact, when we were briefed, we were told that we could not even put up partisan yard signs at our home, lest someone think that the military was lending its support to one party or the other.
Hunt then retreats to being a victim, and says that he will not let anyone take down the ad, even though it violates federal law, and military decorum as well.
In his defense, and I know that I am going to get into trouble for this, but he really was only part time help. He should rely on that defense for his lawbreaking activity.

Heretics

Being raised Lutheran, we learned how Martin Luther became enraged at the selling of Indulgences as a way to raise money for the Catholic Church. Eventually, it led to his posting of the 95 thesis that was to mark the beginning of Christian Protestantism. Even though Luther believed in his God and his Church, he detested that which he believed was wrong. As punishment, his church excommunicated him and branded him a heretic.

Get ready for a new bunch of heretics. Over 31,000 science degree holders, including more than 9,000 with Ph.Ds, have signed a petition saying that there is no science to back anthroprogenic Global Warming.

Just like before, they are objecting to the selling of indulgences (carbon credits) to finance some unholy activity. I am sure that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but I predict it won't result in another 30 Years War.

We don't have the patience for that anymore.

Brilliant!

The Foundry has the brilliant idea of having Libertarians adopt the polar bear as their mascot. Now, most of the time, I think that using mascots is a shortcut to avoiding thinking. But as the Foundry points out:

Normally libertarians are not a litigious bunch, but if they are willing to adopt some new tactics, Section 7 of the ESA could provide them the tool they need to end federal government interference in the economy forever. See the polar bear will be the first animal ever listed as endangered on a global warming theory. Normally, species are listed due to harms to their habitat from local factors like logging, farming, or hospital building. So when the Army wants to build a firing range to train troops to protect our country, environmentalists can sue to stop the activity since it will harm local endangered bird populations.

But global warming is just that: global. Virtually every federal government action anywhere in the country can be connected to increased greenhouse gas emissions, which after all, are the cause of the destruction of the polar bear’s habitat according to the Interior Department. So you wanna stop the Agriculture Department from sending subsidy checks to millionaire farmers? Claim the increased emissions from transporting the crops to market will harm the polar bears and sue to stop them. Wanna stop a new high way from being funded? Just point out the new traffic will increase emissions and ‘presto’ … no more high way. Wanna end increases in Medicare spending? All you need to do is show that increased health care spending prolongs peoples lives who inevitably emit more carbon. The possibilities are endless…..

What a wonderful thing to do to stop the government from doing anything.

Brilliant!

Age and Memory

Getting old does terrible things to your mind. I used to have an excellent memory, and even if I forgot something, when given a cue, I could then recall it in its entirety. But lately, I have found that if I don't take my vitamins and supplements that my wife (The Good Democrat) provides for me, I have memory lapses and can't always do the most difficult levels of Sudoku.
So it is with a certain amount of sympathy that I feel for people who make those "Senior Moment" kind of mistakes. Sure, the politically incorrect make jokes about it: The advantage of Alzheimers - Just think of all the new people that you will meet everyday. But we should still be kind, nonetheless.

Of course, senility can come earlier for some than others.





President of these "57" States?

More Political Manipulations Pt. 2.

I had mentioned earlier, that politicians are lying to us, and for some reason we keep letting them get away with it. I had a good idea of how they were able to continue to manipulate us when the chronically reading comprehension impaired seemed to say that I was going to be just like them. Now, where he could have gotten that idea is beyond me, but it is consistent with his inability to grasp basic concepts that are other than his political bedrock. And I am sure that he is not alone in his quest to ignore facts that contradict his notions. Nonetheless, I am going to keep on pointing out how the Democrats are lying and hope that the awareness of the citizenry will cause them to rethink their ability to manipulate us.
Today, we have America's ex-wife Hillary, who is pandering to the crowds in Indiana about how George W. Bush let a plant that was used in the production of certain military critical items be closed and move to China, along with the jobs. Just one problem, the sale was done under Bill Clinton, and the move was pretty well completed by the time Bush came into office.

Here's the complete story.

In 1995, General Motors decided to sell the Indiana-based Magnequench to a Chinese-American consortium. The consortium included:

* San Huan New Materials and Hi-Tech Co, a company owned by the Chinese Academy of Sciences;
* Onfem Holdings, a company controlled by the State Nonferrous Metals Industry Administration in the Peoples Republic of China;
* Soros Fund Management, headed by George Soros;
* The Sextant Group, founded by Archibald Cox Jr.;

Soros, of course, is the wealthy investor who has contributed vast sums to Democratic candidates and liberal causes.

