The Answer to the Question

Right before Memorial Day, Mark T. asked what I am sure is an honest question for him, why is it that we honor those who serve in the military? I know that in his mind, wearing the uniform of our country is tantamount to an admission of war crimes. But during McCain's speech tonight, he said this:

I was in solitary confinement when my captors offered to release me. I knew why. If I went home, they would use it as propaganda to demoralize my fellow prisoners. Our Code said we could only go home in the order of our capture, and there were men who had been shot down before me. I thought about it, though. I wasn't in great shape, and I missed everything about America. But I turned it down.

A lot of prisoners had it worse than I did. I'd been mistreated before, but not as badly as others. I always liked to strut a little after I'd been roughed up to show the other guys I was tough enough to take it. But after I turned down their offer, they worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me.

When they brought me back to my cell, I was hurt and ashamed, and I didn't know how I could face my fellow prisoners. The good man in the cell next door, my friend, Bob Craner, saved me. Through taps on a wall he told me I had fought as hard as I could. No man can always stand alone. And then he told me to get back up and fight again for our country and for the men I had the honor to serve with. Because every day they fought for me.

I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn't my own man anymore. I was my country's.

It is a shame, that Mark will probably never understand what that means.

Why the Panic about a Palin?

Since her announcement as McCain's running mate, there has been a steady stream of derogatory statements by our friends on the Left. The most recent being Helen Thaomas' screed. Now Helen Thomas, is like Dave Barry (unintentionally) without the humor.
When you add up all the others, Wulfgar, Mark T. and my personal favorite Left in the West you see a consistent theme. Sarah Palin is going to be the next President after McCain.
Get used to it. I know that I am looking forward to it.

The Not Ready Candidate

Much has been made by the MSM (We all sold our soul to get "The One" elected, but I got the highest price!) of Sarah Palin not having the experience to run the country if she should become President. But we have only to look at her opposite number to see what more than thirty years of being in Washington as a Senator can do to prepare for the highest office in the land. First, it was we are going to prosecute the Bush Administration for crimes, then, it was "No I never said that."
If experience in Washington means that you can lie like a rug, I don't think that we need that kind of experience.
Another small step in the proof that Obama lacks judgment by picking Biden.

Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington

Kate at Big Sky Cairn is liveblogging Palin's speech. Good job Kate!

UPDATE: Having just watched her speech, I am reminded of the contrast between her and Geraldine Ferraro. Ms. Ferraro had the disadvantage of being the absolute first, and it may have been due to the times but I thought she came off shrill. Sarah Palin on the other hand had her few moments of imperfection, but I think that she has hit this one out of the park.

Memo to President Obama

REPORT TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

31 OCTOBER, 2010

Mr. President:

Domestically.

First the good news, your approval ratings have jumped dramatically in the last two weeks. You are now at 15% approval which is your highest in the last eighteen months. Primarily, this is due to your decision to stay away from all press conferences that do not use teleprompters.

As you know, the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine has enabled us to better manage the information that is coming out about the various problems of the Administration. The New York Times is continuing to work with us on getting your message out to their 86 subscribers, who are behind you 100% of the time.
Unfortunately, we are having a harder time controlling the Internet and cable television. Your initiative to impose the Fairness Doctrine on Internet bloggers and comments has not been as successful, and in fact, has backfired terribly in that bloggers are using remote servers overseas where we are not able to enforce the law. We have had the FBI pull more agents off of counterterrorism actions to confront these scofflaws, but they seem to pop up at a rate of 10:1 as soon as we arrest anyone.
Jamming continues against Rush Limbaugh’s pirate ships that are broadcasting from offshore and Mexico, but your restrictions on only using alternative energy reduce their ability to jam his signals to just a few yards from the antennae. He is continuing to ignore your message of Hope, in spite of the law mandating that everyone have hope no matter how dire their personal situation is. His audience seems to be mostly amused by his suggestion that people should hope in one hand and defecate in the other, and see which fills up faster.
Your communications director, Keith Olbermann continues to provide the press with the Administration’s message from his position as head of NBC News, but their viewers seem to overlap with that of the New York Times, and we are having a difficult time with the other 310 million voters.
Senator Clinton continues her investigations of your Administration in her role as Chairman of the Senate and does not seem to be slowing down. She is now investigating if her proposed nomination to the Supreme Court is just an effort by you to derail her investigations and her already underway campaign to replace you in 2012. We have our operatives working on the matter, but they are unable to get through the barricade of women voters who are now saying “We told you so!”
The financial markets continue to plummet as your phased in increases of the capital gains tax are set for all gains after January 1st of 2003. The Supreme Court has upheld the retroactivity of the tax in this case thanks to your appointment of Barbara Streisand who has tipped the balance of power there. It seems most of the Justices would rather kill themselves than have to deal with her legal reasoning, thereby resulting in the recent spate of 1-0 rulings from the Court. Not to mention the pictures we have of Justice Kennedy with that sheep that he is not married to. We have instructed the Senate Banking and Finance chairs to begin investigation of market manipulations, but to be truthful, we could only leave a message on their answering machines since they refuse to take our calls.

