Barak Hoover Obama

While styling himself as Franklin Roosevelt, Obama keeps saying that we need to not return to the failed economic policies of the past. It lifts my heart to hear that, until I realize that he wants to return to the failed economic polices of Keynes. As Obama noted in his address to the Democratic meeting a couple of weeks ago, he is being accused of having a spending bill instead of a stimulus bill. Then he asks rhetorically, "what do you think stimulus is? It's spending!"
But does government spending actually create jobs? As the article linked to in the title says, government spending simply robs from Peter to pay Paul. Governments do not create wealth. Instead, through their tax policies, they destroy it. Right now, it takes thirty nine Montanans working full time paying taxes to pay for each government employee (of which I am one). If the Left's version of economics were to be carried to its absurdist position, then if everyone worked for the government except for one person, that one person would be richer than Bill Gates. But commonsense knows that is not a true statement.
Money is a measure of wealth. In a way, it is an imperfect measure, since with inflation it can be a falling measure, not a static one. It's as if your ruler keeps shrinking an inch at a time, even though it is still divided into twelve equal segments. By flooding the economy with borrowed, or worse, made up money, the value of your efforts is going to be compromised in direct proportion. Some of us are old enough to remember the old days when Jimmy Carter was president. With inflation running at 13%, retirees on fixed income were trying to find Alpo on sale, just so that they could afford something to eat. Are those days coming back? Yes, and even worse.
Obama has indicated that he plans to allow the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. Raising taxes during a recession is the same policy that Herbert Hoover tried, and it also failed miserably. But raising taxes at the same time as the interest payments come due on the borrowed money for the "stimulus" is only going to further suppress any private sector economic development. By stealing capital that would otherwise be available to the private sector for investment, growth or increasing productivity, the private sector will be kept stagnant. But at least we will have unemployment insurance for all the people who are not hired by the private sector. Or, we will until the Chinese stop buying our debt.
Just to shorten up the comments, let's predict the predictable responses: For instance, George Bush ran up the deficit and the debt through the war in Iraq. No doubt. But if deficit spending is supposed to get us out of the problem, Bush should have succeeded immensely under this theory, since he expanded government at a rate that Obama is going to be the only Democrat to exceed. Not to mention, that the "stimulus" bill is more expensive than the cost of the Iraq war plus all of the New Deal spending. Put together. At one time. I just don't think that you can argue that Bush was wrong for raising spending, and then say that it can be solved by more spending.
Another argument is that the last time that the deficit was eliminated was under Clinton and he raised taxes. And superficially at least, that is true. Except that there were several unique factors that make that scenario impossible to replicate. First, taxes were raised after we were coming out of a recession. In spite of the trite statements about the worst economy in 50 years, the recession had ended before the election. Second, the demise of the Soviet Union led to a reduction in defense spending. In fact, the entire surplus was equal to the amount of spending reductions in defense. Not that it wasn't needed, but to claim credit for an historical anomaly is either be cynical or stupid, and I am willing to bet that Bill Clinton is not stupid.
Finally, with the Republican revolution of 1994, one of the primary agenda items was welfare reform. Faced with poll numbers that showed the popularity of the reform, Clinton reluctantly signed off on the deal and then proceeded to claim credit for what he had long opposed. Fine, that's politics. But it wasn't Clinton's policies, as much as the forgoing and the tech bubble that provided for the prosperity. That is not going to happen over the next four years.
By raising taxes, accelerating pet Democratic policies that have no direct improvement on the economy, Obama is going to send us into a crater that will make Herbert Hoover's mistakes look like a mere misstep versus the catastrophe that is coming. My advice: Start buying guns and ammo. You will need them.

Why Can't We be More Like Sweden?

When they say no subsidies to Saab?

Sometimes, You Just Don't Need the Help

I am sure that Barak Obama is wondering what he did wrong, that Jimmy Carter has announced his support for Obama's economic plan. This is kind of like George Armstrong Custer complimenting a subsequent commander's planning.

I Don't Know Why -

But this picture creeps me out. Can't tell if it's Schumer, Reid, or Murray juxtaposed with Baucus.

Or, maybe it's just Max.

I Don't Need This -

But it would be kind of cool:


Read all about it here.

A Thousand Words

My wife (The Good Democrat) told me that Obama's coronation was "almost a spiritual event" for her. This bothered me, because I was never sucked into the mass psychosis of the rest of the country that voted for him. But then I saw this, and it all made sense.

I'm Sorry

I want to apologize to my children, my grandchildren, and to my great grandchildren who haven't even been born. We have just saddled you with over $300,000 each in debt, and we did it in just one day. Oh, and don't forget the interest. And for what?
To get a tax break that amounts to $13 a week? Funding for all sorts of strange stuff that we don't even know what it is, because no one has had the chance to read what was just passed? It's called a "stimulus bill" but that's just marketing to fool the people. There is very little stimulus, but a whole bunch of problems that are being pushed through under "emergency" conditions because they never would have made it on their own.
And to top it all off, because of the deficit and its impact on the debt, we will not be able to have universal health care. Add in the coming tsunami from Medicare and Medicaid, and in a few more years after that, Social Security going broke, and I am really sorry. My parents generation may have had their problems, but my generation has traded temporary gain for your long term debt.

Someone in D.C. has Principles?

Judd Gregg has withdrawn from being nominated for Commerce. His statement can be found here.
It was classy and well written. Well done Senator.

Well Said

Over at the Corner on NRO, they have been discussing liberaltarianism, which is that libertarians have more in common with liberals than they do conservatives. Jonah Goldberg has answered quite well, exactly how I feel and I especially like this part:

To say you are an economic conservative is to say you are a libertarian on 95% of the relevant issues. But to say you are a social liberal isn't anything like saying you are a libertarian on 95% of social issues.

Social liberals are often quite aggressive advocates of using state power to impose their preffered versions of "liberty." Most libertarians are disgusted by thought-policing political correctness, by forced "sensitivity" training, by so-called Hate Crimes tribunals and racial and gender quotas. They detest smoking bans, forced volunteerism and the whole panapoly of Nanny State outrages. They may detest religious incursions on government, but they also detest governmental incursions on religion. Most libertarians are localists who believe that the federal government doesn't have an all purpose writ to make everything better. They believe in the autonomy of business and other institutions to do what they want — within obvious limits — even if what they do is bad. For example, most libertarians I know may be in favor of gay marriage, but they're against the state forcing eHarmony to provide services to homosexual customers against their will.

The Dull and Frivolous

From Samizdata:

"We are ruled by people who have achieved the remarkable distinction of being both dull and frivolous."

Theodore Dalrymple. The problem is the idea that we need "rulers" at all.

I think that my analogy might be better: We have elected a government of six year olds, given them a truck full of dynamite, and told them to build something.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars . . . .

What They Really Think

Abramoff Pt. 2

Remember Jack Abramoff? He was used by the Democrats to bring Conrad Burns down, to replace him with Jon Tester. Well, we still seem to have the same problem that was complained about (although Conrad was exonerated), where a lobbyist gives $500,000 to a politician, in exchange for that Congressman directing millions in appropriations to the same lobbyist.
Oh, wait. The Congressman in question is a Democrat, so I guess it's okay.

Bush-Obama Big Government

I resent that it is common to term former President Bush as a "conservative." Outside of his vigorous defense of the nation from further Al-Qaeda attacks, there is very little that he did that would be considered as conservative. Just off the top of my head - No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D the Department of Homeland Security, and more are not the programs that someone who espoused limited government would believe in.
Along comes Newt Gingrich with a plan for the restoration of Conservatism. From the article:

The Bush-Obama big government, big bureaucracy, politician-empowering, high-tax, high-inflation and high-interest-rate system continues to grow and to place the country in greater and greater danger from inflation, bureaucratic control of the economy, political interference in every aspect of our lives and massive debt.

and

Now President Obama represents continuity rather than change. The new spending bill (as the president called it in his Williamsburg speech last week) is more of the Bush-Obama continuity and represents more of the same instead of "change you can believe in."