He's given more than $250,000 to Democratic campaign committees, tens of thousands to individual Democratic candidates, and about $2.5 million to the liberal group, Moveon.org, according to Federal Election Commission records.

He's also contributed to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, and to Obama's Senate and presidential campaigns. He contributed to Republican Sen. John McCain's first presidential campaign, in 1999, when he was running against Bush for the Republican nomination.

Because Magnequench made magnets for smart bombs, the sale to a group including foreign owners required approval under a 1988 law.

After a 30-day review, the Clinton administration's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes representatives of the Pentagon, approved the sale in 1995.

The buyers reportedly promised to keep manufacturing in the United States.

Yet in 1998, they started building a new plant in China, close to the source of the raw materials used in the magnets.

The company reorganized in 1999, buying out Soros as well as Onfem Holdings.

In 2000, Magnequench bought a magnet factory in Valparaiso, Indiana, the same year it started operations at its China plant.

In 2001, it closed its original plant in Anderson, Indiana.

And in 2003, it decided to close the Valparaiso plant, laying off its 225 workers.

Now, to be fair, Bush did nothing to block the move, but that is a far cry from what Hillary is saying. When confronted by the facts, she maintains

The Clinton campaign said she doesn't mention the role her husband played in the sale because it wasn't relevant.

Yeah, facts aren't relevant.

Striking a Blow for Democracy

The Supreme Court has upheld the Indiana Voter ID act. In a 6-3 decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the courts more reliably liberal justices, the court found that the problems with voter fraud were enough of a legitimate concern that Indiana could require its citizens to show proof of who they were.
Democrats, and those who would like to vote under several different names, were of course outraged. Saying that it would disenfranchise the poor and the elderly and those who don't actually live there anymore, this could rob the Democratic Party of some of their most loyal voters - cemetery residents.

Ponder the Maunder?

I was listening to NPR earlier this week, and they were interviewing a young girl who had a Global Warming Denier blog. For a 15 year old, she has done a better job of science than all the so called "consensus scientists" seem to have done.
The best part of the NPR interview was when she was with her friend who disagreed with her. When her friend was asked why she disagreed, she could only reply "I dunno. It just is wrong."
And there you have in a nutshell, the entire climate change maniacs argument. Balanced by a 15 year old who can think critically.
There is still hope for this country.

Kudos to Craig

Craig at MTPolitics has gotten Denny to post an editorial on the Blogger Protection Act of 2008. Great for him!
In a way, this shows the prescience of Rep. Rehberg, in that it is a far more useful technique to send his message to people who are interested than relying on television.
Television, especially with the increased use of Tivo and other methods to skip through commercials, is going to be less effective as a medium than blogs are. Just think people, We are the Future.
Okay, that's kind of scary.

More Political Manipulations

Carol at Missoulaopolis pointed me to this article about three young men who have the courage to actually run for office in the People's Republic of Missoula. You have to give these guys some credit just for standing up and taking the chance.
But the article highlighted some problems that I have with the current state of politics. For example, in the article,

Betsy Hands, the incumbent Democrat for Cox’s district, said that it is interesting the Republican candidates named this as an issue, since it was while the Republicans were in control of the Legislature that all this government growth occurred.

Excuse me? Didn't the Democrats control the Senate and the Governor's office? She seems to be either ignorant or is deliberately distorting facts. (See other evidence below about Nancy Pelosi's Secret Plan.) Hands goes on to say:

“Having education for your child is one of the most important things you can do for their development.”

Great, Ms Hands. But what did you actually do, besides talk a good game? If spending goes up 7% from the State contribution, why is the increase at the classroom level only 1%, or less than inflation?
Apparently, the Office of Public Instruction was able to siphon off approximately half of the increase for their operations. (Buildings, an 11% raise for Linda McCullogh, more bureaucrats, etc.) And believe it or not, it's perfectly legal. Sure, you thought that the Legislature appropriates the money and directs how it is to be spent. Except for the OPI. The Leg is specifically prohibited from directing how the money is to be allocated.
You want more for the teachers? Close the Office of Public Instruction. You want more useless regulators, controllers, and other parasites who do nothing to teach children - re-elect Ms. Hands.

Where is Nancy's Secret Plan?

One of the complaints that I have received is about the high cost of gas nowadays. Not that the State legislature can deal with the issue without causing other harm. (Give up the gas tax and the roads go to hell). But then, I found this, and about fell out of my chair laughing. It is well worth the look.