Internationally, our emissaries continue to seek out anyone from the former terrorist group Al Qaeda to apologize for putting Boston in the path of their nuclear weapon. We are also having trouble with Russia, in that Tzar Putin is rejecting our message of hope and understanding. It seems he may be trying to mislead us as he continues mop up operations against Ukraine and the Baltic states. We have been assured that any images showing the destruction of the cities in those countries are just photoshopped and not really indicative of what is happening on the ground.
Europe continues to reject your offers to mediate their desire to surrender to Tsar Putin, and this has been disappointing. It is our analysis that the Tsar may have bitten off more than he can chew as it seems that Al Qaeda appears to have declared war on the Russians as the infidels, thereby reducing any threats to our nation, except for San Francisco, which our scientists estimate will be able to be reoccupied in about 250 years if the anthrax eradication continues on schedule. Al Qaeda operations have continued against the Russian occupied cities of Prague, Vienna and Rome. We are having a difficult time getting reliable information from those areas due to the residual high levels of radioactivity. Our scientists continue to investigate if that radioactivity can be used as an alternative source of energy since it is in such abundant supply at the moment.
There is good news though in Korea, where Kim Jong Il has declared peace after the successful elimination of all resistance in Seoul. With the surrender of the Republic of Korea, our emissaries are now negotiating with those of the People’s Republic so that you can have a face to face meeting with the Beloved Leader and negotiate his use of the trademarked word “Change” in violation of international intellectual property rights laws.

Politically, we have not seen the benefits of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. It seems that every Democratic Senator has decided that if you could become President, that they are all immensely more qualified than you and are also running for President. All except for Senator Schumer who seems to be running for the position of God. He believes that is his appropriate pay grade, since no one else has it.

Your staff wants you to know that we will continue to promote your message of Hope and Change as the solution to all of the Nation’s problems. However, if you could, a few specifics would be greatly helpful. Not that we doubt your sincerity that Hope and Change will work, but we lack your intellectual firepower to figure out how to implement it.

In summary, we are eagerly awaiting the November elections where it is expected that the Republicans will retake majorities in both houses of Congress. At that time we will implement your proposed strategy of blaming them for everything once again.

The future never looked brighter Sir.

Digging Furiously

Newsbusters has taken to task the Post Chronicle for a "news item" that related to a Google search for sarah palin trailer trash. The editors of the offensive article posted a reply to the Newsbuster's post. If you go to the Editors (sic) Note portion of the article and take a read, you will find this:

It would seem the good folks at Newsbusters.org took it upon themselves to chastise us as if we subscribed to the point of view published above. The author had added some clarity and while the nature of the topic might be construde as bad taste, it does not reflect any opinion one way or the other. We take issue with Blumer's assertion that the story was simply "made-up."

Construde? Is that a rude form of construction?
Good thing that the big guys in news gathering have editors.

What is that Annoying Buzzing?

