Interesting Problem

The problem is not how did they get in there...

it's how do you get them out.

Is Crisis Management Better Than No Management?

That seems to be the mantra of the political classes with regards to the debt ceiling extension. But as a citizen, the most aggravating thing has to be the delay in dealing with it. Ever since last year when the debt ceiling was raised $1.9 Trillion, you'd think someone would have noticed that we were spending more money than we were taking in and we would be bumping up against the debt ceiling again. But No! That would take foresight and understanding, both of which seem to exist in zero amounts in Washington.
If the Democrats get their way, they want to extend the cap by $2.4 Trillion just so we can get through the next election. After all, if the electorate is involved in the debate, they just may say "What in the Sam Hell are you thinking?" which would really harsh their mellow about spending, spending, spending.
By extending the debt limit, we aren't saving our financial situation, we are handing junkies their fix, all the while they plead that "This will be the last time, I promise." Maybe it is true that we get the government that we deserve, which makes me ask "Why does God hate us?"

Internecine Strife is Fun!

Apparently, JC of 4&20 and Wulfgar are in a spat as to the direction of the Democrat Party. As an outside observer, I see it as Wulfgar being practical (I know, hard to believe) and JC being the voice of the believers in the "One True Faith."
While I think both are too limited in their thinking, and they are too quick to disregard actual reality, it is an interesting debate. Sort of like that going on with the Tea Party at the moment: Stick with the GOP or consider them out of date and out of touch.
In any event, give them both a read, and enjoy their misery.

Sen. Tester: What's Your Plan?

All fifty-three Democrat senators have sent a letter to the Speaker of the House saying that they will reject the plan under consideration to raise the debt limit. Among them of course, our junior senator, oops, I mean the extra vote that Harry Reid has, who agrees with his party's leadership that just saying no is an effective strategy.
So, Sen. Tester, if there is no plan, or even if it is passed by the House and presented to the Senate, you are going to vote to keep the status quo? In a way, I kind of like that, since the automatic reduction in the size of government in one day will be quite dramatic. But isn't Jon in the least bit worried? About the debt limit, our credit rating, our fiscal future, or even that we could figure out that we can live with a whole lot less government?
And what is the Senate's plan? Harry Reid's smoke and mirrors is the greatest problem for our credit rating, and contains no real cuts. So, Senator Tester, what are you going to do to protect Montana families? Just go along with Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer?
If so, I am sure that you will enjoy returning to your farm in January of 2013, with lots of time to think about it.

The Left Unhinged

It has become impossible to discuss anything with the Left since November of 2010 as they wallow in their buyer's remorse about Obama. Yet somehow, they refuse to acknowledge that they are the minority of the country and have no useful political clout outside of the Mainstream Media and Hollywood. But like any wounded animal, they are still dangerous as they lash out in all directions in order to somehow hurt their tormentors.
For instance, as James Taranto notes in his Best of the Web the Left have taken to attacking Republicans in general and the Tea Party in particular. Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times who argues that duly elected Representatives of the US House are our own "domestic terrorists and extremists" are a bigger threat to national security than China or Iran. Really? Aren't you questioning their patriotism, and isn't that verboten? And isn't it more than just a little over the top to equate Bachman and other Tea Partiers with terrorism? The hyperbole makes the argument laughably irrelevant. And it wouldn't matter except for the proliferation of what has become known as the "unsophisticated voter."
These voters are easy to identify because they take no interest in the political affairs of the country until such time as they are bused to the ballot box where they can register and vote in accordance with the guy's wishes who gave them a sandwich. They used to be evenly distributed between the two parties until the Democrats figured out that with enough of these uninformed dolts, they could actually take over the country, hence the current version of the Get Out the Vote efforts of that party. Now they are being called upon by the Leader of the Free World to intimidate Congress into spending more than it has the ability to pay.
By itself, the disparaging remarks of those who believe in fiscal discipline and limited government keeps us from having an honest debate. For instance, why is it that those advocating raising the debt limit without serious reductions in spending will still be facing the same problem anywhere from six months to a year from now? Why raise taxes on a few that will fail to close the deficit and ignore the 49% who pay no taxes? Have they no interest in solving the fiscal problem, or do they simply want to institute income redistribution, the country be damned?
Finally, I am amazed at the number of law professors who are advocating that Obama raise the debt limit on his own. As we are often reminded, Obama was a "Professor of Constitutional Law" at Chicago. I am just curious, which Constitution? Certainly not the one that he swore an oath to uphold in January of 2009. And yet these luminaries of the professorate seem to have no problems with arguing for a complete usurpation of the power of the purse by the Presidency.
I remember when Watergate was going on and thinking that it was a constitutional crisis if Nixon tried to hold onto power. If Obama tries a power grab as he is being encouraged, that my friends is a real constitutional crisis.

Why the Tax Code is Immoral

There is a false argument that taxes should be progressive. The idea is that there should be higher rates for higher earners, but no one explains why that is so. Once you question the validity of that premise, you come up with this. The untalked about point in the argument in raising the debt ceiling is that raising rates on the rich will not provide enough revenue to cover the deficit in government spending. In fact, as has been noted often enough, taxing all the billionaires and millionaires 100% of their income will only cover the deficit for one year. How many of the people hit with 100% tax be back to work the next year? And when they do, what happens to the jobs that they used to pay, or the goods they bought, who will buy them now?
No, raising taxes on only one segment of the society is not about "revenue enhancements." It's all about wealth redistribution, pure and simple. If our leaders were serious about the deficit, they would impose a flat tax, but what they really want is to reward their friends and punish their enemies.
But if you do believe in progressive tax rates, could you tell me what the maximum rate could be? And what do you think happens to people when the rate is imposed? How much of their efforts that had gone to creating wealth are now directed at tax avoidance schemes? And why is that better?

Obama Quoting Reagan

Watching the President's address, I was waiting for the balloons and confetti to start falling as soon as his speech ended, just like any other campaign event. But in reviewing his speech, his lies were growing in number to the point that he loses touch with reality in spite of his carefully focus group tested words. But it galls me that he wants to quote Reagan by saying that he would have been in favor or raising taxes. Of course, like everything this President says, it is out of context and false in it's usage. But why didn't Obama use this quote?

In a 1983 debt-ceiling debate, Reagan threatened to veto any measure that contained tax hikes. “I am unalterably opposed to Congress‘ efforts to raise taxes on individuals and businesses,” he said. His administration “did not come to Washington to raise the peoples’ taxes. We came here to restore opportunity and get this economy moving again. We do not face large deficits because Americans aren’t taxed enough. We face those deficits because the Congress still spends too much.”

Words still true as ever, and here we are more than thirty years on. Many on the Left are calling for Defense spending cuts to the point of eliminating the Defense Department all together. The only function of the government that is absolutely necessary, is the only place that they are willing to cut.
In closing, one more quote from the Gipper that seems so appropriate:

“For those who say further responsible spending reductions are not possible,” Reagan said, “they are wrong. For those who say the only choice is undermining our national security … they are wrong. For those who say more taxes will solve our deficit problems, they are wrong.”

Obama is wrong.