Which just goes to show that politicians will lie through their teeth, knowing that they cannot do what they are promising, and yet, we still buy it. Why do we let them get away with this?

UPDATE Apparently, the Republican caucus sent the following to Ms. Speaker Pelosi:

Dear Speaker Pelosi:
Two years ago this week, you stated that House Democrats had a "commonsense plan" to "lower gas prices." In light of the skyrocketing gasoline prices affecting working families and every sector of our struggling economy, we are writing today to respectfully request that you reveal this "commonsense plan" so we can begin work on responsible solutions to help ease this strain.
Today, the national average for regular unleaded now stands at $3.51 per gallon, according to AAA, which is $1.18 higher than it was at the
start of the 110th Congress – a more than 50 percent increase. In fact, gas
prices rose more in the last 15 months than they did in the six years prior
to Democrats taking control of both Houses of Congress in January
2007.
In the midst of a slowing economy, falling home values and soaring costs of living, this is a heavy premium for working families to bear.
Americans, particularly those in suburban and rural communities, are paying more simply to commute to work each day. America's truckers, faced with the prospect of paying $1,200 to fill up a tank that just a few years ago cost $600, must now consider taking less work or going out of business altogether. We have seen reports of school districts where filling up buses is already costing as much as $70,000 more than originally budgeted.
Once a nightmare scenario, $4 gasoline is now a very real possibility of becoming a summer staple. In some cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, it is already a startling reality.
We noted with great interest, then, that on several occasions you have announced the existence of a Democratic plan to lower gas prices. In fact, it was two years ago this week, on April 24, 2006, when you pledged that "Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas
prices." Just two weeks after that, you stated that Democrats had "real solutions" that would "lower the price at the pump."
Yet 15 months into the 110th Congress, you have yet to reveal this "commonsense plan."
House Republicans stand ready to work with you and our Democratic colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to address America's energy crisis. As part of that effort, we respectfully request that you reveal the "commonsense plan" to lower gas prices you promised two years ago. The ability to fully consider its provisions, details and costs – including any proposed new taxes on gasoline or energy as we have seen in the past – is critical if we are to effectively serve our constituents facing ever-increasing prices at the pump.

This is Interesting

One of the things that I have learned so far in my campaign is that many of my good friends who are Democrats are glad that I am running, but just can't support me because I am running as a Republican. Apparently, tolerance and being open minded requires adherence to a one Party government.
Libertarians have absolutely no place in the Democratic Party. We do not accept that government is the solution to any of our problems, while my Democratic friends seem to believe that anything can be solved with the right government bureaucracy. On the other hand, some Republicans, especially social conservatives are frightened by the libertarian approach of letting each person make choices for themselves.
Ron Paul created mixed feelings in my mind, because I disagree with some of his foreign policy positions. I do not believe that we have the ability to hide behind our oceans and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist. On the other hand, it is obvious that he has a message that resonates with a large portion of the population.
I was somewhat worried that the Paul supporters would just sit out the coming election, and then I found this:


While McCain may not be the ideal choice. We still have to choose. Deciding not to choose is still a choice, and the consequences can be horrific. If McCain can garner the support of the Paulies, he just may yet win.
In spite of what my wife (The Good Democrat) thinks, I want McCain to win.
Otherwise, God help us all.

Watch Out for those Sneaky SOBs

at Left in the West. I was posting a link from LITW to Big Sky Cairn, who was looking for any Sinestra member that would call out Jay Stevens on his purposeful lies, and I noticed it seemed longer than usual.
Here is the link: http://www.leftinthewest.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=E32A1B4CF23755C1C595CA3F68E023E2?diaryId=1678

Do you notice the "jsessionid=" part of the URL? Now what exactly is that, I wonder? Could it be a way to snoop into your computer? Maybe a way to track who is linking to that post? Perhaps it's just a way to catch Wulfgar when he is using his State computer when he should be working.

Whatever the purpose, I would advise everyone to not use it since it seems to be a pretty sneaky invasion of your privacy.

UPDATE A friend who is computer literate has taken a look at the jsessionid matter and thinks that it is innocuous.
Therefore, I am wrong, and I apologize.
Steve

There He Goes Again

I have decided that it is apparently pointless to argue with people who deliberately misstate facts. Hence, Matt Singer, this one is for you:

Well, there he goes again.