While Republicans are putting their convention on hold and turning it instead into a fund raiser for Gustav relief, Obama has been doing his part as well. His campaign called my wife (The Good Democrat) and asked her to text a number to send $5 to the Red Cross for hurricane relief. Good on both of them. They should not allow the calendar to preclude doing the right thing.
But, then there's that annoying mosquito of a politician, Joe Biden.

This morning, Joe Biden said today was not a day for national politics. He said it again during a roundtable discussion outside his childhood home here this afternoon. But before long, he couldn’t help himself, criticizing McCain for his views on offshore drilling and questioning his foreign policy judgment.

“The only guy in America in a position of some authority who is out of sync with the whole rest of the world is John McCain,” he told a small group of relatives and old family friends. “This Administration, the Iraqis, NATO, the Europeans, our friends around the world, the vast majority of the American people, the Democratic-controlled Congress, Republicans in Congress -- they all agree. Barack Obama was right, and John McCain was wrong.”

Way to draw blood mosquito Joe!
Apparently, Sen. Biden was referring to a timeline for withdrawl from Iraq. Now, Biden will provide far more entertainment than I think the Obama campaign realized when he was picked. But the good Sen. from the state that has the same number of electoral votes as ours, is basically unable to help himself.
It is only too easy to point out that Obama wanted an immediate timeline for withdrawl and opposed the Surge. If we had followed his wise counsel, the Anbar Awakening would have been snuffed out by those snuff artists of Al Qaeda.
I am not sure if Sen. Biden is being deliberately ignorant, or willing to lie as to any measure that will help him move from the Senate to the President of the Senate.
But every time that I see him, I realize that I like Sarah Palin even more.

Leftist Sexists

My wife (The Good Democrat) wanted to know my opinion of the Palin for VP pick. I told her that at first, I viewed this as a desperate gambit by McCain, but the more I looked into her, the more I think that she would be a great VP. My wife told me that on MSNBC (We have sold our souls to get "The One" elected) that they were calling it an early Christmas present. Now, if you honestly believe that your opponent has made a serious mistake, why trumpet it? Isn't it better to remain silent, smile appropriately, and let your opponent self destruct?
But the Left side of the debate is over the top in their disparaging remarks. Wulfgar left some snarky comments below, which caused me to look at his site, where he is really over the top in what can only be described as a juvenile tirade. The Leftosphere is running amok trying to disparage and discredit a woman who is a governor of a state, and who maintains an 80% approval rating. The whole of their argument seems to be that Ms. Palin is not qualified to serve as a VP.
This is the same group that thought that Gov. Tim Kaine was being promoted as a possible VP choice for Obama, and he has exactly the same amount of experience as Gov. Palin.
Oh, I forgot, Kaine is a man, so therefore, he must be more qualified than Palin, or so seems to be their argument.
The Left's desperate attacks belie that they know that they have reason to be concerned by her pick.

Chutzpa

During "The One's" speech last night, He said that if you don't have a record to run on, you attack your opponent. I guess the implication for the Kool-Aid drinkers like my wife (The Good Democrat)is that McCain has no record. Except it isn't that hard to notice that Obama is the one without a record and he is attacking McCain.
Now, we find out that Palin is being attacked because she has no experience. I would say "Pot, meet Kettle" except that Palin has two years of governing. That's two more years than "The One."

Sometimes, Ya just gotta wonder Pt. II

I may not be able to spot sexism as easily as some, but this is just over the top. To suggest that Palin would have to choose between her duties as Vice President or taking care of her child with Downs syndrome is appalling even to me. Further proof of the irresponsible nature of so called "journalism" in their desire to secure the Presidency for "The One."
I am sure that if Palin was a Democrat, the story would have been how deftly she balanced her dual roles, and how she would be a model for all working women.
I would say that this destroys the MSM credibility, but that is like dividing by zero.

Law and the Mentally Ill

(I posted this originally on my campaign site but I wanted to carry it here as well. Mental illness and the people who suffer from it are so thoroughly misunderstood, but for those of us who work with them so darned interesting at the same time.)

