Bad Cards

You have to play the hand that you are dealt. But there have always been those who seem to get the card that they need just at the right moment. And right now, that card is the "race card."
John McCain has accused Barak Obama of playing the race card. Traditionally, the race card has been used to frighten whites that their women, and jobs were going to be taken away from them, and that their kids would have to go to school with children who weren't like them. But since the rise to prominence of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, there is a variant of the race card which is almost the reverse of the first meaning. If you criticize anyone who is "of color" you will be instantly shot down as being a racist, which near as I can figure is only sightly more acceptable than pedophiles who murder their victims.
But I think that the times are ripe for a changing, and it may all just be due to Mr. Obama, even though he may not appreciate it at the moment. The perpetual victimhood that has always worked so well in the past can be turned against anyone who uses it, by pointing out that there is no affirmative action program for the Presidency. You are either able to do the job, or you are not. And to claim that anyone who criticizes you or your policies is a racist is a racist statement by itself.
So much for "postracial."
Of course, Obama is helping McCain in this regard by pretending to already be the President. His victory lap through Berlin where he said that he doesn't look like other Americans who have spoken in Berlin, and his latest that he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills. How presumptuous! Not that he doesn't look like all those other people, or all those other men, he doesn't look like all those other PRESIDENTs?
But as Jake Tapper of ABC's The Note says:

There's a lot of racist xenophobic crap out there. But not only has McCain not peddled any of it, he's condemned it.

Back in February, McCain apologized for some questionable comments made by a local radio host. In April, he condemned the North Carolina Republican Party's ad featuring images of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

With one possible exception, I've never seen McCain or those under his control playing the race card or making fun of Obama's name -- or even mentioning Obama's full name, for that matter!

(The one exception was in March when McCain suspended a low-level campaign staffer for sending out to a small group of friends a link to a video that attempts to tie Obama not only to Wright but to the black power movement, rappers Public Enemy and Malcolm X.)

While I have no doubt there will be a bunch more racist, xenophobic, and other ignorant drek coming our way courtesy of the Internet and perhaps the occasional cable news network, it's important to determine where it's coming from. Is it from a specific campaign or party? A third-party group? A third-party group with direct ties to establishment figures? This all matters.

I've seen racism in campaigns before -- I've seen it against Obama in this campaign (more from Democrats than Republicans, at this point, I might add) and I've seen it against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, when his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was alleged, by the charming friends and allies of then-Gov. George W. Bush, to have been a McCain love-child with an African-American woman.

What I have not seen is it come from McCain or his campaign in such a way to merit the language Obama used today. Pretty inflammatory.

Obama's ability to avoid having to answer serious questions about how he is going to actually do what he says he wants to do is going to come to an end. Every time that he brings racism or fear up, McCain just has to reply: "Are you going to answer the question, or keep on dodging it?"

Soylent Green in Oregon?

James Taranto's Best of the Web has this subarticle, that I have reproduced in its entirety:

Great Moments in Socialized Medicine
Oregon is, according to an editorial in the Oregonian newspaper, "the only state that both allows assisted suicide and tries to ration health care." This embarrassed the state when 64-year-old Barbara Wagner got sick with lung cancer and the state essentially said to her, Have you considered suicide, lady?:

After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that would cost $4,000 a month, the newspaper reported, "Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn't cover the treatment, but that it would cover palliative, or comfort, care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide."

The Oregonian editorial explains that the decision to deny coverage for the drug was based on a policy of disapproving payment "for treatment that doesn't provide at least a 5 percent chance of survival after five years." The paper does not fault the state for this decision:

In Wagner's case, administrators of the Oregon Health Plan had to make a difficult call. But that's what they do every day in performing the tough, thankless job of rationing government-paid health care to the needy.

What's unacceptable, however, is that Wagner's rejection letter included the offer of payment for doctor-assisted death. Such notification creates at least the appearance of an ethical conflict: state encouragement of dying as a cost-saving measure.

The editorial notes that, the rejection of the $4,000-a-month drug notwithstanding, taxpayers have "paid thousands of dollars over the years for Wagner's cancer care, and . . . will continue to do so."

Unless, of course, she chooses suicide instead--an option that would still be open to her whether the state made the point explicitly or not. The Oregonian is troubled by the "appearance of an ethical conflict" when the state spells out the offer, but it seems not to mind the actual ethical conflict posed by the underlying assisted-suicide policy.

Yeah, government run health care will be soooo much better for us. Accountants determining what care you get just sends a shiver down my leg.