Don't try this at home

Seems a motorcyclist in Oregon wanted to record how fast his bike went, so he mounted a video camera aimed at his speedometer. The recording shows that he hit 164 mph.
The fastest that I have ever taken a bike was 138 on the Autobahn. The front wheel started to feel like it was floating which scared the hell out of me, so I slowed down to a reasonable 120.
That just seemed so much safer.

On Exceptionalism and Bitterness

Mark Steyn is always quite insightful and entertaining. While he lacks the ferocity of Hitchens, he still is quite astute of an observer of the American condition. Consider this article. Some of the best parts:

Where was I? Oh, yes. In my book "America Alone," I note a global survey on optimism: 61 percent of Americans were optimistic about the future, 29 percent of the French, 15 percent of Germans. Take it from a foreigner: In my experience, Americans are the least "bitter" people in the developed world. Secular, gun-free big-government Europe doesn't seem to have done anything for people's happiness. Consider by way of example the words of Keith Reade. He's not an Obama speechwriter, he's a writer for the London Daily Mirror. And the day after the 2004 presidential election he expressed his frustration in an alarmingly Obamaesque way:

"Were I a Kerry voter, though, I'd feel deep anger, not only at them returning Bush to power, but for allowing the outside world to lump us all into the same category of moronic muppets. The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', nonpassport ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest d*** in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong.'"

Now, haven't I heard something like that recently? Oh yeah, Barak's "bitterness comments."
Mr. Steyn goes on to point out that the Europeans, unlike the moronic muppets in Kansas have voted their own best interests.

i.e., cradle-to-grave welfare, 35-hour workweeks, six weeks of paid vacation, etc. – and as a result they now face a perfect storm of unsustainable entitlements, economic stagnation and declining human capital that's left them so demographically beholden to unassimilable levels of immigration that they're being remorselessly Islamized with every passing day. We should thank God (forgive the expression) that America's loser gun nuts don't share the same sophisticated rational calculation of "their best interests" as do Thomas Frank, Obama, too many Democrats and the European political establishment.

I got to thinking about the above, and it reminded me of a very well appointed prison. And the socialism of Europe is a prison. While some of the countries are experimenting with individualism, the vast masses really only want their 35 hour work weeks, six week vacation and three week spa prescriptions, which does sound nice. Think about it, no real worries, concerns or challenges. But no opportunity to excel either. You are confined to mediocrity. Which, if you are sub-mediocre is an advantage, and if you are mediocre has no drawbacks. But if you aspire to more, you are going to be stopped and dragged back to mediocrity, less you disturb the other animals in their pleasantly appointed stalls.
Don't get me wrong. It is clear that the opportunity to succeed includes the opportunity to fail. And, as mentioned above, the comfort of mediocrity has its advantages. But it also steals from us the wonderful fruits of both success and failure.
For while success needs to be worked on to continue, and failure is that fraud that needs to be overcome, mediocrity is forever.

Are You Being Lied To?

When Carol and I got together for the MisConBlog Meetup, she said to me that she really resents feeling like she is being manipulated. I have to agree with her wholeheartedly on this point. Maybe, it's because I am getting older and crankier, or maybe it's because I have more access to information than ever before. In any event, I am finding that there seems to be a concerted effort to mislead all of us about essential facts.
As I had mentioned earlier, there are those who seem to go out of their way to purposely mislead us. Or they are so misled themselves, but confident that they are right, that they fail to think critically about the information that they are purporting to rely on.
But it's not just my friends on the Left. Even supposedly "professionals" are trying to mislead us.
Apparently, there is an active effort that is being coordinated to control what we think about subjects. And this is not a recent phenomenon as shown here, here here, and I could keep on listing them, but I think that you get the point.
No longer do we have unbiased news reporting, but the sort of "advocacy journalism" that is pure propaganda. What the Left forgets is that if it can be manipulated by their side, it could surely be manipulated by their opponents as well.
Ahh, but I can just hear Mark T.'s keyboards a clacking that news comes from corporations, and corporations are evil. Therefore, it is already slanted in favor of the Right. Yeah, those bastions of Conservatism like CBS and Reuters are in the tank for the Republicans, aren't they.
While I understand that people can have varying opinions about what needs to be emphasized, that should not apply to objective information gathering. How can we discuss a situation, if we cannot even agree what the situation is?
Maybe more of us need to borrow the line from Reagan - "Well, there you go again." to dismiss nonsense from the Left. Just smile, chuckle a little bit and pat them on the head, then send them out to play with their make believe stories, while we grownups discuss serious matters.