Read the whole thing.

Two Americas

With ironic appreciation for former Sen. John Edwards, another Tale of Two Americas.

Today, under Barak H. Obama, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward in the form of transfer of wealth. One America that pays the taxes, another America that writes the tax codes, and then ignores them until appointed to higher office. One America - middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America such as Hollywood, unions, ACORN, - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants with borrowed money, even a Congress and a president.

One America, where Arlen Specter could receive treatment for his cancer, and another, where a bureaucrat could determine that it was not cost effective for him to receive treatment. One America where if you work hard, get a house mortgage you can afford and live within your means, and another, where if you do none of the above, you will be subsidized by those who do.

Which America do you live in?

Really?

Too Funny.

Video Recaps | Full Episodes | Webisodes

I Don't Care Which Side of the Abortion Argument You Are On - This is Horrible!

What have we become?

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

Read the whole thing.

With Friends Like This

Byron York had this in the Corner. Apparently, President Obama is using his extensive campaign connections to try and push through America's $900 Billion Boondoggle/Generational Enslavement Act. You are invited to sign up and look for a group of like minded people who want to bankrupt future generations. This has to be the best of them all. Some great lines:

Reconcideration of Ethics (Economic Recovery Meeting)

and how to get there -

USA Speach By Our Most Ultimate Global Power (The President) For Our Nation On The Day That Symbolizes Love "Valentines Day"

Apparently caring, has more to do with anything than knowing about spelling, or how to give directions.

What is it with these people?

Just two weeks into Obama's Presidency, and the explosion of ethical violations just won't stop coming. Okay, this one is just another by Charlie Rangel, the head of the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the house.
You remember Charlie, don't you? He is the guy who writes the tax code, and he forgot to report the income from his Dominican Republican properties. Oh, and his use of four rent controlled properties in New York City. Oh, and the fact that he never paid taxes on his use of the Capital garage for four years to store his Mercedes. Oh, and I forgot, the claim of a homestead exemption in Washington D.C. when his residence is in New York. Now we learn that he has failed to report his royalties from his book.
I sure bet that he is glad that he isn't a Republican. He would have been run out of town years ago.

Liberals and Numbers

From Nancy Pelosi's 500 Million Americans are losing their job every month (just a hint, but there are only just over 306 million Americans) to Mark T's famous assertions about the tens of millions that we have killed in Iraq, to the almost a trillion dollar bailout/generational-enslavement act, liberals seem to love numbers. Which is probably why they do so poorly in math.
Mark T has often accused me of parroting party lines. I am not sure why he does that, except it seems to be an alternate to his tactic of ignoring what a post says, so that he can rail about whatever he darned well feels like, even though it has nothing to do with the original post. But his favorite point is that the Lancet published a study showing how many Iraqis have died since the liberation in 2003.
Just one thing - the study that the Lancet article refers to, seems to have some very serious ethical questions about its conduct. What's that you say, science used for political purposes? Say it isn't so. Sorry, from manipulated data that is kept hidden from other peer review, to manipulation of reporting station data in the great global warming debate, the truth is never as good as they want to portray it for their own ends.
But I am not confident that they will have any shame that will stop them from carrying on with bogus information so long as it suits their purpose. So, if a liberal Leftist starts spouting numbers, just assume that they are making it up,

And On It Goes

In addition to those tax cheats listed in O-Oh, we can now add one more. Nancy Killefer, who was chosen to be Obama's Chief Compliance Officer, also owes taxes, and is apparently going to be stepping down. Is there anyone in this administration who has been paying their taxes?
Kind of makes you feel dumb, doesn't it, that you were afraid of the IRS, and dutifully, if not gladly, paid what you owed. Of course, if you were a bigwig in the Democratic Party, I guess you didn't have to.

UPDATE: Oh, and I keep forgetting Franken's $70,000 faux pas.

O-oh!

In addition to Charlie Rangel, Geithner, Daschle, Dodd's loans, Franks' intervention on behalf of a bank that was supposed to be shut down in exchange for campaign contributions, we now have Ms. Solis. Ms. Solis is the nominee for the Secretary of Labor position, but at her hearing, she has refused to answer seemingly innocuous questions related to her membership in the Americans Rights at Work, (a clever wording that would normally be prohibited under trademark laws if American Right to Work was to sue).
If she was lobbying, that is certainly illegal while a member of Congress. To say the least, she has failed to disclose the association. It's too bad that so many of the President's associates are involved in less than honest activities.
At least, they're not Tom Delay.

Unpatriotic Democrats

Remember when then Senator Joe Biden said that "paying taxes is patriotic? I first raised the issue when Chairman of the Ways and Means committee, which writes the tax code was caught up in his own mess for not paying taxes. Since then, the current Treasury Secretary has been found to have not paid taxes as well. Sure, he was confirmed because so many people said he was so smart that only he could save the economy. What, they couldn't find a smart person who does pay taxes?
Now, we have former Senate Majority Leader and former senator of South Dakota, doesn't bother to pay taxes on income that he knew he should have. It seems obvious that Senator Daschle is not a real American.
I just wonder how many other well to do Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief that they haven't been asked to assist the Obama administration. It could be expensive.

Best Line Yet

From NRO: Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.): "Ladies and gentlemen, a trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste."

How to do Real Stimulus

Rob Natelson, posting at Electric City Weblog has this from the Cato Institute showing that not everyone is in favor of the Democratic stimulus plan. It is indeed, a rather lengthy list of esteemed economists, but their bottom line is quite clear:

To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

One of the problems with the so called "stimulus plan" is that it really does not kick in for another year and a half at the earliest. In spite of looking for "shovel ready" spending on infrastructure, it has instead become a grab bag of Democratic wishes, with almost nothing to actually create jobs outside of government accountants.
If Obama really wanted "shovel ready" there is an entire well developed set of infrastructure that is available to begin immediately hiring, investing, and creating the kind of good paying jobs that we all feel are necessary. It's called the business community.
Remove the taxes on businesses, eliminate capital gains taxes for a year, and let the government subsist off of the stimulus money instead of taxes. The potential for reducing unemployment, creation of wealth and restoration of the economy could take place in less than six months. Contrast this with the present plan that the Democrats say that Republicans are being "partisan" because they didn't buy into everything that the Democrats wanted. If you follow the CBO's analysis, we are just running up over another trillion in debt, and won't see anything for quite awhile.
But this plan would not be acceptable to the Democrats because they seem to believe that wealth is created by the government.
Our children and grandchildren will work their lives away paying for this mistake.

It's All in the Marketing

I have long resented certain terms that are designed to manipulate us in an unthinking manner. "For the Children" is one in which if the idea is idiotic and you oppose it, you are accused of wanting to kill children. Another is "Smart Growth." If you opposed their definition, you must of course be for "Dumb Growth." Never mind that the only thing smart about "Smart Growth" is the name. That it really is just an illegal power grab to keep you from actually owning and controlling your own property, while at the same time, artificially inflating costs of land just to keep poor people out.
Now we have the "Stimulus Package." Having declared an emergency, the government has thrown all of the old rules out the window in its purpose of making us all wards of the government. The funny thing is, even the New York Times is starting to realize that there is no, or at the most very little "stimulus" in this package. Some excerpts:

The stimulus bill working its way through Congress is not just a package of spending increases and tax cuts intended to jolt the nation out of recession. For Democrats, it is also a tool for rewriting the social contract with the poor, the uninsured and the unemployed, in ways they have long yearned to do.

How in the world, will $1 Billion for Amtrak, $3335 Million for STD Prevention, $180 Billion for more unemployment insurance and an extension of Medicaid, (Make me wonder if that includes fired Lehman Brothers executives?) to anyone on unemployment regardless of their financial situation be considered a stimulus? This is nothing but a grab bag that is labeled as "stimulus" but has nothing to do with the usual concept of what a stimulus is.
I am beginning to think that the best way to combat this waste of our unearned money is to point out that this kind of debt is going to keep nationalized health care from even having a chance. If Republicans started to point out that the money that is being spent to improve schools, fund the NEA, etc. is just money that they are taking from providing reasonably priced health care to all Americans. Might as well pit the differing constituencies of the Democratic Party against themselves.
If successful, we might be able to stop all of this madness.