The Difference Between a Lie and a Mistake

The Left has always said that "Bush lied!" when it came to WMDs in Iraq. I thought that they were just trying to exploit the confused voter for their tactical advantage. But now we have actual lies coming out of the White House and crickets coming from the Leftocracy and blogosphere. From the article:

“I wanted to give you an update on the current situation around the debt ceiling,” Mr. Obama said at 6:06 p.m. OK, that wasn’t a lie — but just about everything he said after it was, and he knows it.

“I just got a call about a half-hour ago from Speaker [John A.] Boehner, who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations,” he said.

Not so: “The White House made offers during the negotiations,” said our insider, a person intimately involved in the negotiations, “and then backtracked on those offers after they got heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House, and its steadfast refusal to follow through on its rhetoric in terms of cutting spending and addressing entitlements, is the real reason that debt talks broke down.”

Mr. Boehner was more blunt in his own news conference: “The discussions we’ve had with the White House have broken down for two reasons. First, they insisted on raising taxes. … Secondly, they refused to get serious about cutting spending and making the tough choices that are facing our country on entitlement reform.”

But back to the lying liar and the lies he told Friday. “You had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that theyve been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues,” Mr. Obama said.

That, too, was a lie. “The White House had already agreed to a lower revenue number — to be generated through economic growth and a more efficient tax code — and then it tried to change the terms of the deal after taking heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill,” our insider said.

and:

But Mr. Obama, with a straight face, continued. “We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.”

The truth: “Actually, the White House was walking back its commitments on entitlement reforms, too. They kept saying they wanted to ‘go big.’ But their actions never matched their rhetoric,” the insider said.

While the article asks if Obama is a pathological liar, I think in fairness to him, that he just doesn't have a clue what the truth looks like. And neither do the Lefties who said that Bush lied.

Extremists?

I just heard Sen. Reid's news conference where he is trying to get the Republicans to give up their listening to concerned citizens, otherwise known as the Tea Party. Reid says that because the Republicans are listening to their constituencies, they are following "extremists" in refusing to give in to Obama's demands for a raise in the spending cap.
Let's see how extremist the Tea Party really is. They believe in fiscal responsibility and limited government. No matter how I look at this, to consider that extremist is either delusional or dishonest, although in Harry Reid's case, both may be applicable. Sen. Reid is sowing what he reaped, when he put together the "deficit reduction plan" that was agreed to last December, and resulted in several millions of dollars in savings, when we had been promised billions.
For Sen. Reid, spending is more important than anything else, and when he threatens Social Security checks, he has pulled out the heavy artillery. But if Sen. Reid and President Obama believe that Social Security checks won't be going out, is that because they are more interested in funding the high speed rail boondoggles that have been proposed? What about National Endowment for the Arts, or Planned Parenthood, or ethanol, cotton, sugar, peanut and milk subsidies? Why are all those more important than getting retirees their checks? That my friends is extremist, to take money away from the elderly to support big donors in order to keep Democrats in power.
One good thing if the debt limit isn't raised - We will instantly have a balanced budget.

You Are Not as Safe as You Think

Think that the Constitution entitles you to feel secure in your home? Think again. If the police break into your home and you resist this unlawful invasion, you will be charged with resisting arrest, at least in Minnesota. From the article:

In closing arguments Wednesday morning, Sauceda’s defense attorney, Ryan Deaton, chronicled how his client was wronged by Lufkin Police when they entered his home at 111 Finley St. on a report of a black male kicking in the front door, called in by a neighbor. Sauceda, who Deaton described as having the mind of a child, then locked himself in the bathroom and refused to come out despite repeated warnings by the officers on scene.

But at least this time they actually came to the right address.
As a search of Reason's blog for cops breaking in the wrong address yields this.

Quo custodiet ipso custodes?

Dishonest Debt Debate

As we come nearer and nearer to the supposed economic Armageddon of not raising the debt ceiling, everyone is being stirred to action in support of their side. Letters to the editor are flying, but I am becoming particularly annoyed by those whose only solution is to raise the taxes on "the rich." This is the favorite topic of those on the Left and Democrats in general as a solution to the problem because it fits in with their narrative of class warfare. Even if you confiscated all the wealth of millionaires and billionaires, you would only be able to pay the deficit for one year, and the next year they would have all quit and the Treasury will receive $0 from them, and still have the deficit. Since this makes no sense at all for generating revenue, why is it that our “leaders” are proposing such a thing. My answer is that this is not about raising revenue, but social engineering. And we have sufficient evidence in support of this proposition.
For instance, the tax code is more than 70,000 pages of rules and regulations which set forth not only tax rates but exceptions. That is how General Electric was able to make $6 Billion in profits and pay no income tax. And they did it legally, because their lobbyists were able to get the government to subsidize activity for them that you and I can never get.
The progressive rate of taxation is another example of social engineering. I am always amazed and amused at people who take the notion of progressive taxes as a given. President Obama wants all of us to pay “our fair share, even millionaires and billionaires.” Now, I may not be that good at math, but the fact that he wants to raise taxes on those making $250,000 a year in addition makes me wonder what he thinks a million really is. But the idea is that people making more than you should contribute more. Well, they already do.
In 2011, Federal income tax rates were set to increase to pre-2001 levels, but the renewal of the Bush Tax Cuts left the existing tax brackets in place through 2012. Below are the resulting tax rates and income ranges for 2011:
Filing Status and Income Tax Rates 2011
Caution: Do not use these tax rate schedules to figure 2010 taxes. Use only to figure 2011 estimates.
Tax rate Married filing jointly
or qualified widow(er) Single Head of household Married filing separately
10% $0 - 17,000 $0 - 8,500 $0 - $12,150 $0 - 8,500
15% $17,000 - 69,000 $8,500 - 34,500 $12,150 - 46,250 $8,500 - 34,500
25% $69,000 - 139,350 $34,500 - 83,600 $46,250 - 119,400 $34,500 - 69,675
28% $139,350 - 212,300 $83,600 - 174,400 $119,400 - 193,350 $69,675 - 106,150
33% $212,300 - 379,150 $174,400 - 379,150 $193,350 - 379,150 $106,150 - 189,575
35% over $379,150 over $379,150 over $379,150 over $189,575
Source: http://www.irs.gov

Looking at the lowest rate, one could argue that $17,000 for a couple is pretty low for being taxed, and you would be right, unless you remember that this number considers taxable income after deductions. So say the married couple have only one earner and a child. If I remember correctly, you get a $3700 deduction per person plus an additional $1,000 for the kid. And if they are buying a house, they get to deduct the mortgage interest. Suppose that they are smart and put money into a 401k and a flex plan and give to charitable organizations, all of which is not considered to be income for the purposes of computing taxes, and pretty soon you could be looking at some real coin before deductions. Throw in the Earned Income Tax Credit and a family like the one above could easily end up paying no taxes on their income.

For the higher earners, a lot of those exceptions of the family above are not available, and the richer ones have to cope with the Alternative Minimum Tax in addition, and that’s not even taking into account that their base rates are three and a half times higher than the lower earners. Do the rich drive on roads that are three and a half times better, or are they defended by the military three and a half times as much? Why no, they’re not. So the rich are already paying more than their “fair share.”