Ted Stevens Indicted

It's being reported that Ted Stevens is being indicted. You may remember him as the Republican equivalent of the former Kleegle Robert C. Byrd, D-KKK. Stevens was the proponent of the "bridge to nowhere" and other boondoggles of the public treasury to reassure his re-election.
It may be unfair that he gets more attention than Sen. Dodd or Conrad for corrupt practices, but it is up to the Republican Party to clean up the deadwood, and after they are done, then to remind the Democrats that they have been allowed to skate by their lap dog media types for too long.

Doesn't Alaska have their own version of Sen. Coburn?

Another thing I agree with the Democrats on

At the Democrat's convention in Miles City (both Republicans and Democrats seem intent on going to "enemy territory") there was proposed a non-binding resolution to lower the drinking age to 18. I know that it sounds crazy, but if you think about it, it really does make sense. MTPR had a segment on their broadcast that included sound bites from MADD that was appalled that the Democrats would do such a thing. They predicted carnage on the highways with a lower drinking age. After all, they have totally eliminated underage drinking and driving by making it illegal.
Except that it hasn't worked.
Right now, kids are buying booze illegally, and because they can't sit in a bar and drink responsibly, they are chugging it as fast as possible and then throwing the empties out of the car. I know that all of this is illegal, but lawmakers need to realize that creating a new criminal class is not the answer to all problems.
I would go even farther than their proposal: Do it like in Europe where you can drink at 16, but can't get a license until you are 18. Combine this with the general abhorrence of public drunkeness, (except for the major fests) and you have people who learn to drink responsibly, instead of the binge drinking that they do now.
Maybe another proposal, assuming you can get the feds off of our backs, would be to only allow you to drink at 18 when you have a High School diploma in hand. You might just encourage a higher graduation rate.
But the fear of anyone having fun is always going to create laws that prevent that. Even if they don't work or make sense.

Admitting Mistakes

Okay, not my own yet. I'm still not done with all of them, and it will take up too much bandwidth to do that. But I am remembering all of the hullbaloo from the sages of the MSM, who couldn't believe that Bush refused to admit that he had ever made a mistake. David Gregory certainly comes to mind.
But what is truly funny is Barak Obama, who says that we don't need any leaders who can't admit that they made a mistake. This from a guy who seems to be attempting to beat George Bush for being error prone when it comes to speaking.

So, now we have this:

Maybe Obama is running for Bush's Fourth term.

Thank heavens we won't have a politician who is unable to admit that he has made a mistake.

For All You Culture Vultures

Jim Geraghty has an interesting post at the Campaign Spot, in which he realizes that he was confusing Obama's speech with that celebrity riddled ego driven project that never really accomplished anything but the song We are the World."
From the post, he has a pop quiz. See if you can determine which are from Obama, and which lyrics are from the song.

Pop quiz, hot shot. Pick out the "We Are The World" lyrics vs. Obama speech lines.

A: "We can't go on pretending day by day that someone, somewhere will soon make a change."

B: "This is the moment we must help answer the call."

C: "But if you just believe there's no way we can fall."

D. "The world will watch and remember what we do."

E. "Let us realize that a change can only come when we stand together as one."

F. "We cannot afford to be divided."

G. "These now are the walls we must tear down."

H. "This is the moment when we must come together."

I. "They'll know that someone cares, and their lives will be stronger and free."

Answers:






We Are the World: A, C, E, I.
Obama's Speech: B, D, F, G, H.

Barak Obama, using 80's lyrics to rule the world. I just pray he doesn't discover ABBA.

UPDATE: If he did adopt ABBA, with his "change" mantra would this replace "Hail to the Chief?"

Hype the Movie

The Hollywood Left is far more adept at attempting to manipulate public opinion, and this is a weaker sister example of the other hand. It is still interesting though.



"People are not listening to the lyrics."

Caution!

Do not watch if you are offended by the full form of B.S. (And no, I am not talking about our Governor).