UPDATE: Peter Ferrara of the American Spectator has an even broader examination of all the ways that your money for a stimulus is being misused. Read the whole thing.

Building a Better Stimulus

James Pethokoukis of Capital Commerce in US News and World Report Offers 10 Reasons to Whack Obama's Stimulus Plan. Some of the better parts:

6) Christina Romer, the new head of the Council of Economic Advisers, coauthored a paper in which the following was written about taxes: "Tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output. Since most of our exogenous tax changes are in fact reductions, the more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects." And former Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey tack on this addendum: "The macroeconomic benefits of tax cuts can be two to three times larger than common estimates of the benefits related to spending increases. The relative advantage of tax cuts over spending is even clearer when the recession is centered on the household balance sheet."

7) Economists Susan Woodward and Robert Hall find that the multiplier effect from infrastructure spending maybe just 1-for-1, less than that 3-to-1 ratio for tax cuts that Romer found: "We believe that the one-for-one rule derived from wartime increases in military spending would also apply to increases in infrastructure spending in a stimulus package. We should not count on any inducement of higher consumption from the infrastructure stimulus."

Read the whole thing.

What Goes Around . . .

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT is demonstrating very clearly what the current definition of "bipartisanship" is in today's political environment. It seems that the good Senator from the Free State is not very happy that he has to hold up the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General. Some reports are even saying that he is

"clearly agitated" and "did not try to mask his irritation."

Contrast his desire to support the President's picks in 2009 with what he felt in 2001 when a different party was in power:

"Most of us believe that a President has a right to nominate to Executive Branch positions those men and women whom he believes will help carry out his agenda and policies. But it is only with the consent of the Senate that the President may proceed to appoint. The Constitution is silent on the standard that Senators should use in exercising this responsibility. This leaves to each Senator the task of discerning that standard and deciding how it applies in the case of a controversial nomination."

Of course, that only applies when a Republican offers up a nomination.
Principles be damned, Leahy will push forward with the nomination of Holder who has serious questions about him regarding Mark Rich and many others of those who were pardoned by then President Clinton.
As I have said before, when Democrats were in the minority they wanted to be able to threaten a filibuster for anyone that they disliked, thereby giving the minority more power than they would have had otherwise. And as predicted, the Democrats are now in the majority, and will have to deal with a minority that has (hopefully) learned from them how to be obstructive.
But the bigger lesson for all politicians is that the past can no longer be ignored. Since 2001 when Leahy first made his efforts to delay the nomination of the Attorney General, the growth in people who can use the web to google past comments has exploded. Now, everything that you have ever said is reviewable. And you will have to decide do you want to be partisan or have principles? The advantages for us the abused children of the political processes, is that it won't take long to discover who is sincere, and who a charlatan.

How to Speed Up the Spending

The Obama administration is promising to spend 75% of the upcoming over 800 Billion dollar stimulus bill within 18 months. Even for our esteemed idiots in Washington, this is a daunting challenge. As the Atlantic notes, the CBO has estimated that even at full throttle with no supervision, the best that they can do is spend 64% of the money, and most of it will have no effect this fiscal year.
What with the grab bag of stupid ideas that are proposed as stimulus, such as contraception planning and over $6 Billion for the arts (yeah, that will really stoke the economy as we buy birth control pills and some really bad art), there has to be a more efficient way to get the money that we are borrowing into the hands of those that will be paying for it. And I have a plan.
First, recall all of the C-17s, C-141s, KC-35s that exist in the inventory. Load them up with $100 bills and fly over every population center of 3,000 people or more and drop the bills allowing them to float unfettered onto the folks below. At 8 billion individual bills to be airdropped, it would still take a lot of flights, but would give the recently unemployed something to do (chasing the money). Sure, there will be the disadvantaged, the blind, the bed ridden, those too old to fight off others, but this is an emergency that we are in people, we can't quibble about these things.
Sure the arts and Planned Parenthood will not be able to get as much money as they will through the patronage system that currently exists. But we are talking about real money here, not just payback for election support.

The True Value of Labor

The Chicago Boyz, a blog on economics, has an interesting assessment of the value of labor. I have always been of the opinion that labor had its own value, but that it was enhanced by the addition of management and capital. That is, if you are a worker, even if you have the tools of your trade, by yourself you will not be able to achieve as much as if you have other people who are working to secure future work and clients, or coordinate improvements to make the worker even more productive.
The ideas of many (like Mark T.) seems to be that management is but a parasite, sucking the productivity from the worker. The article above certainly puts another, more plausible explanation.

UPDATE: Link broken before, hopefully it's fixed now. Thanks Andy.

Draining the Swamp by Adding More Water

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, at one time claimed that she was going to preside over the most "ethical Congress in history." If you measure it by number of actual investigations, she may be right. But if you measure it by investigating allegations of wrongdoing, that would be totally incorrect.
Take for instance, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. He is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which writes the tax laws that us minions are expected to obey. Old Charlie though, seems to have had a tough time understanding that you are supposed to pay income tax from rentals, even if they are in the Dominican Republic. That and his four rent controlled apartments in New York, though you are only supposed to have at most one. And how about the homestead exemption for his property in D.C.? These are just a beginning, and I am sure that Chairman Rangel would welcome a chance to make his case of why what he did was not wrong, even if it is just to establish his bona fides to be a future Secretary of the Treasury.
But Ms. Pelosi, seems to be less than interested in helping to clear her colleagues name. She started an investigation by the House Ethics Committee, but didn't object when they failed to meet her deadline for a report, and now she has delayed appointing any replacements to the ethics committee.
Of course, another interpretation would be that she knows that he is guilty as sin, and is trying to cover for him. But you would have to be the same sort of cynic who thinks that politics is all about our "leaders" being above the requirements of us mere mortals, to think that was true. So, if you don't believe that this is the most ethical Congress in history, just remember that you as a private citizen are more likely to be audited by the IRS than Charlie Rangel is.
And don't you forget it.

Whites Need Not Apply

During a hearing before the House Steering and Policy Committee, Former Secretary Robert Reich had this to say about where the proposed stimulus should go:

I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers.

A rather curious statement. I just hope that in this post racial world that we live in, this is not going to become the norm.

Do We Need This?

The F-22 Raptor s without a doubt the most sophisticated and stealthy fighter that has ever been developed. With the ability to be invisible to radar and at the same time, to cruise at supersonic speeds to the battlespace, it is an incredible aircraft. But do we need it, and can we afford it? Obama is apparently thinking of canceling the program, although if I remember right, there already is an operational wing in service. The people who are building the airplane are calling on Obama to keep the aircraft production line open in order to preserve 90,000 jobs.
If you look at any potential threat aircraft that can challenge the USAF's ability for air supremacy, the most likely candidates are the Mig-31 and the Su-27 and their Chinese clones. But even then, it ignores the human factor of the pilot and training that make the Air Force pilots so darned good. Chuck Yaeger, who broke the sound barrier for the first time was an excellent pilot. He observed that in the Korean war if the planes on each side had been swapped, the Americans still would have maintained air superiority because of their better piloting skills.
So maybe, the trick is not more airplanes, but more air time for the pilots who fly the F-15 and -16. Cheaper, and just as effective against the presently perceived threats.
Of course, it would be even better if we went with unmanned stealthy aircraft piloted by E-4s who have at least 3000 hours on Playstation 3. Now, there would be a formidable force.