Why then is there such a hue and cry from Obama on down for what is effectively redistribution? Well, it seems that they have arbitrarily decided that the rich have too much, and can part with it more easily. There is a certain logic to it, for example, the family that lives on $45,000 could argue that if they can make it on that, so can anyone else. But let’s just hope that that family doesn’t work in any kind of industry which produces goods that the rich would buy, since they would no longer be able to do so, and the $45K family will then be out of a job. Even if they don’t work in that industry, whatever work that they do will be affected by all the ones that are engaged in producing products that the rich buy, since when they are laid off, those people will no longer be able to purchase goods or services either. The cascading effect of unemployment will be ameliorated somewhat in that the increased tax collections will be used for the most part as unemployment insurance for all those that lost their jobs.

Maybe, that is too extreme of an example. Let’s say that someone who is working and bringing home $450,000 dollars a year is our subject next. People who earn that kind of money are doing something right, since the general rule is that you provide more in value than you cost. Let’s say that the $450K earner only produces $400K in value for the company. There is a net loss of more than $50K (don’t forget all of the supplemental costs beyond salary) and eventually the business will either have to lay them off or go bankrupt, in which case there is no longer that amount of income for the household. But if the worker is meriting their higher salary, they usually have some incentive to keep working at that job. Making them pay more in taxes, will have an impact on their incentives to keep working at that level, and if they should decide that enough is enough, and live off their investments at the level of the $45K family, the government has been shortchanged all that income when they were working for a net loss to the Treasury.

So, soaking the rich doesn’t solve our debt problems. Then what do we do? My suggestion is to return the tax code to an instrument of collecting revenue and do away with trying to use it to coerce or reward behavior. If we went to a two step flat tax, with everyone making less than $50,000 paying 10% and everyone above that paying 20%, with absolutely no deductions or tax havens or anything else, we would have a solid and steady source of income, greater employment because business will finally feel that investing is not the same as gambling.

The problem with this solution is that it doesn’t allow the government to reward or punish people, and that is why the Democrats oppose such a common sense approach and are only interested in soaking the rich. And that is why Obama will never give up on his irrational need to raise taxes in the middle of a recession.

Racists Don't Always Wear Sheets

I realize that this is the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel, but really, how stupid is Sheila Jackson-Lee? She thinks that the only reason that there is opposition to raising the debt limit is because Obama is black. Some of her quotes are especially ironic:

"I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president,” said Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Why is he different? . . . .Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times?

and

"I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president — only this one, only this one — has received the kind of attacks and disagreement and inability to work, only this one," said Jackson Lee from the House floor.

If it was just about the debt limit, I would point out that everyone protesting now did so too when the debt exceeded $14.5 TRILLION. I wonder if she understands that that is a lot of money?
But worst treatment of a President? Remember that the ever so concerned about the dignity of the President, was always in the forefront of trying to impeach Bush for following the Congressional Resolution for going to war. I mean, when did anyone call Obama McChimpy, or Adolf Obama? And those are just the less inflammatory names.
To say that opposition to raising the debt limit to an extraordinarily large sum is only racism, is racist itself. She can't seem to separate that people could have logical and fiscal objections to that action, but she only sees racism.
I don't want to spend the time to look for it, but this kind of racism is not unique. A while ago, I drifted over to Left in the West where they were saying that everyone who isn't a liberal has to be a racist. In support of that proposition, someone told Rob Kailey that they met a black man who had been to Montana and said that Missoula was the most racist city he had ever been in.
I'm sure it's all of the "coloreds only" drinking fountains and restrooms that we have, or the fact that people of color are not allowed to sit at the counter at the Oxford and eat. Missoula? The most racist city he had ever been in? Has he been in any other city than San Francisco? But what was really interesting, is the willingness to accept the allegation by the writer and the readers at LITW. And unthinkingly assigning specific traits to a group based on the color of their skin is racist, even if you say everyone in Missoula is a racist because they aren't of color.
I am beginning to realize that the good Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee is really a pillar of moral and intellectual thought for the Left.
It sure is a good thing that only 20% of the country identify as liberals. Of course they are all in either politics or "journalism."

As an Example

Jonah Goldberg puts out a weekly missive that is not linked, but in this case, I think that I need to include the entire thesis on how government is screwed up because it's run by people.

Dear Reader (and those of you who, according to the McConnell plan, will read this "News"letter only after 3/5ths of it has been approved by the president),

I was listening to the "This American Life" podcast the other day and heard a story. I will summarize.

A man is returning from vacation with his wife and kids and some neighbors' kids. They went camping in Texas. Towards the end of the long drive home in the family van, a Texas highway patrol car comes right up on the van, following like an "angry hornet," lights and siren blazing, forcing the driver to pull over. The man can tell from watching Cops that these guys are serious. From behind their car doors, the police yell through their loudspeaker, to turn off the enginge "using your left hand!" When the flustered driver uses his right hand, the cops shout louder. They make the driver get out of the car and get down on his knees on the gravelly shoulder of the Texas interstate. Some of the kids are already crying. The driver is terrified, confused, freaking out. One of the cops approaches with his rifle pointed at the man's head. The other cop, his gun drawn, is talking to the wife.

Finally, after an eternity, the cop who'd been talking to the wife comes over and says to the driver, "Sir, do you know what your daughter wrote on the car?"

It was actually the neighbor's kid, not his own daughter. But to make a long -- but very entertaining -- story short, what was written in the dust on the back of the van was: "Help. Please God. Call 911. I've been kidnapped."

"Well, son, for about fifteen minutes there, you were the most wanted man in Texas," one of the lawmen informed him.

The driver was so furious that, when the cops told him it was a crime to write that on the car, the driver told them, "Take her in."

But it turns out that the neighbor's daughter didn't write the whole thing. It was a group effort. And that's why I'm taking up your time with this story in the first place.

Apparently what happened is that the mother had written, "Help. Please God," several hours earlier because she so dreaded getting back in the car with all of the kids for even more driving. Then one of the other kids filled in after, "I've been kidnapped." And then the neighbor's daughter wrote, "Call 911."

It seems to me that this is a great little allegory for understanding how really, really, really stupid things happen in life, particularly in Washington. Person A has a harmless idea. Person B doesn't completely understand A's idea, but builds on it anyway. By the time you get to person Z, you're selling hundreds of automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

On both the left and the right there's a tendency to assume the other side -- particularly when it is running the government -- is both really evil and really competent. Most of the time it's closer to the opposite -- again, particularly when we're talking about the government. What appear to be conspiracies from the outside are in fact a series of dumb, innocuous, or even somewhat okay ideas that build on each other into colossally idiotic foul-ups, thanks to imperfect information and mission creep. If there's a human being out there who hasn't had some experience with this sort of thing I can only assume it's because you were raised in a refrigerator box and without human contact. And if there's a reader out there who doesn't think this capacity for screw-ups is an important part of the human condition, well, you're free to read this but you're not a conservative.

This is not -- or at least not entirely -- a road-to-Hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions point. The initial idea that gets the ball rolling can be cynical or crass. Rather, it's to note that the more humans you have in the decision tree, the more you multiply the human factor, and that can lead to some pretty inhuman results.