More Humor from Jay

I suppose he might actually be serious, but this is amusing in its own right.

"Faith," of course, is belief in something that lacks proof. It's pretty clear then that worry over global warming isn't a matter of faith, but of reason.

And if we're going to point out a group of people who cling to an idea that not only has no proof, but contradicts accumulated evidence and scientific inquiry, then we'll have to admit that it's the deniers who are acting on faith. Faith that Big Energy's efforts to influence the debate isn't profit driven. Faith that there's a 100% chance everything's going to be hunky-dory - after all, if there's even, say, a 10% chance global warming is man-made and as cataclysmic as conservative predictions make it out to be, it would be folly, or even criminal, to ignore it. Faith that the myopic views of a tiny number of politically-and economically-motivated commenters are what represents "reality."

If there's a religion here, it's in the denial of the problem.

Hmm, so belief in something that hasn't happened yet is proof of the statement, but not believing the statement is heresy? What is this, the Spanish Inquisition of the 21st Century?

But then Jay attempts to shred Craig of MTPolitics for his reporting on the makeup of the Climate Change Commission that the Gov himself handpicked.

Speaking of deniers, I just want to quickly comment on Craig's post equating Exxon funding of denier science with non-profit funding for policy groups. Again...I'm not sure the logic here. Exxon has a profit motive to misconstrue the debate and encourage us to make decisions that are self destructive; the groups listed in Craig's post seem to be interested in...well...preserving the environment and stopping global warming.

Jay either is blissfully unaware, or is active in denial of the idea that some people are using the hysteria of climate change as a tool to reorient society into their own image. Restructure the entire political and financial system, and apparently you are operating out of self interest. Point out the obvious flaws and you are a dupe of Exxon.
Nice try.

But what are the facts? Facts are easy, because they have occurred. That means they may be open to interpretation but they still exist. Predictions are not facts, by virtue of not being yet proven. Using "sophisticated computer models" does not change a fiction into a fact. It just means that you are using a model. When they can get the weather right in 10 more days, I will be closer to accepting their argument. But ten days out is impossible right now. Why someone thinks that 100 years out is more accurate is delusional. But surely, we can look to the past, since that has happened, right? Of course, when was the thermometer invented? Apparently in 1714. So, how widespread was its use? And how accurate were the observations that were made using these thermometers? But we are better than that now, aren't we? What do the data show, since the fact that it has occurred means that it is observable and testable.
Some reports are that 2006 is the warmest year on record, Others say that it was the 5th warmest. Of course, others say that 2007 is the seventh warmest year on record.
And still others say that it was the second warmest year on record.
At least a few show that the data relied upon is corrupt. In fact, in spite of the above assertions, some say that the warmest years on record was 1934, not 1998 or 2006 or 2007.

But that is to be ignored in this new Calvinist society, where we are all sinners, and not all of us are qualified for salvation. Only the true believers will be allowed into Paradise. I am sure that Jay believes that he will be one of the saved. Just like all the Calvinists before him.
Guess that explains why I am a Lutheran.

Oh, and Jay, if you doubt me, just put your hands on your desktop tower, and feel the warmth of God's love coming through to you.
Or is it climate change?

Deception as a Political Tool.

Carol at Missoulaopolis is taking Jay Stevens to task, and rightfully so it appears. I have to wonder sometimes, does Jay think that I am stupid, or is he being stupid? I realize that it is easy to bite on the line that has been handed to you, especially if it would impact your perceived opponent. But if given the chance to correct a mistake, why wouldn't you?
One reason might be that your assertion is correct. In this instance, that is obviously not the case. Another reason might be that you are unable to admit that you made a mistake. This is indicative of a major mental illness, and if I am elected to the Legislature, I promise to help people like this. Another is, that the lie is more effective than the truth. This is cynicism carried to its ultimate level.
Let's face it, a majority of the American voting public don't really pay attention to the news. They rely on what they hear from a (supposedly) reliable source. The first item in carries more weight than the truth.
Another example is Obama's 100 years of war with McCain. Obama is way too smart to not know that he is misquoting McCain.
So, maybe this is the new version of politics. The trouble is, that the so called "Reality Community" is much better at this version of variable truth than the conservatives are.
Too bad for the country.

UPDATE Here is another example, where Rove is the target. Maybe Jay Stevens actually is a journalist. Personally, I would want to punch anybody out that used that slur.

Update #2. More actual deception from his messianic holiness Barak:

Never Too Late

to say Thanks!

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.