Why the Bailout Cannot Work

I have been busy, too busy to blog, what with my new job, getting my house ready to sell, etc. But I have been waiting on Mr. Budge to come out and rail against the misappropriation of the public fisc through the so-called "Bailout.". Unfortunately, Dave seems to remain dormant. Nonetheless, in a spirit of a concerned taxpaying (and yes, tax consuming) citizen, I have decided that I need to address it at at least a basic level.
But first, you have probably heard of the aphorism that "Time is Money." And when you think about any equation, the reverse is also true, i.e. money is time as well.Take a $20 bill out of your wallet and look at it. If you are making minimum wage, that $20 represents approximately three hours of your life. If you are making $40,000 per year, it represents approximately one hour of your life. If you are President Obama at $500,000 per year, it's about 15 minutes, and I have heard that some lawyers are now charging $1,000 per hour in some of the bigger markets, so it is only about three minutes of their life.
The point of the above exercise is to show how much of your life is being taken up by the $850 billion or so "stimulus package." At present, every person in this country owes around $180,000 as their share of the national debt. If you make $9 per hour, that means every working hour of your life, without any exceptions for food, housing or anything else will take 10 years of your life to pay for. With the stimulus in effect, we will easily double our individual share that is owed.
So, where does the money for the stimulus come from? Borrowing of course, but with the 800 lb. gorilla of the Fed borrowing, it reduces the amount of money that can be borrowed by us as individuals, small businesses and even giant corporations. Because the capital will be rarer, it will come with a higher cost (interest rates) which will further sap the amount of money available for improvements or investments.
So, what do we get for our money from the stimulus? Unfortunately, it seems to be a grab bag of every form of perceived need by every government official from the dog catcher all the way up. This is their using your future earnings to finance their pet projects to ensure their election in the future.
At one time, the deficit used to be the constraining feature on this sort of problem. By declaring an emergency, the restraints are removed. All you kids out there under 35, congratulations on your inheriting our excess. We have just leveraged ourselves into involuntary servitude with this stimulus.
And good luck getting that second job to pay for it all.

The Castle Doctrine and Law Enforcement

The Montana Legislature is considering SB 95 which will change the law to allow that a resident does not have to flee first to avoid an intruder, but may instead use "deadly force" to protect themselves and others in the house. There is a companion bill that would allow damages for any employer who created a gun free zone where individuals who are law abiding are not allowed to bring personal protection with them, and some lunatic decides to ignore the gun free requirement, and starts to shoot up the place. Personally, I am in favor of both of these bills. It is the ambiguity of being caught that stops more crimes than not. Contrast the Appalachian Law School shootings with those of the Virginia Tech Massacre and you will notice the difference was that in the former case, there were students who were armed, and in the latter, they were all at the mercy of the gunman.
But the problem I see, is when law enforcement officers start to break into the wrong house, and the owner, not knowing that they are law enforcement, sensing the violence at his doors, begins to shoot. Don't think that it hasn't happened. Look at Cory Maye, who may still be sentenced to death for shooting a cop who was breaking into the wrong house. Or Ryan Frederick, who is facing charges for a bogus tip that led to the death of a detective, trying to invade a house to determine if marijuana really was being grown there.
Might just give law enforcement pause to think before they start to batter down doors and terrorizing innocent victims of their mistakes.

More on the Falsely Named Free Choice Act

Craig at mtpolitics is talking about the abomination that is called The Employee Free Choice Act. The choice for employees already exists, in that if enough of them want it, there will be an election called to determine if a true majority of the workers want to be represented by a union. This vote presently, is done in secret, so that neither management nor the union could influence the worker's choice on whether to unionize or not. The result has been a continuing drop in union membership.
Recognizing that unions are losing members, and along with it, their ability to extort a portion of their wages, unions are now going to Congress to get them to pass the EFCA in order to reverse the decline in membership and dues. The premise is that the union organizers will be standing just outside of the business, and will harass, annoy, delay and confuse workers until they sign the card. Once the card is signed, the worker will be left in peace until half of the employees are signed up, and they suddenly find out that they are required to pay dues, and have to answer to someone not their boss in order to do their job.
I only belonged to one union in my lifetime, and that was when I worked at Safeway as a bagger during my High School years. I didn't care for them, and later when I was older and learned that many of the things that I was doing violated labor laws, I realized that the only thing that mattered to the union was paying my dues. When I joined up with the Office of Public Defenders, I found out that the defenders who were already unionized got to vote on having a union before anyone was hired. I refused to join, and took steps to decertify the union, which I put on hold to wait and see how they did in protecting the members of the union. What I learned was that the union did absolutely nothing.
They promised to increase our wages, which they didn't do. Sure, that is a problem that the Legislature is the only source of funding, but why promise what you can't deliver? Then the union expanded from the attorneys, the newest who are making about $46k per year, and roped in the support staff who average around $25k per year. The funny thing is, that everyone pays the same union dues. Cost effectively, the lawyers have the best deal, paying a smaller percentage of their salary than the support staff for absolutely nothing.
Amusingly, the unions continue to ignore unlawful and illegal management practices, even in the OPD. If I ever get fired, my retirement plan is going to be a civil suit against the State and the union for their acts.
Oh heck, why wait? Maybe I should start a suit against the union now for fraud, misrepresentation and malpractice. Maybe all forced unionized workers should do that.

End of an Era

I have been reassigned to the Polson office of the Office of Public Defender but I still keep touch with friends in Hamilton where I used to work. It appears that the restaurant bakery, "A Place to Ponder" has closed, a victim of the recession. I will miss that place.
When I first started my practice, I had a small space on the second floor overlooking Main Street, and Place to Ponder was on the way to the courthouse. I would stop in for coffee to go and either one of their famous lemon bars or a brownie. The food was always terrific, and their Tuesday tomato soup was always a treat.
Kory and Vicki poured their lives into the place and it worked well for them. So much so, that they expanded into a newly created building. Unfortunately, their new locations was not as convenient for walking customers, and I think that may have had some effect.
Kory and Vicki were and are still, the kind of people who will continue to make this country great. Risking it all, investing their money, time and lives, they tried to make a go of the American Dream.
Knowing both of them, I am sure that this is just a setback, not the end of the story.

The Truth about Global Warming

Okay, Global Warming is no longer the term of choice, mainly because it is not happening, but the Huffington Post has an article that is dead on with everything that I know scientifically and historically in showing that the whole "climate change" movement is a hoax. One of the observations made by the author, is that solar activity may have not only an effect on temperatures, but may have an effect on volcanic activity. Couple this with the recent earthquake storms, and we have the possibility of a true natural disaster if the Yellowstone caldera should suddenly erupt. Specifically:

Many solar physicists anticipate that the slumbering Sun of early 2009 is likely to continue for at least two solar cycles, or about the next 25 years. Whether the Grand Solar Minimum, if it comes to pass, is as serious as the Maunder Minimum is not knowable, at present. Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth's molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm. Would the eruption and consequent cooling be a climate-modifier that exists outside of nature, somehow? Who is the "flat-Earther" now?

Read the whole thing.

This is a Darned Good Idea

The Montana GOP has created a blog for the upcoming session which they call the Rotunda Report. I have never really felt that writing letters or making phone calls have much of an effect on our elected leaders, but by publishing a blog and allowing comments (registration required, and the comments are moderated) you will be able to see that your comments made it, and you can also see the comments after yours.
This idea is truly revolutionary, and could probably only done in a state like Montana, where you have a better chance of actually knowing your representative. Well done to them. Now let's get the comments going on how they are doing.

IDF attacks

After suffering from days on end of rocket and mortar attacks, the Isrealis exercise their right to attack those that attacked first. This is not a violation of international law, customs or norms, as some might suggest. Instead, it is implicit in international law, and authorized under the Geneva Conventions, that any state that allows its territory to be used to attack another state, cannot claim to be the innocent victim if the attacked state retaliates.
For those who would object to the use of force by Israel, I would ask if they could show me where they have called out against Hamas and their rocket attacks even once prior to Israel's actions. But popular culture, which is not the same as real culture, tends to view Hamas as the victim and Israel as the aggressor, and they will not be stopped in their one sided denunciation of who the actual victim is in this case. Those who object usually fall into one of two camps: Those of the moral equivalency crowd, and the Chomskyites. The first are neither moral, nor equivalent. All cultures are not equal. To say that we are no better than those who would stone to death a woman who was raped is to minimize the evil of the stonethrowers in order to ease their own conscience for doing nothing. The Chomskyites are predictably unthinking in that everything of Western values is evil, and everything not Western is good. It is a waste of time to even discuss anything with them.
I am not sure which group Youtube is associating with, but the Isreali Defense Forces are attempting to get out their side of the story through Youtube, since most of the supposed liberal media fail to report accurately or in an unbiased fashion, falling into one of the two camps listed above. Now Youtube is cutting off the IDF's access to Youtube as a form of censorship.
But as an example of what is going on in this situation, I invite you to watch this video of a strike on a Hamas Government building:


The secondary explosions would seem to indicate a large amount of substantial munitions or explosives were stored in the government building. But I am sure that they were intended only for peaceful purposes.