Which is why I would be fine with government control of my life as long as there are no people in government.

You Have Been Warned

If you load a page on this site and sit on it for awhile, you will start to hear music from the game Angry Birds. Go to the bottom of the site, and there you will find the game, just click on the icon, then click on the pause button, which will allow you to mute the game while you play it.
Or you could just back out of it, but what would be the fun of that?

I Am So Proud

One of the misfortunes of not learning history, is that you are apt to repeat the same mistakes that others had. For instance Phidipides, who ran from the battle at Marathon to announce the victory to Athens, died shortly thereafter. But not knowing history, also means that you do things that you don't know can't be done. As an example, my daughter, Annelise Hedahl, just completed the Missoula Marathon, and I am so proud of her.

Why We Need More Taxes

How else are we going to pay for all of the soon to be unemployed once employers start to let them go because they can't afford them anymore?

The most amusing thing to me, is how stupid our elected leaders are, or alternatively, how stupid they think we are. The Democrats need to punish the wealthy as some form of Calvinistic redemption, the economy and workers be damned. And Republicans seem to fear anytime someone calls them "racist, hater" or whatever is the term du jour to make them falter. When Obama wants to claim that busting the debt ceiling means that Granny won't get her Social Security check, and the soldiers won't be paid while serving in a war zone just to keep the wealthiest tax cuts, why don't the Republicans point out that the Democrats want to starve Granny just to keep money going to the National Endowment for the Arts, Planned Parenthood, whatever version ACORN is calling itself now, and subsidies for "green tech" that doesn't even come close to being efficient. We not only have a problem with spending, but we have no priorities when it comes to spending.
Someone please tell me the justifications for either the Department of Education or Energy, both of which have seen a continued slide in their benchmarks since their creation. How much worse off would we be without Pell Grants that encourage universities to keep price pressure higher and higher to the detriment of whoever has to take out a loan to go to school? Or how much money would we save if we quit giving ethanol subsidies and lifted the tariff on imported ethanol, or for that matter, just allowing for the expansion of energy development, even if it means coal or oil.
And the thing that ticks me off the most is the complexity of the tax code. How is it that GE managed to pay less taxes than I did? Oh, that's right, I can't afford to hire a lobbyist like they do, and oh yeah, I am not being nominated for Treasury Secretary, or Chairman of the House Tax Committee, yet those same people will demand that I pay more before they do.
The only solution is a complete rewrite of the tax code. I suggest a 10% Value Added Tax with a 15% income tax for all incomes over the national median. No deductions, (amazingly called "tax expenditures" in the Orwellian language of the Obama Administration) no shelters for investment or business development, nothing. Just a flat tax that would apply to everyone, no matter their station or if they are a corporation or not. Everyone over the median would pay the same and everyone who consumes will also pay the VAT, so we will all be involved in paying for the government we get, deserved or not. It would stand out like a sore thumb when the first politician decides to do the bidding of the person who bought him and pass through a tax break that wouldn't apply to everyone.
But by removing the deductions, we will increase the rate of unemployment as lobbyists, accountants and tax lawyers have to go find something else to do. But I am sure that as creative people they will finally find something of use to do.

Believe It Or Not

But the legal system actually worked in the Casey Anthony trial. Like Dave, I did not follow the case at all, but my family did, including my wife who gave me constant updates on the trial's progress. From what she told me, I did not believe that the prosecutors would get a conviction on the deliberate homicide charge, but because a child was dead, I figured the jury would at least go for whatever version of manslaughter was proffered. And then, my wife called to tell me that she was "Not Guilty."
I must admit that I was surprised, inasmuch as I usually feel that juries go with what they think is fair, then their common sense, and finally will look at the law. But in this case, the jurors actually found that the State had failed in its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the aftermath of the verdict, I did have a good time watching the talking heads like Nancy Grace have a complete meltdown on air about the jury's verdict. But she was not alone, and as noted here, the court of public opinion feels as if there has been a complete miscarriage of justice.
The reality is that the system worked. The State put on the best case that they could, which really consisted of pseudo science (a device to sniff decomposition? Give me a break!) and character assassination of the defendant, but no evidence of how the child died. And that is where the case failed apparently in the eyes of the jurors.
My wife and daughter both feel that Casey is guilty of something, and I would probably agree with them on that point. But if the State doesn't prove it, how can there be a conviction unless being a bad person is all the proof you need.
Now I say that the system worked because the jury found that the State hadn't proven their case. The reason that the system is set up this way is not to protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent. If mass opinion is enough, there is no real need for evidence or actual proof. Simply take a poll and determine the accused's guilt or innocence. But if you are innocent and charged with a crime, don't you want the highest standard before the State can take your freedom or even your life? And if you are convinced that the State would never wrongly charge you or your loved ones with a crime that you did not commit you are living in a fantasy world, as prosecutors become more attuned to the political winds than they are in their pursuit of justice.
If nothing else, remember the people who have given you the right to make the State prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and honor their sacrifice.

Most Ironic Headline Ever!

Sharpton Claims Herman Cain's Too Racially Obsessed

Knowing When to Win

The so called "kinetic action" in Libya, where it is officially declared that we "lead from behind" has House Republicans saying that the President has violated the War Powers Act. As a result, they are seeking to cut off funding for the Libyan whatever it's called military operation. The fun thing, is how much the sides have flipped on the issue. Although to be fair, Boenher did support a Democrat President (Bill Clinton) when he used military force in Yugoslavia. But the flipping by Obama is to be admired for his deft acrobatics.
I have always felt that the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional, and the proof of that is that since its passage, many have railed that whichever President of the party opposite of theirs has violated the law, but no one goes to court. Primarily because they aren't sure they will win.
My solution for the problem is to have the Congress repeal the act. When you have Harry Reid saying that the act doesn't apply, you have to wonder why it's on the books. It's time for this law to go, and we have just enough crazy people in Washington to make that happen.
The advantage is that you can remove this partisan tool that has no real value except to claim that whichever president is in office is violating the law. If Congress feels that a future president's actions are illegal, they still have the power of the purse. In the end, win-win for everyone.

The Montana School of Law Makes an Ass of Itself

There are many things that I am proud of, but being a graduate of the Law School is not one of my top ones. And when it goes nationally that the school is so petty, it really diminishes the value of the name of the school even more.
The school has a good philosophy in that it is set up more as a trade school to provide Montana with lawyers than it is with training future law professors. But some of the personalities in the faculty are further proof of my thesis that "liberal" is not the same as Left. The faculty of the school is nearly completely Left, to the exclusion of any other form of thought.
When I went there, there was Rob Natelson, who was obviously conservative, and my hero and mentor, Larry Elison, who first made me aware of libertarianism. Otherwise, the faculty was carefully insulated from any thought that could be found more than 15 minutes away from the school. I am sure that the selection committee rued the day that they selected me, and of my class of 75, maybe 5 of us weren't Left/liberal.
So, I suppose that it was no surprise that they turned down giving Prof. Natelson the honorific of "emeritus." But the loss is not Rob's. It is the petty small mindedness of the faculty that would make that decision. I don't know all of the professors there, but I am sure that many of the ones that I had are still there. The one thing that I am certain of, is that they are proud of their narrow mindedness. And they can always turn to their left and right and find someone who agrees with them. Now, if they travel as far as Lolo, East Missoula, Frenchtown or Evaro, they would be confronted by a reality that they cannot comprehend. But the folks of those towns certainly understand them.
Which is probably why they avoid the faculty of the law school.