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

To Drill, or Not to Drill, That is the Question.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, (D-Moonbat City) is thwarting any vote from coming to the floor to allow states to determine if they would allow offshore drilling. The standard talking points are used, i.e. There are leases that aren't being used, so why should we give more, and it takes ten years to get the oil to market, and my favorite, "It's George Bush's fault."
Apparently, there is some massive conspiracy afoot, which is designed to drive up the price of oil, reduce world wide economic growth, resulting in higher stocks of petroleum, which then results in a drop in prices, which. . . wait a minute! That doesn't make any sense at all.
What are the facts then, are there really oil leases that aren't being used? Well, yes, but a lease is not the same as obtainable oil. It's a license to take a chance, providing that you have the money to invest in lawyers to fight the mindless enviros who oppose any drilling, no matter how small the impact.
How about the ten years to market bromide? I still can't find anyplace that can authoritatively say that. In fact, when you watch the Discovery channel, we already have the capability to drill in three mile deep water, what is the problem then? Okay, the shortage of available ships to do the job, since they are so expensive to lease. But why the ten year mantra? It kind of reminds me of the movie line: Your generation only wants instant gratification. No, that takes too long.
And what about the idea that more oil being made available will not reduce the price of gas. How in the heck is that supposed to work? More oil, means more gas, which means that it is not as scarce, which means that if one company wants to increase its market share, it lowers the costs to the consumer, which forces other companies to lower their price, which means lower cost gas, and less of an adverse impact on the economy. What am I missing, unless there is some grand secret collusion out there?
It couldn't be that there is another agenda behind this, is there? I mean if you were a real conspiracy buff, you could say that the oil companies are behind the Democrats refusal to drill, because the scarcity of available oil keeps the price up. Hmm, Democrats ostensibly for the enviros, while taking money from the oil companies at the same time. A win-win for them, so long as nobody notices.
Well, if you are willing to see further slowdown in the economy, greater unemployment, higher inflation and old folks being forced to eat dog food like in the Carter years, just keep that ban on drilling. If you are a Democrat, you could run on a platform to improve personal conditions, while at the same time, helping to keep those same horrible conditions going.
I suppose we are expected to believe that is "change we can believe in."

On Global Warming "Leadership"

Leadership used to mean to inspire to lofty goals. Now, it means do as I say, not as I do.

Interesting Info

Rasmussen has its poll out showing that Obama would absolutely trounce George W. Bush in an election by 20 points, 54% to 34%. Too bad Bush is constitutionally prevented from running again, although there are those fetishists on the Left who really do seem to want to keep him around to continue blaming all manner of ills on him.
The problem for Obama is that when he has to face McCain, his numbers are nowhere nearly as sweet - 47% to 45%. Throw in the Wilder effect, and this is not good for the transcending politician of our times. The interesting thing about these numbers seems to suggest that the line that McCain is Bush's third term is not resonating. In fact, McCain appears to be doing better among non-identified voters than Obama, which I find really interesting.
The one big caution for McCain is that when I am talking to people on the doors, some are asking me if I have any McCain signs to put out. His lack of interest in people willing to support him could be the key to an Obama victory.

First, They Shot the Messengers.

Chicago Boyz has an interesting post that argues that new changes to the franking privilege as it relates to posting on the Internet are going to restrict free speech. The idea that the leadership has to approve any content from a member before it is allowed to be posted is just ripe with opportunities for abuse.
But the letter from Congressman Capuano detailing the proposed changes is just too rich to pass up. My favorite part:

I believe that these changes will help ensure that these conditions will help ensure the House presence on such external sites conforms with acceptable standards that reflect favorably on the dignity, propriety, and decorum of the House.

I guess that they should be worried about their dignity, what with 9% approval ratings. Heck, they could probably get up to 40% if they started streaming free pornography.

On Patriotism

Do Liberals Love America Too? is the title of an article at the American Thinker that is well worth the read by both sides. Some of the parts that I really liked:

Herein lies the great chasm that separates liberals and conservatives when it comes to defining the word "patriotism." The right sees patriotism as a physical, emotional connection with the past; an open acknowledgment and tribute to those who came before us and guaranteed with their blood, sweat, and tears that we, their progeny, would live in freedom. We are aware that America is not all it could be but rather than dwelling on our imperfections, we celebrate all that is good and decent in this land and its people.

The flip side of the same coin is how liberals define patriotism. They seem to intellectualize their love of country. They distrust outward displays of patriotic emotion, tending to equate fervor with patriotism's evil twin -- nationalism. Liberals see a problematic past for America and are not shy about pointing out where America has fallen short in its promises of liberty and equality.

Okay, I could agree with both of these sentiments. But I have somewhat of a problem with the constant criticism by the Left. If you are conservative, you see a line of progress, fitful and uncertain at times, but always progress. But for the Left, it seems that since we will never be able to achieve perfection, they can never be as proud of America as a conservative would be.
If the improvement of America is a Sysiphian task, why bother? I suppose a simpler question is - Is the glass half empty or half full? Actually, it seems for the Left that the first part of the question should be is the glass full? If it's not, it is not worth having.
I am not necessarily sure that they are wrong, but I question why anyone should bother if the task is impossible?