True, Dat

From The Corner:

Rod Blagojevich, $1 trillion "fiscal stimulus", Harry Reid, expiring tax cuts, Nancy Pelosi, socialized health care, Charlie Rangel, reinstitution of the oil drilling ban, Joe Biden, liberal judicial nominees, Al Franken (maybe), nuclear Iran, John Murtha, car czars, Dennis Kucinich, PC culture, Chris Dodd, entitlement explosion, Barney Frank, entitlement implosion, Barbara Boxer, card check, the Clintons, Russian adventurism.

If Republicans can't come back in 2010 they should be sued for political malpractice.

This is Hilarious

It seems that a former Narcotics Officer has turned against the side that he was once on, and now is working to expose the corrupt practices of the police. He set up an undercover grow operation of Christmas trees. The cops get a warrant (based on what is still uncertain) and raided the house. Watch for yourself.
The really amusing part, is that the prosecuting attorney is researching to determine if laws had been broken bu the ones who set the stage, not the police.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Well Said.

From Samizdata

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

- C.S. Lewis

God save me from well meaning busybodies.

Happy Anniversary

No, I am not talking about Electric City's posting, but the 75th anniversary of the 21st Amendmn\ent to the Constitution, otherwise known as the Repeal of Prohibition. What is most informative about Prohibition, is not just that it didn't work, but that they were trying to solve a different problem than the one that they intended. The use of alcohol was not the problem, it is and remains the abuse of alcohol that is the problem.

I Need More Cowbell

From Kathryn Lopez at NRO:

Does This Belong on a T-Shirt?

From a $50 donor: "NRO: Yelling 'Stop' at History while banging on a cowbell."

Kumbaya for Republicans?

Net Right Nation has this piece that talks about Gov. Huckabee's prescription for future electoral success is to oust all versions of Libertarianism. While Huckabee may have a certain amount of charismatic charm, especially to the Social Conservatives, I disagree with him vehemently that we need to remake the Constitution into an updated version of the Bible.
But I suppose that I am not so different, in my piece below, Wedge Issues, I thought that for the Republicans to succeed, they would have to minimize the influence of Social Conservatives, since so many independent and undecideds are swayed by the MSM portrayal of SoCons as narrow minded bigots, who want to keep women barefoot and pregnant, force you to worship their versions of the Deity and keep gays in the closet where they belong. This is totally unfair and untrue, but the power of the MSM is not to be underestimated in their efficiency to create a false narrative that is believed by the masses.
But then I read this, "A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism" and I had my Road to Damascus moment. Some of the good bits:

The most obvious point to me is that it is the do-gooding liberals who are telling us all what we can and can't do. The religious right usually just wants to be left alone, either to home school, pray in public or not get their children vaccinated with who-knows-what. Inasmuch as the "religious right" wants some things outlawed, they have failed miserably for at least the last 50 years. Abortion, sodomy, and pornography are now all Constitutional rights. However, praying in public school is outlawed, based on that same Constitution.

Just think for a moment about the things you are actually forced to do or are prevented from doing. Seat belts. Motorcycle helmets. Bicycle helmets. Smoking. Gun purchase and ownership restrictions. Mandatory vaccines for your children. Car emissions inspections. Campaign ad and contribution restrictions. Saying a prayer at a public school graduation or football game. Trash separation and recycling. Keeping the money you earned. Gas tax. Telephone tax. Income tax. FICA withholding. Fill in this form. Provide ID.

For the most part, the list just cited is post-1960. Neither Pat Robertson nor James Dobson ever forced any of that on us.

and on the hot topic of abortion:

Let's talk about the unavoidable issue: abortion. Who made it a federal issue? The ACLU and then the Supreme Court. Before 1973 it was left to the states; some allowed it, some didn't. Different states could adopt different criteria. Some might allow it under all circumstances. Some other none. Some at 12 or 20 weeks. Some might define "health" of the mother in different terms.

But all that flexibility was halted with Roe v Wade. Since 1973 abortion has been a Constitutional right. Do you know where that right is found in the Constitution? In these words of the 14th Amendment: "[No state shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Those words, according to our finest Constitutional scholars, mean it's OK to shove scissors through the skull of a baby and suction its brains out, as long as that skull has not yet left the birth canal. I'm sure you see that in those words of the 14th Amendment. Look hard, into the penumbras and emanations - it might take a little imagination.

Regardless of what you think about abortion, to find it in the 14th Amendment is an act of ink-blot reasoning. It might almost be OK, if it meant the court said we have true sovereignty over our own bodies. But the court explicitly said otherwise.

The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified...

So you do not have the right to do with your body as you please. Neither women nor men own their own bodies. That's what Roe v Wade said. In short, the decision was not "pro-choice". It was pro-abortion, pure and simple. That is the only choice it protected.

If taking abortion out of the hands of the federal government and putting it back into hands of the states, where it is legislated per each state's popular sentiment, let it be. I can stand that kind of "social conservatism." It sounds like federalism and democracy to me.

and finally, on the point that I mentioned in Wedge Issues,

I am not dead set against gay marriage. I'm mildly against it, but if it comes to an honest vote in my state and passes, I can live with that. But so far, every single time the issue has gone to a popular vote, the people voted it down. The only reason it is legal in two states right now is because of the courts in those states; a mere handful of robed Merlins made the decisions.

I also think it a bit risky to redefine such a fundamental institution that has been defined as between one man and one or more women in every successful civilization I know about, for the last 6,000 years or so. How about we use federalism and the states as laboratories before we dive head-first into opaque water on this one?

This last point is where I think libertarians and SoCons should be in absolute agreement, that the problem is not a creeping agenda of the Left, it is the interposing of two state's supreme courts on the will of the people, leaves all of us at risk. Whether gay marriage or abortion, these are purely court creations that do not reflect the will of the people. It is understandable why SoCons are concerned about this recent abuse of power by courts and feel the need to make laws and constitutional amendments to take back the powers that the courts have usurped. Even Democrats realize how tenuous these court made manifestations of their agenda are when they try to extract pledges of support for Roe from Supreme Court nominees because they know that it was wrong even if they believe it is for the right reason.
A useful and winning technique would be to combine the SoCons and libertarian's fear of intrusive government and unwarranted court created "rights" in unity to reverse the growth in government.
What libertarians and SoCons need to resolve is what is the proper method to avoid "cultural suicide" that is the greatest fear of the SoCons. My suggestion would be to change the entire Republican apparatus. Both Republicans and Democrats have optimized their ability to turn out their base. But outside of elections, what do the parties do other than pester us for contributions to this or that urgent need to get "our man/woman elected?" What the Republicans,whether libertarian or SoCon need to do, is to live exemplary lives, and demonstrate the advantages of their lifestyle and their choices. But more than that, what is needed is that personal assistance that only real people can provide, not bureaucrats or agencies. Conservatives have already been recognized for their generosity. If a single mother was to be helped by a SoCon couple in some way, it would also expose the single mom to the advantages of a stable dual parent relationship, in other words, what she doesn't have. It doesn't take a government to tell her that when she can see it with her own eyes.
If we can make a personal connection with the disaffected, without "preaching" but in the spirit of kindness and generosity that government cannot provide, we have a chance to expand the electoral base and move people out of their conditions much more effectively than any agency or program has ever done.
Who knows, together at a very minimum, we could close down the Departments of Education, Homeland Security and Energy, transferring any regulatory powers to the Commerce Department where there would at least be a fig leaf of constitutionality, and recall those judges who have superimposed their views on the rest of us, regardless of the law.
Well, at least I can dream, can't I?