Debate Review

I started to watch the debate last night on CNN and the first question went to Herman: In one minute or less, what will you do to fix the economy? At that moment, I knew that there was no point in watching further and headed to the bar to watch baseball and play cribbage. One minute to address all of the issues that make up our complex economy? Only an idiot TV guy would propose to do that. Later, I saw some recaps where the moderator asked stupid questions like Coke or Pepsi. I would instantly have thrown my support to the first candidate who would have said "This is not American Idol, you either start asking serious questions, or get out of the way so I can talk to the American people."
On the same vein, King kept on the idea that tax cuts don't grow the economy. No, remember after six years of the Bush cuts when we had 4% unemployment, no inflation, people had jobs, yeah, that had to be the work of magic economic fairies, not tax cuts. Tax cuts are a part of the whole framework. If you combine tax cuts (although simplification works better) with a regulatory and legal framework conducive to business, you get a growing economy. But when you throw in panic (TARP) and regulatory excess (Dodd-Frank) and cronyism (Chrysler bond holder's jobbing) and you have an environment that no one wants to be in and are only too wiling to take their jobs off shore and you have the economy we have now.


For a more complete take on the debate, I would suggest Michael Barone.

Herman Cain is Making a Mark

Even before tonight's debate on CNN, Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic is calling for him to resign from his campaign for supposed anti Muslim bigotry. The fact that this is in the Atlantic shows that the Administration is well aware of how Herman is moving up with Republicans and are trying to preemptively knock him out. If he was inconsequential, you know that the Obama administration would just ignore him.

Good Luck with that.

Why Bother?

Peter Parisi, an editor at the Washington Times has this opinion piece which echoes something that I have been thinking about for a while. Why debate with Leftists? Now, Mr. Parisi uses the term "liberal" but I reject that appellation since so many on the Left have misappropriated the term for their own use while being decidedly illiberal. There are a few that I would consider to be true liberals (as opposed to classical liberalism of the Libertarian kind) and they are usually identified when you point out the problems with the Left's talking points, they at least deem those worth considering.
But too many on the Left have simply swallowed the Kool-Aid and repeat what they have been told to think. How many times have you been accused of being a Republican as soon as they find out that you aren't a Democrat? No subtleties, no appreciation for complex experiences and reasoning, you are either with them or against them. And they do defend their own against all crimes that would have been worth of the death penalty if committed by a Republican. See for example, tax cheats, Geithner, Rangle, and a host of others, or sex freaks such as Clinton, Studds and now Weiner. I have always said that you can get away with anything once in America so long as you publicly apologize. But if you are a Democrat, don't even bother with that. Your oblivious jihadis will defend you to their death just because you have a D behind your name. Comical, if you take them seriously.
But why take them seriously anymore? I have been mystified by the strange adherence to failed policies like Keynesianism, even when it has failed to provide any proof in support of its efficacy. In fact, there is even proof that it is a complete sham of an economic theory, but still it remains sacrosanct to the Left. Why pursue such failed policies? Because as someone said we don't believe the lies we fear, we believe the ones we want to believe. And if you want the government to spend money, then Keynesianism is just the right tonic for what ails you. Sort of like when Lewis and Clark would dose their comrades with mercury to treat venereal disease. Seemed like a good idea, but it tended over the long run to kill the patient. So much for the Hippocratic oath.
The economic nostrums put forward by President Obama and his party are the same as L&C's mercury. But the difference is that the President's remedy has been tested and found wanting. Yet still they persist.
Reading the letters to the editor in the Missoulian, we see more demand that nothing be done to change Medicare. Now a rational person would say that Medicare is going to implode in about seven years, and doing nothing is not going to make that problem go away. But that is apparently the position of the Democrat Party, which means of course that the Democrats are not rational.
Although, in a way they are. If you presume to play on people's fear and ignorance in order to maintain your political power, then it is completely rational to demonize Republicans. Besides, when the system fails, who will really remember that it was the Democrat Party that contributed the most to both its inception and its destruction.
So you see, the first point I made in this post is that it is unworkable to deal with these people. You cannot rationally debate and discuss anything with them that they won't try to turn into some sort of partisan advantage at your (and the truth's) expense. To discuss anything with them is to give validity to their positions, positions that do not merit validity.
But those few who are truly "liberal" and not just Leftist, we need to work together to solve some huge problems. Just remember though, if you are not part of the main body of thought of the Democrat Party, you will be called a Republican.

Well, This is Embarrassing

We like to think that Montana is one of the last bastions of freedom, and now we find that is nearly completely false. Montana ranks 29th on the State Freedom Index. You understand that that means that 28 states are freer than we are right? The recommendations for increasing our freedom are easy enough, but our last legislature seems to have completely ignored them. From the article:

Repeal health-insurance coverage mandates to reduce costs.
Reduce occupational licensing for epidemiologists, clinical lab technicians, occupational-therapist assistants, audiologists, private detectives, alarm installers, well-driller helpers, and boiler operators.
Reform civil-asset forfeiture by requiring the government to satisfy a burden of proof and by directing revenues to the general fund.

The last one, civil forfeiture is a byproduct of the war on drugs. I haven't seen it used for awhile, but it is a law still on the books, and if you own anything, you risk losing it if some ambitious prosecutor thinks that they want it. Remember, in those cases, they just have to say that it is related to drug money, and then you have to prove it's not. Good luck with that.

They Told Me That . . . .

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame has a collection of all of his "They told me if I voted Republican/for McCain we would have . . . ." All of which is to show that the Obama administration is just the Bush third term. The things some politicians will do to reach across the aisle.

You can find them all here.

A New Catchphrase for Herman Cain

Remember James Carville's mantra "It's the economy, stupid."? Herman needs to rework it to "It's the competency, stupid." Obama has become Jimmy Carter's best hope for improving as the worst President ever.

"Obamacare" is No Longer Racist

A prominent Democratic Congressman, John Conyers of Michigan says that Democrats should embrace the term Obamacare. And it wasn't that long ago that if anyone used the term Obamacare, they were told to stop it because it is racist.

These people beclown themselves.

Lying Liars

My wife made me watch part of the Casey Anthony trial over the weekend, and then there was Weiner's admission that he had lied about being hacked.


In both cases, the seemingly effortless ability to lie was truly amazing. Maybe if Casey Anthony gets her case overturned on appeal she can become a politician.

Hat tip to Hot Air.

The Biggest Smile in the Room

The New York Times does a reasonably good piece on the Hermanator. Well worth the read.

Today's Philosophy Question

Something about little boys throwing rocks into the water raised this question: If you took all of the two year olds in the world to Flathead Lake, how long would it take them to fill the lake up? Goodness knows that he is trying.