Mental illness is a bigger problem than people who don’t work with the mentally ill are willing to admit. Part of the problem is the lack of awareness to how much of a problem we are facing. For most of us, the mentally ill are those people wandering around downtown with multiple layers of clothing and muttering to themselves. But the mentally ill include high school honor roll students who are cheerleaders and commit suicide. More people die from suicides than from car crashes, but we always see Public Service Announcements on TV that tell us not to drink and drive, or to drive carefully. How many public services ads do you see about mental illness?

In Montana, we suffer from a shortage of available mental health caregivers. Professionals who are trained to diagnose, treat and care for the mentally ill deserve our greatest appreciation. But we don’t have enough. Right now, if someone is suffering from severe depression in Missoula, they will either have to wait for up to four months to get an appointment to see a psychiatrist, or the county attorney will have to get a court to order that they be involuntarily committed to Warm Springs, which is also understaffed and overcrowded.

What we need are regional crisis beds that can be used to provide protection and care for someone who is a potential risk to themselves or others for up to ten days. Believe it or not, there is actually a cost savings in having these kind of facilities, because many county budgets are being depleted by transporting the mentally ill to Warm Springs for incarceration up to 90 days. Plus, keeping the patient in the vicinity of family and friends can be enormously beneficial to long term treatment in the community.

We also need to examine if there should be more people who can provide care. Specifically, I am thinking that PhD. psychologists should be trained and given the authority to prescribe drugs to help the psychotic, the schizophrenic and the manic-depressives that exist in our community. We should also look at trying to recruit psychiatric nurses who could function under the supervision of an M.D. and provide care to those who need it.

While this cause is important to me, I have delayed posting on it waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on an appeal that I filed that involved a hopelessly psychotic individual who thought he was being attacked by the devil in the form of an 86 year old woman. After his arrest, he was sent to Warm Springs, where he was medicated to the point that he could stand trial.

In Montana, we do not have an insanity defense. If it is your conscious object to swing your fist, even though you may honestly believe that you are swinging at the devil, you are guilty of the crime. As a result, the client, who also became my friend was sentenced to be in custody for 40 years. He first went to Warm Springs, where they verified that he was still doing well while under medication, and they transferred him to the Montana State Prison to serve out the remainder of his sentence. At least he won’t be alone. Some estimates put the number of inmates in Deer Lodge on psychotropic medicine to be near half.

I would like to propose a change to the law that would allow someone who if found Guilty but Mentally Ill to be given another hearing before the sentencing judge when the maximum medical benefit has been reached to review the appropriate sentence. It may be that keeping the defendant under supervised probation that requires he maintain his drug treatments is more effective for the defendant and the community than simply replacing lunatic asylums with prisons.

A Question of Faith

The AP has a story out with the headline "Many think God’s intervention can revive the dying" which says a survey found that 57% of adults felt that divine intervention could revive a dying loved one. I read this after I read the letter to the editor of the Missoulian from Jack Fleming in which he describeda fertilized egg as nothing more than "spermed ovum." Never mind that a fertilized egg has its own DNA separate from that of either the mother or the father. In Mr. Fleming's letter, he goes on and says

I do not believe that human beings are sacred, that we have souls, that we serve any purpose or that there is an afterlife or a place to live it. I think that we have no notion of what eternity is, what it would mean to live that lengthlessly long, or even why such an endurance would be thought a good.

We are formed, as all life is, to reproduce ourselves. If there is a purpose within that purpose, that is the purpose. For us, the urge to do so runs from never to ever. Any disciplining of the urge is arbitrary, but not therefore wrong. It becomes wrong when a discipline turns an artificiality into a reality in order to subordinate one half of a species to the willful ignorance of the other half. For to say that a spermed ovum is a person is to say that the R at the beginning of my letter is the letter.