New Addition

I have subscribed to an email list called Americans For Limited Government. They have created Net Right Nation and call themselves "America's Blogging Headquarters." Give them a look, they certainly do seem to have some good articles.

Some Sage Political Advice

From Dave Barry. Read and enjoy.

Fearing the Truth

Much mention has already been made of Mr. Ziegler's documentary about Media Malpractice, and How Obama Got Elected. In a discussion about the mindless following of "The One" that Rob Natelson started on Electric City, an anonymous poster left a link to 538 which claims that the poll was a "push poll" in order to get the answers that the person contracting for the poll wanted. Some of the complaints that 538 uses to justify their position are the questions that were used. Here are the questions, and the comments from 538:

"Which of the four [candidates] said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?"

"Which of the four [candidates] started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground?"

"Which of the four [candidates] quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism?"

"Which of the four [candidates] won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot?"

As should be obvious, the veracity of several of these claims is -- at best -- debatable, yet they are apparently represented as factual to the respondent. It is not clear whether the respondent is informed of the "correct" response after having had the question posed to him.

Veracity is debatable? I especially love it when the sample from the clip uses Obama's own voice to make the statement. Biden's plagiarism is well know to anyone who was paying attention and is over 40. And of the other two questions, the last one, if I remember was actually in his book.
The ferocity with which Zogby is being attacked is indicative that people are starting to realize they voted for the pig in a poke, and now they are going to be responsible. Time to get out the razor blade and start scraping on that Obama bumper sticker.

Union Boss Security Act

Montana Main Street Blog has been addressing the issue of the Card Check method of unionizing workers. Matt Singer rises to the defense of the union bosses to collect the dues of workers by forcing them to sign the union card in their presence. It seems that in a secret ballot, the unions keep losing.
Singer of Left in the West is singing "Look for the Union Label" by claiming that all workers need to be unionized, and that the only fair way to do it is by the union bosses forcing employees to give up their right to a secret ballot. Matt feels that workers can be intimidated by management in order to prevent unions from forming. In support of that, Matt offers this:

In fact, one former Bush Administration official summed up his opposition to card check by saying, "[Corporations] have no chance to retaliate" against workers trying to organize. Retaliation, of course, is already "illegal," but the laws are so meaningless that Labor Department officials talk about it as though it is legal (the equivalent of ONDCP opposing a law because it would give pot smokers no chance to light up in the privacy in their homes).

Matt links to a site in support of this factoid. Which then links to this site in support of the assertion. Except, when you chase the links down, it wasn't a Bush administration official as Matt said, it was an audience member in a Q&A session. I am sure that Matt was just being lax in his reliance on web sites that support his opinion.
Unions are becoming as obsolete as the dinosaur, and this travesty of a law is their last hurrah. With this ability to coerce workers who would rather be left alone, the union bosses will ensure a continuing stream of revenue in the form of dues, that they will use in support of Democratic candidates for office. It has worked well for them, they have paid hundreds of millions of dollars of your hard earned pay to get their pals elected.
Maybe that is why the workers don't vote for unions in the privacy of the voting booth.

Wedge Issues

Wedge issues are those arguments that are meant to split support for the opposition. Gay marriage has been used by the Republicans for sometime to split the blue collar Catholic voter from the effete elites who actually rule the Democratic Party. Now it seems that the Republicans are coming to grips with gay marriage as well. The social conservative position is very well (if not succinctly) put by Mike at The Last Best Place. While I agree with most of his post, the strength of his argument comes in the defense of the traditional definition of marriage. It is compelling, intelligent and well supported by thinkers of most of recorded history. But I am not so sure that his strong defense of traditional marriage denies that gay marriage can also have many of the same benefits.
Marriage is not a biological construct. It is more an economic and political construct that has the benefits of providing for a future of the human race. Historically, polygamy has been used for the better part of time, probably because of the low rate of survival of women in giving birth, and the short lives and violent deaths of young males. But at a micro level, polygamy and its lesser used sibling polyandry, are inherently imbalanced in the relations between all of the parties. There will always be the first wife, or the first husband, who agree to the subsequent marriages because it gives them control over the newbies to the relationship. But even in Western culture, we have arranged marriages, political marriages, marriages for the unification of property, shotgun weddings, mail order brides, Britney Spears and even the concept of a "starter marriage." All of these have had the support of authority and sometimes even the blessings of the religious powers. But that doesn't mean that these marriages are all equal in their application and construct. Perhaps one of the greatest problems that we have in Western Civilization starts with the Medieval notion of romantic love leading to marriage. This notion automatically creates unrealistic expectations of the marriage.
Since the period of human gestation is so long, and the helplessness of a newborn requires so much more, the need to have a stable structure that creates the newborn and cares for it is essential to our species survival. Marriage is the best system that we have to provide for that future, but it calls into question the reason to have marriage after a woman enters menopause. So obviously, marriage is much more than that.
Society benefits from marriage, in that it establishes clear relationships, removes issues of property holdings, and is the basic political building block. When two people come together in a long term relationship, it brings two equal but different selves to agree to cooperate for their mutual benefit, the benefit of any children and the community as a whole. But it is also a statement of commitment that society has agreed to honor. A vow to love, cherish and honor, in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer until death do us part, used to mean something. Unfortunately, marriage has now come to mean that "I will love you until I get bored or something better comes along." And that is what I think most social conservatives have a problem with, and I would have to agree with them on that point.
Marriage has significant economic benefits for the spouses. If one of the pair has benefits that are extended to the spouse, the other spouse now has the opportunity to take risks to enhance their economic viability through either a new enterprise, or staying at home to raise and school the children. But it is the legal standing of the spouses that allow this to happen. By putting a bar to use of this protection, are we not also denying the opportunity to gays?
One of the arguments against gay marriage is the perceived transitory nature of their relationships. But isn't that a chicken and egg problem. If they had gay marriage wouldn't that allow for more stability. Even if it didn't there are numerically a higher number of divorces among straight couples. In fact, it is not gay marriage that is trivializing the concept of marriage, it is the heterosexual community and their flip attitudes toward marriage that is the trivializing effect.
For marriage to regain its status as an important institution in our society, we need to make it harder to get married, thereby insuring a minimum commitment, and harder to get out of a marriage, insuring a longer lasting commitment.
Set a nationwide standard of waiting six months for a marriage license. This would prevent those who marry in haste and divorce in leisure. And do away with no fault divorce. Right now, if one party wants a divorce, the other spouse has no say in the matter. I would return to the concept of divorce as a tort. If you want out of the marriage, you surrender all of your property rights to the other spouse. That would go a long way toward lowering the divorce rate.
But the most important thing that we can do is to remove the judges who start these problems. The supreme courts of Massachusettes and California have found a right that has lain hidden all of this time. In California, the people have rightly exercised their authority over the constitution of that state to overrule the supreme court. To make matters worse, the supremes have decided to hear a case to determine if Proposition 8 is itself unconstitutional. If that happens, we have changed from a democratic republic to a rule by the judiciary.
Gay marriage advocates need to appreciate that while they may feel their rights are being withheld arbitrarily, they must also work to remove the use of the law to coerce people away from their fundamental beliefs. Whether it is the orphanage in New Jersey that Mike cited, or more locally, the demand that the pharmacist in Glendive carry birth control pills, they are using the law to change deeply held values, and that is a violation of the Constitution's right to freedom of religion.
I say that both sides need to back off using the law to foist their beliefs and values on others in either the name of tolerance or tradition.

Phone Phishing?