On Memorial Day

This Memorial Day, I am a little more pessimistic about my country than I have been in the past. Let's face it, Memorial Day is no longer a day to honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice and more for the start of summer and mattress saleathons.
But it is also time to remember that the people that this day is supposed to honor actually represents and honors all Americans, for there is no true "warrior class" in America. Sure, the demographics show that those who serve nowadays are more likely to come from the South and the West, from rural rather than urban, middle class more than the rich. But from all over the country, they come to serve. There is an entire subculture who do not serve, and know of no one who has served. And I pity them because they don't know what they have missed.
But of those who do volunteer and serve our country, they have a very wide base of similarity: They are ordinary. Not blood thirsty mercenaries, or the common uneducated criminal class. Instead, they are both ordinary, and at the same time an example of the best that our country has to offer.
They serve their country by joining. They serve their comrades by going out of the wire with them. No matter how many times, no matter how dangerous, they honor their fellow Americans by being there with them.
It is hard to describe fear accurately. Not the fear that is artificially induced such as in a scary movie, or doing something risky like rock climbing or skydiving. No, I am talking about the fear that comes from being absolutely dead certain that your luck has run out and it's your turn. Whether to die or be maimed, it doesn't matter. You just know that you won't survive to see the next day as you are today. And yet, still they go. That my friends is what courage is. They don't teach that at basic training, or any advanced schools. It is present in every American soldier who serves.
That is what should be honored today. But don't just say "Thanks for your service." While it may be appreciated, the best way to honor this day is to remember that they didn't serve or die for your freedom as many say. No, they died or served so that you can make the country better, freer, more courageous.

Don't let them down.

What Goes Around . . .

The Republican minority in the Senate has allowed nine nominees to the Appeal Courts to go through, but just put a monkey wrench in the planned promotion of one judge for the 9th Circuit. Democrats are of course, appalled that the minority would restrict the nomination of a President. After all, elections have consequences don't they?
Why yes they do, and as I noted six years ago, it was a good thing that the Republicans didn't implement the so called "nuclear option." Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you have to wonder if Reid wants the nuclear option. Of course, intellectual consistency is not one of his high points. Heck, intellectual anything cannot be used to describe Harry. I am just waiting for the moment to return and bite him in the butt for this comment from the Examiner:

There was a revealing moment in 2005, as the filibuster fight was nearing its climax, when mild-mannered Republican Sen. Robert Bennett asked Sen. Harry Reid, who was then the minority leader, "if any number of hours of debate would be sufficient" to move the Owen nomination forward. Reid's answer was quick and sharp. "There is not a number in the universe that would be sufficient," he said.

How is it that we can elect such stupid people?
Nevada - You got a lot of explaining to do.

Good Article on the Hermanator

Slate does an okay job on Herman. I forgot about the meeting with Clinton.

Herman Cain is leading in the latest tracking poll

The Daily Caller shows that Herman Cain is now the favorite first pick to be the Republican nominee among those surveyed.

Could get a lot more interesting.

Raising (Herman) Cain

Great piece by Byron York in the Washington Examiner about Herman Cain. While watching the news shows over the weekend, I noticed that none of them mentioned Herman Cain, and I think that is just another example of the myopia of the media. Herman Cain is the real deal, a non-politician who has actually solved problems. More than political experience, what we need right now is problem solving capability. The present occupier of the White House is outstanding when it comes to politics, but is absolutely ineffectual in solving problems. It would be a stark contrast to pit the two of them together.
Some of the solutions he has proposed from the article:

Lower corporate tax rates, lower personal income tax rates -- they work. Take the capital gains tax rate to zero. Suspend taxes on foreign repatriated profits. Provide a real payroll tax holiday -- 6.2 percent for the employee, 6.2 percent for the employer. That's the Social Security piece. Do it for a year. Then put a bow around it and make those rates permanent. You do that and you remove the veil of uncertainty -- businessmen will go crazy. They will start investing again.

I would add to that, that he would also have to have a moratorium on discretionary spending to the maximum extent possible. But that is how you prime a pump for getting the economy started again. Not throwing almost a Trillion dollars at "shovel ready jobs" that are mere political hackery disguised as job creation.
Herman is set to announce on the 21st of May in Atlanta. While I would love to be there, instead, I am going to break one of my personal rules and contribute to his campaign. While giving money to a candidate only seems to encourage them, I think this is the guy to encourage.

UPDATE: C. Edmund Wright at the American Thinker has a top ten list of why Cain should be President. Check it out.

Do They Even Know Any Republicans?

Ann Althouse at her blog posts the question "Have you ever had a thought on the topic of race that isn't set generations in the past?" The question was posed by a commenter about Matthew Yglesias on Newt Gingrich. And the question has triggered something that has boiling in the back room of the brain for awhile: Do members of the Left actually know any Republicans?
If you look both near and far, you will find Democrats who say that Republicans who oppose Obama are racists. Others go further and say that Republicans want a return to the plantation economy.
Others feel that racism doesn't go far enough and refer to them as Nazis. Invoking the term Nazis is usually a sign of the failure of the argument, but some take the position proudly. It's not just the rest of the Left in this country that act so ridiculously, even here in Montana, the appellation Republican utomatically means that you are a racist/Nazi.
Part of it is amusing to me. As I have said before, the perjorative "racist" has lost its panache as a tool to shut people up thanks to its unjustified overuse. And when that fails, especially in any argument involving fiscal spending, the next accusation is almost always that Republicans want to kill old people, women and minorities. Sort of reminds me of James Taranto's Best of the Web in which he regularly inserts the fake New York Times headline "World to End! Women and Minorities hit hardest." For my humor impaired Leftist (is there any other kind?) friends, the implication is that the end of the world would be an equal opportunity disaster. I am just not certain that that many of the Left would appreciate this.
But here is the problem with these outlandish accusations: How do you negotiate with someone that you equate with "evil"? Suppose you could go back to Germany in 1934. Would you be willing to tell Hitler that his killing ten million people in concentration camps, of whom six million were Jews is unacceptable, but that you would be willing to accept five million dead, so long as Jews don't die at a disproportionate rate? You save five million people, a good thing no? Except you are still condoning evil. Same with slavery. If at the secession of the Confederacy you had the opportunity to be Jefferson Davis and negotiate with Abraham Lincoln, saying that you would be willing to release half the slaves from bondage if the South would be left alone. In the long run, you could possibly prevent the costliest war in American history. If you were Lincoln, could you accept such a proposal? Of course not!
I know that there are the Leftist fanatics, the equivalent of jihadi suicide bombers who really don't care what they say, so long as it has a negative effect on their Republican opponents. They are immune from logic and facts and have no purpose but to destroy. From their appearance in the media, they do seem to be the most vocal.
But do any on the Left really know Republicans? Do they honestly believe their trope about Republicans not just wishing ill, but actually being evil? If there are those who know Republicans, isn't it hard to say that the nice family that lives up the block and contribute regularly to charitable causes like the homeless shelter, or who are willing to take in foster children from abusive homes really are Nazis? What about the Republicans who are hiring inexperienced youngsters in their businesses in the hope that they can make them into a productive worker and citizen? Are they really so evil that they deserve such hatred?
My biggest complaint about Republicans, is that they really don't know much about the poor. They have mistaken beliefs that one can get Social Security Disability payments for being a drug user or alcoholic. This hasn't been true for years. Republicans also don't recognize the damage done through the social network programs that are ostensibly to help the poor. The dehumanizing treatment to receive aid has a tremendous effect on people with personal pride.
On the other hand, my Democrat friends ignore the abuse by people who live off of the system without any intention of getting off of it. Consider the twentysomething who is so desperately trying to get the $610 a month plus Medicaid and has no intentions of doing anything but playing video games (if that was ever an occupation, we would cut the SSI rolls in half) and dabble in criminal activity to supplement their income, and is completely satisfied with the arrangement. Those of us who work on the frontlines of poverty see everyone of the above. Add in the lazy, deliberately stupid, and con artists who have figured out how to milk the system, and you have created a system for parasites, not for the downtrodden.
Our problems are too complex for most people to comprehend, and from that the demagogs arise with full throated fury to decry the other. But if we are to discuss our issues, the Left needs to realize how unproductive their attacks are. I would never bother to discuss political and economic theory with someone who thinks I am a Nazi or racist. Why would they want to do the same thing if they believe I am one of their enemies? But they need to remember that the Left is a minority in this country. Even among poor people, there is a desire to achieve economically. Very few of them believe that they are condemned to poverty. But the system of social services helps to keep them that way.
Until the Left leaves their comfortable enclaves where everyone thinks the same, it is easy for them to believe that Republicans in general, and Tea Party in particular are singularly evil. As long as they think that way, they are cut off from a wealth of experiences that would improve their lives.
Too bad for them.