A Fit and Proper Celebration of the 4th of July

Should involve re-reading the Declaration of Independence. For your reading pleasure:

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

For Those of You Forbidden Fireworks

The real thing brought to you by the guys who use them on a daily basis as needed.



Happy Fourth of July!

Tip of the Fedora to Red States

Obama: New Politician, or . . .

the political equivalent of New Coke? After his victory in Iowa, a lot of media attention was focused on this "different kind of politician." Contrasting him with Hillary, the media removed any pretense of objectivity, and actually swooned whenever they were in his presence. But what is it actually, that Mr. Obama has done?
He does give a soaring speech, at least when reading from a teleprompter. But if he has to speak extemporaneously, the uhs, ums, and long pauses are especially frustrating in trying to hear what he is attempting to put forth.
And on policy, Obama was against the war from the beginning. Hooray for him, got it right, maybe. But no one has held him to account for what he would do differently. In fact on one debate, he actually said that if al-Qaeda returned to Iraq, he would reinvade. Oh boy, that will be easy. we should get a lot of support from our allies in the region. I am sure that they would just forgive and forget.
But it is in the area of what his core values are that is especially interesting. As early as February, the documentation of his flip flops had begun. And now that he has ostensibly secured the nomination, he has accelerated his rate of flip flops. Amazingly, this lack of consistency is taken as being positive by the members of the press.
I have listened to Obama's speeches for awhile, and they are filled with lawyer words. Soaring rhetoric that is able to be taken any darned way that you want, and if you are wrong, it's your own fault.
But getting back to the premise of the post, like Obama, New Coke was brought about because it's owner had been experiencing a loss of market share. By revamping the formula and a massive media operation, New Coke originally took off. Which just goes to show how effective advertising is. Because marketing can only do so much, three months later, Old Coke was brought back and the New Coke was rebranded as Coke II.
Like New Coke, Obama has had the benefit of a media that is in love with him. But the reality is that it is an infatuation. And like all infatuations, it burns hot for a while, then when reality is revealed, bitterness and anger replace the passion.
Let's say that Obama is able to limp across the finish line and actually become president of these 57 States. No President is ever able to get anything done by himself. So let's assume that there are only 39 Republicans in the Senate, and the House is overwhelmingly Democratic. Obama should be able to get anything that he wants right?
Except with his history of flip flops, who is going to put their political capital on the line? Sure, the President has told you that he fully supports your issues, and they are just what the country needs. But you know that in the back of your and his mind, he will completely reverse himself with no compunction at all.
New Politician - New Coke. I have a feeling that by 2010, we will be back to the old ones again.

Another of the Best of the Web

James Taranto, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal publishes a page every working day that documents some of the more humorous aspects of journalism as it is practiced in this country. From the 2nd of July edition comes this bon mot:

He Held the Cigarette in One Hand, a Machine Gun in the Other, and Planted One Foot on Either Side of the State Line
Police and FBI agents captured an ex-convict suspected of killing eight people in two states as he smoked a cigarette outside of a southwestern Illinois bar Tuesday night."--Associated Press, July 1.

I am sure that since he was smoking, he was beyond redemption. Although, a good defense lawyer could show that he paid the cigarette tax, and was only interested in helping to fund children's health care.

Brad Johnson Interview

You have to hand it to the members of the Dextrasphere. First Craig got Denny to post an op-ed, and now the good folks at Montana Headlines have scored an interview with Secretary of State Brad Johnson.
Color me nothing less than impressed. And it does show that our leaders are taking the new medium seriously.

Kudos to MH!!

Wisdom of the Masses

First you have Harry Reid:



And a response by the Everyman:

One of the reasons that Gas is going to $5 per gallon

You got to love the zealots. Conservationists are trying to shut down drilling for oil in Montana because of the beloved sage grouse. They want to extend the ban against drilling by 8 times from the present restrictions, just to see if it will help, since they don't know yet if it will.
Democrats have always portrayed themselves as the defender of the working class. Examples such as this, and the refusal to expand drilling in other locations shows that they are content to keep poor people from having the luxury of driving to work. Nor are they interested in those workers who would do the drilling, or build the refinery, or transport the oil so that others could partake. No, they are far more interested in seeing the working class lose their jobs and their money to foreign oil producers, just to keep the moneyed contributors of the environmental movement happy.