Everyone who has an email account has had billions of dollars worth of offers if they would just assist the poor daughter of a deposed Nigerian dictator by giving her a safe account that she can park her money, and as compensation, you will receive a share of the wealth. Outside of repetitive stress disorder from hitting the spam button, these are not much of a problem as long as you ignore them. But lately, I seem to be under attack by phone.
It started on Monday when I was called at work, and a robo-caller let me know that there was no problem with my credit card (no card name mentioned) but that I could get a lower rate and to take part in this lower rate, all I had to do was to punch the number 1. I was ticked off that I was getting a robo-call at work, and I am on the "Do Not Call" list, so I punched 1 and waited for a real person. A woman picked up at the other end and wanted to know if I wanted to lower my credit card rate? First, I asked her what my credit card balance was. She said that she couldn't release that information to anyone but the cardholder. I told her my name, but didn't list any of the credit cards that I used. After a few seconds, she came back and told me that my credit card balance was $36,000.
"What?" I said, and then she said it was $78,000, again I repeated my brilliant comment "What?" Then she said that it was $108,000. Now, at first I thought I might be a victim of identity theft since I pay off my card balance every month. But then I thought about it for a second, and realized that she had no real information on me, that there was no way that she could figure out how to spell my name to check my account, and the fact that she didn't even want to know my account number made me think that this was some sort of in person "Phishing."
Phishing is an attempt to get you to release important information to the questioner so that they can use it in identity theft.
I informed her that I was on the Do Not Call List, and that using robo calls is a misdemeanor punishable by $500 per event. She then asked me if I knew where she lived, and guessing from her accent, I would say somewhere in the South, but I told her that it wouldn't matter, as the FBI can find her. I also threatened her and her employer with a lawsuit for invading my privacy, harassment, and fraud. She told me that I was abusing her right to privacy by pressing the number 1 during the robo-call, and she hung up.
Amusing, but to follow it up, we have been receiving calls at home about out delinquent account from some so called "collections agency." I ran our credit reports and there are no delinquent accounts or pending legal actions, so I figure this must be another form of phishing.
Off the top of my head (DISCLAIMER, this is not legal advice, and I am not your lawyer, this is just common information, and is designed to inform the public of their rights, if you have any legal questions, contact your lawyer.) when doing debt collection, they have to send you written notice of the debt and inform you that you have thirty days to dispute the debt. You can also demand written proof of the debt. The creditor cannot pursue any actions against you if you provide written dispute until that is resolved.
Whatever you do, don't give out any personal information, credit card numbers or bank account numbers over the phone.
Just doing my good deed.

A Very Special Club

Jack the Blogger, has a great post on Veterans Day that is well worth the read. Since 1973, you have to want to get into the military in order to serve. They would reject you if you were too old, or too young, too tall, too short, too fat or (at least in the 70s) too thin. You couldn't have a criminal record, which I found amusing (Sorry kid, your felony aggravated assault means we just don't want you).
Most of the time, you had to have at least a high school diploma to enlist and continuing education was always required. In order to get into the Sergeant Majors Academy, you had to have at least two years of college minimum, and most had a bachelors degree that they obtained while working full time. Officers had to have a bachelors degree to enter and were expected to get a Masters degree as a minimum with many getting Ph.Ds.
Once in, you had to keep on the promotion track by being competitive for higher rank. Officers especially could serve for 10-12 years and be told that their service was no longer needed. The old movie ideas that an enlisted man could hide out at a lower rank doing the absolute minimums are also out of date. Up or out is a vicious career management tool, but it does seem to work.
Once in, you quickly learn that there are very few jobs that employ a 40 hour week. In fact, the first job I had as an officer, we averaged 120 hours a week on the job. One week, I counted that I had worked for 148 hours, although, I did sleep for five of those hours (not all at once).
I have jumped out of planes in the middle of the night carrying 120 pounds of gear, and couldn't see the ground until I smacked into it. I have been hypothermic to the point of utter exhaustion and only wanted to lay down and sleep, even though I knew I would die. I have climbed rain slicked cliffs, rappelled out of helicopters, and stood at ground zero while Patriots intercepted Scuds coming my way.
But the greatest thing that I have done while in the military was to serve along the finest human beings that I have ever met. I don't know if the military is self selecting men and women who are selfless and generous, or it is the tradition that changes them into these wonderful human beings. But I do know that the civilian side has nowhere near the generosity, kindness and helpfulness that I had in the service. We took care of each other.
Jack asks all citizens of this great country to thank a vet. I have always felt awkward when someone who has never served thanks me for my service. But I have also felt great pride when a fellow veteran thanks me for my service, and I feel very good about thanking another vet for their service. I value their opinion much more than that of someone who wasn't there.
So to all of those who have served in whatever form or fashion, from one vet to another, Thanks.

Happy Anniversary Deutschland

As this article notes, November 9th has an awful lot going on for it in Germany. The end of the Monarchy, and establishment of the Weimar Republic, KristallNacht, and the end of the divisions of East and West Germany. At the time that the wall came down, I was here in Missoula teaching ROTC at the UofM, so I only got to see it on the television. But I had been in both East Germany and East Berlin before the wall came down, and I remember the changes that occurred were dynamic, but not always positive.
Before the wall came down, I would venture through the driving corridor, which required that we had to go through the East German checkpoint, and then through the Russian one. We weren't allowed to do anything with regards to the East Germans because of the Status of Forces Agreement which dated back to the end of WWII. When we got to the Russian side, I had to get out and present my papers to the Russian soldier, who I doubt could read a word of what was written on my travel papers. Afterwards, I was to go into the pass control office which had a window like at a bank, but it was painted shut. I slid my papers under the window and listened as the People's Copy Machine recorded all of my important data. After a few minutes, the papers were slid back and had been duly stamped.
While I was waiting, I started looking around in the waiting room. Brezhnev's picture was still prominently displayed even though he had been dead for sometime. I think that it was Andropov who was Premier at the time, but at the gateway to the socialist paradise, they still had an out of date photo of their dear beloved leader of the communist party and government.
When I got back, my wife told me that the guard had been circling the vehicle looking in at her and my two kids. They had been smiling and waving, as kids are wont to do, but this particular guardian of the Soviet state had no sense of humor for such antics.
East Germany was significantly different from the West. In the West, you could always find the American barracks because they still had the bullet holes from the last time the Germans undertook urban renewal. Towns were densely packed, and it was hard to find anyplace, except near the border, where towns were less than 3 miles from each other. East Germany on the other hand, had collective farms, so they had mile after mile of fields punctuated by the barracks like structures for the farmers who worked there.
East Berlin was a real trip. At least one third of the population was in uniform, and it was my guess that half of the remaining ones were undercover something or another. But the thing that I noticed most clearly, was the color of socialism isn't red, it's gray. The sky was gray, the buildings gray, even the people were gray. There was no sense of anyone having any fun there. Just a sense of dreary toil for no purpose. But I guess that is what socialism is really about anyway.
In any event, 19 years ago, after the introduction of the Pershing IIs, the GLCM, the M-1 Abrams, the M-2 Bradley, the AH-64 and other improvements, the Soviets gave up.
Now this is something especially amazing. Normally empires don't fall quietly. In their death throes, they can become extremely violent. I don't know why that didn't happen, but I sure as heck am grateful.
Germany is united again. A country the size of Montana with over 90 million people in it is a very densely packed country. And while some worried that the Germans might reorganize under another Hitler, I am not worried about it. The youth of Germany are only going to continue to invade the beaches of Spain and North Africa. They are not interested in territorial aggrandizement, but in the aggrandizement of comfort.
But happy anniversary on this Wiedervereinigungs Tag! Best wishes for the future.

This is Ridiculous

Before he is even swore in, there are those calling for the impeachment of Barak Obama. Further evidence of the trivializing, or as I prefer to call it, the Wulfgarization of politics.
It serves no purpose, other than pseudo intellectual masturbatory fantasies, but then that explains Wulfgar, so I guess they are just his alter ego.