Herman Cain for President

I along with almost two other people, just watched the Republican debate, and in the words of VodkaPundit, I have a heterorsexual mancrush on Herman Cain. He may not be the smoothest, but he sure as hell strikes me as the best candidate for the country.

Check him out.

Smile for the Camera!

The President is to be commended for ordering the takedown of Osama bin Laden, (although there is the problem that he had to interrupt his deliberations on it in order to attend the White House Correspondent's Dinner). However, if you thought the "birther" issue was a pain, wait now for the "deathers" to start rearing their ugly heads.
Apparently though, the President has decided not to release photos of the body because he fears the impact that it may have on the Islamic world, and indirectly, on US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. But there is one point in his comments that I find rather awkward:

Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaida killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the internet," he continued. "Osama bin Laden is not a trophy - he is dead and let's now focus on continuing the fight until Al Qaida has been eliminated.

True, Osama is not a trophy to be exhibited, but his reference to the sensibilities of Americans about a photo of a dead guy being the same sensibilities of the Arab street are disingenuous. The bazaars of Baghdad are filled with DVDs of the snuff videos of Al Qaeda sawing some poor innocent's head off. This is just the equivalent of porn over there.
Contrast his reticence to release the photos with the release of the photos of Abu Ghraib, or the demand to take pictures of returning caskets. In both of these latter cases, there was a demand that the "world should know." Cloaking themselves in the rightness of informing the public, their silence now reveals them for what they actually are: People bent on the destruction of George Bush, whose hatred of him is so great that they were willing to sacrifice American troops to greater danger on behalf of their agenda.

May they, along with Osama bin Laden enjoy their prolonged stay in Hell.

Hey - Racist!

It was as predictable as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. But a little unsettling in the widespread and coordinated attacks about anyone who wasn't "sure" that the President is an American citizen. We have Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, saying that Donald Trump is "aspiring to be the new Joe McCarthy." How dare Trump ask questions about the President's birth certificate and grades?
Donald Trump may be a clown, a self promoter, or as the President says, "A carnival barker" but you have to admit that he has done what the supposed media have refused to do, and that is force the President to produce actual evidence. One can argue that it was already proven, so there was no reason, but if so, why the delay of all of this time. One theory holds that the Democrats wanted the issue kept alive so that they could claim that anyone who didn't agree that the issue was resolved must be a racist. To quote from the article:

Many critics of the birther movement say its core tenets--and its stubborn resistance to evidence disproving those beliefs--can be traced to racial hostilities. The fundamental birtherist conviction, these critics say, is that an African-American can't have legitimately won the presidency--and that his elevation to power therefore has to be the result of an elaborate subterfuge.

Why would anyone want to believe that it was a subterfuge? How about the fact that the Main Stream Media sent 70 investigators to Alaska, but we still know almost nothing about the President himself. It is the obviously obsequious lap dogs of our supposed Fourth Estate who have brought their integrity into question. Sure, the birther question was ridiculous, but so was the allegation that "Bush knew" about the 9-11 attacks. One third of Democrats still believe that lie, but they received none of the attacks of people who didn't believe the press.
But the funniest has to be the direct accusations of racism of anyone who doesn't enthusiastically support Obama. Even supposed "newsman" Bob Schieffer discounts any legitimate criticism of the President as being based in racist undertones. He is supported in this baseless accusation by academics who see nothing wrong with what Obama has done, and therefore, the only explanation has to again be racism. the funniest has to be Whoopi Goldberg, who announced that she is deliberately "playing the race card" in this case. Well, if Whoopi Goldberg calls you a racist, you must be one, right?
Their overuse of what was once a legitimate allegation has devolved into a purely partisan one, that is only worthy of scorn and derision. If everyone who is now part of the 53% who disapprove of Obama is a racist, how in the heck did he get elected in the first place?
No, they cannot legitimately defend the President's record so they attack those who are disappointed in him by trying to deligitamise then by using the magic word that always shut up conservatives before: Racist!
The bad thing about this despicable tactic, is that it obscures real racism, and gives cover to those racists, who can point out non-racists accused of the crime. But this is all about winning, not being correct. They can justify their lies because they are so used to lying about everything else.
It's not going to work anymore though. It may become just another perjorative that will be tossed to the side as further evidence of the lack of the accuser's ability to think rationally or present a cogent argument. May that day come when we all laugh at these accusers sooner rather than later.

UPDATE: As proof of the intellectual pygmies, (oops, is that racist?) lack of reasonable thought, you just have to go here so see my points are validated.

Atticus Finch They Ain't

"How can you defend guilty people?" my mother once asked me. I told her that no one is guilty until the judge says they are. "But what if they tell you they did it?" she continued. I told her that the State has the obligation to prove each and every fact, and if they can't, even though my client admitted it, they can't reach a guilty verdict. I know that she wasn't satisfied, and I know that she is not alone in her belief, but I still believe in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence and the right to be represented by counsel.
I love being a lawyer. I love that I can use all of my skill, knowledge and ethics to present the best case on behalf of my clients in the pursuit of justice. I have defended all sorts of people, from the first time defendant who made a mistake on how many glasses of wine she had at dinner, to an incestuous torturing sadist. This isn't saying that I have to like my clients, although many I do, it is my job to put the State to the test and make them prove their case. That is what lawyers do.
Until now.
In case you didn't know it, the Obama Administration has taken the position that they will no longer defend DOMA, otherwise known as the Defense of Marriage Act, which basically prohibits federal recognition of same sex marriage. Now, I think the law is a travesty, violating the X Amendment, and none of their damned business. But the administration choosing not to defend a law on the books is really stupid. Do they not think about what happens when they are no longer in office? If the next Republican administration decides not to defend Affirmative Action, they will have an even greater basis for doing so, since Sandra Day O'Connor said that she thought the law should be invalid after 25 more years from her ruling. The Republican administration could argue that there was no reason to wait.
But this post isn't about the stupid choices of the Obama Administration. It's about lawyers, and the people they represent. Seems that the House Republicans decided to hire a prestigious Atlanta law firm of King & Spalding to represent the defense of DOMA. King & Spalding were apparently happy to take the work until gay activists were able to bring so much pressure on them, that they decided to abandon their client. The lawyer in the firm who took the case, has since resigned, taking the case with him. Former US Soliciter General, Paul Clement said

"A representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters," he wrote to Hays. "Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do."