I bet if the working class had more money to contribute than the environmentalists, you would see more attention paid to their issues.

International Lunacy?

Wiley at Big Sky Cairn has a proposal to debate the issue that "Architects of U.S. foreign policy should be subject to international justice." Not much more has happened on this, but I was reading this article where a Jordanian prosecutor wants a Dutch legislator to stand trial in Jordan for committing heresy by making a film that ostensibly mocks Islam and their prophet. Under the UN's declaration of Human Rights, freedom of religion is a basic tenet. Therefore, the prosecutor can move to the International Court of Justice and prosecute the case there.

Which leads to the real problems with International Law. Most of it is so damned ambiguous, that it is subject as much to misuse as not. Because the international community is a grouping of equals, there are no enforcement provisions should a nation refuse to comply with the dictates of International Court. See for example, Nicuauga v. US. It is in essence a fallacy to think that a fair and impartial tribunal could even exist, much less hear a case. Think about it, who is on the UN Human Rights Commission? Libya, Syria, who else with their sterling examples of moral righteousness could sit in judgment of another country.

In fact, suppose you had an all Islamic court that ruled that women all over the world are not to drive, nor vote, nor leave the confines of their house without being escorted by a responsible adult male relative. Why would that be preposterous if we end up surrendering US sovereignty to the ICJ?
Because there are no truly agreed upon international norms, every country and their leaders would be subject to the whims of some prosecutor making a name for himself. Knowing prosecutors as I do, that is a frightening prospect.

An Interesting Problem

Since the Supreme Court has found that the 2nd Amendment is an "individual right" there are a whole series of issues that arise from that decision. Of particular importance to those of us here in Montana, is the need of lower income families who derive the bulk of their protein from wild game procured through hunting. In order to clarify the point, let me set up a couple of scenarios for you.

In case #1, the defendant robs a bank at gun point, is quickly caught, confesses, and is sentenced to 10 years in prison, with no time suspended. At the end of the 10 years, he goes hunting, and is stopped by a federal fish and game warden, who runs his name and finds out that he is a felon. Is the defendant in violation of the Armed Career Criminal Act, in that he is a felon in possession of a weapon?

If you answered that he (or she, no sense being sexist) would not have a problem, you would be correct. Because in Montana, you are automatically restored to your full civil rights after you are through with your prison, or probation, or parole.

Now, let's take another case: A couple go out to the bar and have way too much to drink. Arriving home, one accuses the other of some sort of infraction, and the argument gets louder and more heated. Finally, the man (the larger one of the two) says that he is leaving. The woman gets in his way, unwilling to end the argument without total victory. The man shoves the woman to the side and leaves the house.
She calls 911, and the police arrive, and following the statute, arrest the aggressor, who will not be eligible for bail until he sees the magistrate, which if it happens on a Friday night, means Monday, or Tuesday if Monday is a holiday. At the appearance, he enters a not guilty plea to the charge of domestic violence, is released on $500 bond, and forbidden to contact his wife, or to go to his house until the matter is resolved.
Unfortunately, it is all too typical, that the wife/girlfriend will then pester the court, the prosecutor and the defense counsel to remove the restrictions, because she really loves him and she is not afraid of him. Eventually, the prosecutor realizes that he has a less than willing "victim" and offers a disorderly conduct, the lowest misdemeanor crime that we have with a punishment of no more than 10 days and $100 fine.
Now, two years later, the man is out hunting and runs into the same federal warden. When the warden runs the man's name, what do you think will happen?

If you said that he would be immediately arrested and sentenced to no less than 5 years in a federal prison, you would be correct.

So, what is the difference? Why is the felon restored his rights, but the misdemeanant is not? The answer lies in the fact that in Montana, you don't lose your rights for a misdemeanor conviction. You can vote, sit as a juror, all the full benefit of rights are available to you. But because you were never deprived of your rights, you can never have them restored.
Yes, I know that makes no sense, but the same Supreme Court that found an individual right to keep and bear arms, said that the only logical interpretation of the statute is that you have to lose your rights to have them restored.

The only solution to this problem is to either change the federal statute, (The Violence Against Women Act) or to have Montana law say that you lose your rights when you are convicted of a misdemeanor and have them restored in the same manner as a felon would. Neither of which is politically tenable right now.

Let this be a lesson - Only have a homosexual relationship because they are expressly prohibited from being classified as domestic violence. That way at least, you could still hunt.

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!