One More Try

Earlier, the California Supreme Court found that there was a right to homosexual marriage in their constitution, which obviated the law passed by referendum that said marriage is between a man and a woman. Yesterday, the voters of California passed a constitutional amendment restoring the original referendum's intent. Now, "cvil rights advocates" are filing suit in California to overturn the amendment.
While I don't really care who marries who, so long as they don't scare the horses, the fact is, that I feel no need to tell anyone who to marry or not marry based on sexual preferences. I tried talking my son out of marrying his wife, but he persisted, even though I am sure that the marriage is doomed. But that is my son, someone with whom I have a very special relationship. So how can I tell people that I don't even know not to marry? Actually, the best argument against anyone marrying, is that it is the leading cause of divorce.
But the interesting thing about the article mentioned above is that the California Supreme Court went specifically against the expressed will of the people of California by finding a "right" that was carefully hidden from the eyes of the layman, detectable only by those with the right kind of legalistic scholarship of mind.
But the amendment is to their state constitution. Under the division of labor known as the system of checks and balances, the supreme court could only interpret the law, not create it, as they did earlier. For their supreme court to find that the amendment passed in response to their earlier ruling is unconstitutional will create its own constitutional crisis. After all, it is the province of the legislature to promulgate laws, not the supreme court. For the court to take on this task is deliciously fun, having made an excrement sandwich with their ruling, they are now being asked to garnish it with mayonnaise.
Enjoy.

Congratulations

To all of the successful Democratic candidates across the nation starting with President Elect Obama all the way to my fine opponent, Theresa Henry. You have won, and now have full control.
I disagree that the election was a referendum on maximizing individual liberty, but believe that it was just the final throes of 2006 and a blame the Republicans mentality that was successfully promulgated by a Main Stream Media that so desperately wanted their candidate to win that they flushed their credibility. Not that Republicans didn't deserve it to a certain extent. The growth of government under Bush would make even the hardest Left Democrat blush with envy. Throw in such useless and dangerous actions as the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the imposition of certain elements of the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Benefit plan, etc. and you have a harbinger of the growth in government control that is going to expand even more in the next few years.
But we should also not forget those few things that Bush did right. Contrary to public opinion, from a geo-strategic point of view, the invasion of Iraq was justified and if allowed to mature will become a very valuable ally against the depredations of extremist Muslim fanatics, like the ones in Somalia who stoned to death a 13 year old girl because she had been raped. The much reviled tax cuts stimulated an economy that was lurching around after the dot.com bubble and the assault on the economy from 9-11. Before the Democratic Congress, unemployment was running at well under 5% and real wealth was increasing across the board in spite of Mark T.'s assertions to the contrary. Bush and company should have not let the powers that be obstruct the implementation of controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fact that they didn't push the issue harder shows that even they did not realize the severity of the crisis that was to ensue.
I expect that the Democrats will be frustrated by their inability to solve everyone's problems immediately. There will be those who will blame Bush as an excuse for failure to accomplish anything. You get to do that until June. After that, it's going to be your baby. In the words of the SNL investment banker "FIX IT! JUST FIX IT!!"
I will not succumb to the personal attacks that the Left have employed for the last eight years (Selected, not Elected) even though it would be easy to do. But I will oppose those policies that I think are dangerous vigorously. I will do it with out ad hominen attacks, just to show the friends on the Left how a grown up reacts to disappointment.
In a way this is a very liberating election for me. There is the chance, albeit small, that the Democrats will bring about all of the improvements that they have promised and at no great cost to individual freedom, dignity or economic costs. And if they succeed, I will applaud them. On the other hand, if they do as I expect, and use heavy handed tactics that will destroy individual liberty and choices, I will be ready to help change the makeup of Congress in two more years.

They are Afraid of You

Sen. Schumer in his own words:


It is only speech that they disagree with that they equate with pornography. Personally, I find everything that Sen. Schumer says to be pornographic. Does that mean I can keep him off the public airways? If only it were so.
What he forgets is that there is no longer a monopoly on the dissemination of information. I do believe that one of the new Congress's acts will be to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine." And that will have an even bigger effect on their ability to govern than the Don't Ask policy that was Bill Clinton's first act.

let Me be Perfectly Clear

In his own words:

Final Comments on the National Election

The end is near, and many candidates for public office (myself included) are heaving a sigh of relief after all of the hours, the doors, the meetings. Don't get me wrong, I personally found meeting voters to be invigorating, it's just that after working all day, to get home, have a bite with the wife (The Good Democrat) it is easy to want to just say the heck with it and stay home. But instead, you go out get in the car and move on to the next block to spread the message. At the national level, the difference is that you get on the plane and jet off to somewhere that you have a scheduled appearance, trying to brush up on the local tidbits of information that will help make the connection with people who are already excited to see you. For me, the election has lasted seven and a half months. For Obama, it seems to have been for the last 47 years.
But tomorrow, the end will be here, and the voters will have made their choices, subject of course to the lawyers interpretation of the votes. Right now, Obama is solidly in the lead, and most of the media show him ahead by a seemingly insurmountable lead. But what bothers me, are the undecided voters. How in the Hell can you be undecided after all this time? Undecideds make up anywhere from 6% to 19% in some polls. My theory is that the undecideds are either obtuse, and will just flip a coin, or they are secretly McCain voters, but don't want to advertise it so that they don't get into an argument over their choice.
McCain was not my first choice, nor my second, nor . . . oh heck, I am still ticked off at him for McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy, and McCain et al, that are further encroachments by the nanny state into our lives. But I am more worried about the direction that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate will want to go for the next two years. Admittedly, their excesses will be necessary for the rebirth of the Republicans who will be propelled into office if they can just come up with a coherent and intelligent message beyond "We are not Democrats."
Newt, where are you, now that we need you more than ever?

Almost Makes Me Miss Jimmy Carter

Last Spring, while driving to Kalispell, I was listening to a radio talk show that featured then Democratic Congressional Candidate Jim Hunt. Hunt was talking about the need to increase the CAFE standards, or the average fuel ratings for automobiles. He said that due to the high price of fuel at that time, he had to park his pickup and buy a Prius, and that his wife was no longer running around in her SUV. The irony seemed to be lost on him that pricing changed his behavior much more effectively than legislation did. Now, as noted below, Obama wants to raise the costs of using coal fired plants to such a level that it would "bankrupt" anyone who sought to produce energy from coal.
He wants to use a cap and trade system to make the production of CO2 so expensive that it would reduce their emissions, and then use the money to promote "green energy" solutions. This scheme seems to be the heir of the fairy tale "carburetor that gets 100 mpg." The only reason that it is not available to the general public is that the oil companies bought the patent and are hiding it from us the consumer, or so the fable goes. This ignores logic and facts, so it is a prime candidate for an urban myth because people want to believe in it. Forget that any such patent would have to be open to the public because you have to research to make sure that there is not a pre-existing patent when you apply for one for your invention. Not to mention other countries that have much laxer intellectual property rights laws would ignore such proscriptions.
It's the same for "green energy." If someone could develop a solar panel that achieved even 60% efficiency, they would be the richest person on earth. How about cold fusion? Again, no radioactive waste, unlimited power, no drawbacks, and if it could exist, it would. But the idea of using tax policy to create technical developments is just stupid.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Government doesn't create technological breakthroughs. Yes, I know that Darpa is a government agency, but it is not mandated to produce certain scientific breakthroughs. Instead, smart people are allowed wide latitude to follow their interests and to see where they go.
Which brings me to the title of this post. Much as I thought that Jimmy Carter was a micromanager in the finest traditions of Hyman Rickover, even he would have recognized that tax policy does not create technological advancements.
Just goes to show, Obama isn't even as smart as Jimmy Carter. Going to be interesting if he gets elected.

Out of Context?

Obama made a statement last January, that seems to say that no one will be able to build a new coal fired power plant, because it will bankrupt them to do so. This quote has only now surfaced, (it was hidden in plain sight) and Gov. Palin is using it to beat him about the head and shoulders in those critical states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. An Obama spokesman says that the quote is taken "out of context." But then, just about every stupid thing that he says is "Taken out of context."
And people claim that because news organizations belong to corporations, they are automatically biased in favor of conservatives. Hah!

Bad Luck

From Instapundit, which is quoting Heinlein:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."

Class warfare, or even just class envy will prevent people from creating any new wealth. But at least, we will all be "sharing."