While I am not one to get into any kind of theological discussion, especially with such a firm believer in atheism, I do wonder if Mr. Fleming has ever had to face the kind of situation that the survey above was reporting?
My first wife was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1987 while I was finishing up a tour in Germany at the time. She had gone to Virginia to await my return, and she was studying to become a special education teacher at the time. She fought the battle bravely, but in the end, due to the progression of the disease, and the lack of similar progress in a cure, her body was self destructing.
I remember sitting with her every hour after work until they kicked me out every night. We would talk, but we both knew that there was no talk of the future. Even so, I prayed as hard as I could for a miracle. I read everything that I could on colon cancer, and no doubt annoyed the bejeebers out of the doctors and nurses at St. Patrick's with questions. Grasping for any tidbit of hope that might come my way. The last three days of her life, she was in a coma. At the end, having not spoken for some time, she suddenly started talking to her brother. Her brother killed himself before I met her. Now, I know that it could have been just the remnants of a brain shutting down, but it was startling nonetheless.
After 10 weeks in the hospital, the end came at 4:12 p.m. on the 16th of February, 1989. Even as the beeping machinery that monitored her earthly shell started the long continuous high pitch, I still was reaching for the nurses alert button, hoping that it was just something wrong with the monitors, even while knowing at the same time, that they were functioning properly.
During that entire period, I prayed almost continuously for a miracle that never happened. Some might have turned in anger against God for betraying their faith in that way. I may have made the mistake of slipping in another direction.
I believe in God, I believe in a hereafter, I believe that good and moral and decent people will go there, and I believe that my wife is there. But I also believe that God doesn't intervene. Having set the universe in motion, God simply observes. I know that is heresy to some. My brother, whom I love like a brother, is more fundamentalist, and believes that I just wasn't doing something right. Maybe I wasn't, but that doesn't mean that I wasn't trying.
I pity Mr. Fleming for his view. In some ways, they are similar, in that I too don't believe that there is a rope that will be thrown to us by God. But, we differ in he sees nothing, and I still believe that for all the troubles and travails of life, there is something better, and when we get there, we will wonder why we waited so long.

For the Humor Impaired

Don't go here.

This is Cool

From the Hubbel Deep field exposure. The galaxies are at the outside of what we are able to measure. Each galaxy having millions or even billions of stars.
Could start to make you feel insignificant. But if you don't, just read this and remember, that it's only introductory. Caution, some may be offended by the language, but it is still pretty funny.

Click on the photo to expand it.

The Surge Worked! Now What?

Only the most die hard Bush Haters are unable to admit that the conditions in Iraq have improved. Democratic talking points seem to be that the addition of troops was inconsequential to the improvement, that it would have happened anyway. While this is just posturing for a political audience, serious students of war recognize that this is a very complex issue with multiple moving parts. Sort of like the wag's definition of a helicopter - "a loose collection of parts flying in close formation," the application of many different types of power, political, military and economic, have fused into a solution that does seem to be working. While it is a truism, that there is no pure "military solution" to a problem, this truism operates in a vacuum since military force is just politics by other means. If they are separated, it is just mindless violence.
While I have always been opposed to the calls for a withdrawal from Iraq on an arbitrary timeline, in order to "force the Iraqis to act responsibly" the fact is that the Iraqi government is now calling for a withdrawal by 2010. So, why is it a good thing for the Iraqis to call for a withdrawal and not such a good thing for US political candidates to do the same thing? First off, it has always been the US position that Iraq is a sovereign nation, but it is also a fragile one since the destruction of most of the institutions that existed prior to April 2003. There have been many mistakes made along the way, but we are starting to get all of our acts together and there has been tremendous progress. Sure, the Anbar Awakening started prior to the surge, but it could not have been maintained without the additional troops, nor the change in policies that resulted in moving from "Force Protection" to a force presence stance that put troops into the neighborhoods. If you don't get the chance to travel outside of the US very much, you don't really learn to appreciate how much the rest of the world loves Americans, even if they don't like our policies, or the fact that we are a superpower. By putting troops on the streets, every soldier from the lowest private to the highest ranking general becomes an ambassador for America. The interaction and friendships that are created just by walking around are too invaluable to quantify.
Another tremendous factor in the change in conditions, has been the improvement of the Iraqi troops. Until 2007, the Iraqi Army was not much different from other Arab armies of the region. They had little discipline, and poor training. Preferring to rely on personal valor as a way to overcome training and tactical deficiencies. When they came under fire, they tended to rely on the "death blossom" of shooting everywhere, without any controlled, aimed or directed fire. The result was just as likely to be fratricide as anything else. But through the training efforts of the American forces, they are becoming more professional and competent. Which can be both a good thing and a bad thing.
The good, is that they are more likely to exercise the proper means of controlled violence to conduct their operations and achieve maximum efficiency. Talking to the soldiers that I know that have returned from there, there has been tremendous progress in their competency. The Iraqi Army has moved from being a toddler who American politicians wanted to run in the Olympics, to the four year old child that declares "I can do it myself." This is not to say that they are fully prepared to operated separate from US support, particularly in logistics and air support, but they are getting better all the time.
The bad thing about this improvement in competence, is that they are rapidly becoming the strongest institution in Iraq. They are more trusted than the police or the government. If they have been trained in our values, that the soldier serves the people, not the Prime Minister, they will be fine. But Iraq has a long history of military coups whenever a government appears to be feckless or incompetent, just as they seem to be now.
I was rather disappointed to learn that the Iraqi government went on vacation without finishing the business of holding a new vote in October. Hmm, I wonder where they could have learned that?
While it was dramatic for the Iraqis to vote even under threats of intimidation from Al Qaeda, the government that they have elected is hopelessly out of date, in that it simply reflected sectarian voting blocks. A new vote could dispel the need for the sectarianism, which has dominated Iraqi politics of late.
If there is a new vote, the Iraqis will be stronger if they reject sectarianism, as they seem to be wont to do. If there is no vote, I would be worried that the Iraqi Army may take matters into their own hands, and overthrow the government. Keeping at least one heavy brigade, one artillery brigade and an aviation brigade in Iraq would have a cooling effect on any such desire for another regime change.
We have invested a lot in Iraq in terms of blood and treasure. The pay off is going to be the most successful country politically, economically and militarily in the region. Other countries will look at Iraq and wonder if their model of ancestral based leadership is going to last.
We have made great progress in the Middle East. Now if we can just keep it from going to hell to soon, it will result in the most dynamic change there since Winston Churchill first drew lines on a map to create most of these countries.

Fasten Your Seatblets

Denis Keohane at the American Thinker, is positing that Hillary could still secure the nomination. I had said something like that before, although not to the depth of analysis that Mr. Keohane has given.
There certainly are subtle signs out there that Hillary is not exactly 100% behind Barak in his undertaking. And if even only some of the issues presented in the American Thinker piece are true, there could be some real fireworks in Denver in a few weeks.
I don't really believe that it will happen though, since it could absolutely destroy the Democratic Party if it is perceived that Hillary stole the nomination. But, if the Super Delegates sit on their hands through the first ballot, all bets will be off, since Obama has just signed on to give Florida and Michigan full representation at the convention. That letter also gave the majority of Democratic primary votes to Hillary at the same time. A startling concession.
At that level, you have to believe that there are no accidents, unless an amateur is in play. Hillary is no amateur. I am not as sure about Obama.

Where's the Outrage?

Remember how much fun it was for the Left to go after Bush because he was always on "vacation?" Of course, when the President goes on vacation, he brings along the White House Communications Office with him, and is never out of reach for anything that happens.
But when Congress goes on vacation, they are wandering around loose and unsupervised. Only the President can call them back into session, and if they are of such a mind, they can avoid that as well. And Speaker Nan, is of just such a mind. Sure gas prices are high. Sure, they are affecting personal pocket books, raising inflation, slowing down the economy. But that is not a good reason to end the more than five weeks that they had already scheduled off is it? Of course, the Senate is still in session. It wouldn't take that long to bring a bill to the floor, pass it and send it on to the President.
While a do-nothing Congress is not necessarily a bad thing, in this case it is. The reason that Speaker Nan doesn't want to restart the session to take care of the people's business, is that members of her own Party are willing to include offshore drilling in a package of energy options. And Speaker Nan doesn't want any such thing.

"I'll See You at the Debate B*tches"

It is almost as logical that Paris Hilton should parlay her celebrity status as anyone else to get to the White House.

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

UPDATE: Hammond beat me to this, but it is still funnier than the current Presumptive President.

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.