The idea that lawyers can be chased from unpopular clients is completely alien to me. The (fictional) standard bearer has always been Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird." The small town country lawyer who defended a black man accused of raping a white woman. There was no evidence, and the accuser was shown to be a liar, but the jury convicted nonetheless and later expedited "justice" by lynching the defendant.
The law firm of King & Spalding do not honor Atticus Finch. In fact, they dishonor the entire profession. I may not like my client, his cause, or anything else, but if a lawyer can be forced to withdraw because of popular pressure, the right to counsel is meaningless.

UPDATE: I have since learned that Spalding is the correct spelling, but in my defense, it was spelled that way in the Post article.

Conspiracy within Conspiracy

The Wisconsin Supreme Court election recently passed has almost no effect on Montanans, but the kerfluffle afterwards sure has. Seems as though the initial results reported by the AP did not include some town, and as a result, the AP declared Kloppenburg the winner by just 200 votes. Ms. Kloppenburg promptly raced to the microphones to declare her victory, and of course offer her gratitude to her opponent for losing so gracefully. Then -Whoops, the AP count didn't include over 7000 votes for her opponent, making him the winner. Except that the votes were always there, they just weren't reported to the press. They were reported to the proper authorities and included in the official count. Now Ms. Kloppenburg is hinting at dastardly actions by -gasp- conservative bloggers who have somehow robbed her of her victory.
Now just for fun, let's posit an alternative, for which there is no factual basis, but could be amusing just the same. After the Minnesota Senatorial vote that started out showing Norm Coleman the winner, votes kept popping up all over the place until Al Franken was finally declared the winner. Ponder for a moment, that you are a Republican in Wisconsin, worried about the same sort of electoral mischief happening in your home state. What if you withheld the reporting of a block of votes just long enough to make the possible election thieves show their cards as it were? They would be hard pressed to suddenly go back and try and figure out how many other votes they would have to create for their candidate and would be locked in.
I realize that this is all speculation, and the most important fact that would be used to disprove it is that Republicans don't seem to think that far ahead, in spite of being blamed for starving kids and seniors alike, as well as polluting everything and, oh yeah, taking candy away from kids. (Wait a minute, isn't that the job of the Mayor of New York?)

It's My Blogaversary

Six years ago, started with the first post. Amazing. I think Electric City is the only longer continuously posted conservative blog since Dave Budge became integrated with it and quit posting on his own.
Not sure if six years means endurance, hardheadedness, or lack of imagination. Have to think about that one for awhile.

Why the Birther Movement Endures

A recent article is headlined, "Only 26 per cent of Iowa Republicans believe Obama was born in U.S." I bring this up because of Donald Trump's quest to make the President provide his birth certificate. Now I have long held that "birthers" are no different than the Democrats who claimed that Bush stole the election, or that "Bush lied." There was absolutely no evidence to support those contentions, but they were made for the purpose of deligitimizing the President to prevent him from doing his job.
But I am beginning to think that there may be another explanation: We no longer trust the Main Stream Media, otherwise known as the Press Secretariat for President Obama. For instance, if you go back to the article linked above, it seems as though nearly three quarters of Republicans believe that Obama is foreign born. But if you read the article, you find that 26% also say that they don't know.
The reason they don't know, is that they do not trust the media to be honest. Let's face it, when Sarah Palin was nominated for VP, there were something like 70 investigators sent to Alaska to dig up dirt on her. How many were sent to Princeton or Harvard Law to find out anything about Obama? Do you know anything about his time at those institutions, or even anything about his life that is not in his books? In fact, someone who is an Obama biographer even stated not too long ago that a good portion of his book was just made up. But no one asks him any question about it.
It goes beyond that, from Nancy Pelosi saying that Republicans are going to starve 6 million seniors, or more locally, the radio commercial that says we are all now breathing in arsenic and polluted air since Denny Rehberg voted against the commercials sponsor's pet view. Yet there is no media saying to them, "That is false." Instead, they go running to the Republicans to ask their opinion of the Democrat's talking points, as if they have accepted them at face value.
The Fourth Estate has claimed for themselves the mantle of protecting Democracy by their ever probing and investigating of public figures. While it is good that they do that to the Republicans, it is their absence of the same strict scrutiny for Democrats which shows that they are nothing more than lap dogs for the Democrat Party. Of course Republicans don't believe them when the press announces that Obama is a natural born citizen. They don't believe them on anything else either.
I know that if I had to provide a birth certificate, I would have to make an application to Virginia listing my place and date of birth and they would send me a copy of my birth certificate. But is it really me? Sure I was raised by my parents who told me that is who I was, but I have no proof beyond their assertions. There is no photo of me being born, nor any genetic material tied to the certificate that could be tested to verify it is me. Personally, I have no actual recollection of the event, so I can bring no details to verify that it is me.
But that doesn't mean I am not the person on the birth certificate. But let's face it, the only solution for this to end is for the President to authorize the Governor of Hawaii to release his birth certificate to the public. Oh wait a minute, maybe that won't work.

Obamnomics Revisited

President Obama in his recent address on the budget (where he ignored his previously proposed budget) lambasted Cong. Ryan even after having invited the Congressman to sit in the front row. Well that will build goodwill toward solving the problem. But maybe, he never was in favor of solving the problem. If you believe Cloward-Piven, this is exactly on track with their plan to bankrupt the country and create social upheaval to the point of revolution. The problem with Cloward-Piven is that the disruption of government also results in the disruption of social services, so the poor are disproportionately hurt. But at least those that espouse the theory will be happy that the current situation will be ended. That is, that they think the poor will rise up and eat the rich I guess. It makes no sense, but it does seem to be the path that we are on.
Another option is to raise the taxes on the rich. A favorite of class warriors everywhere. We must punish those that have more than we do. Why? I still haven't figured that one out. But again, class envy is on display and it is not a pretty thing. The Progressive Caucus of Congress is even proposing a tax of 90% on all income over $106,000 a year. What a wonderful idea! Sure, taking everything (and I mean 100% of all income of the top 25%) wouldn't close the deficit, it would make Progressives feel better. But they seem to lack the understanding that if you are a high income earner, that if confronted with the choice of working 80 hours a week to make a net $10k in take home per year, the majority are going to decide that it's time to close the business and retire. That will really end their ability to be rich, or employ people, or invest, or even to pay taxes at the same rate they are now. The Left seem to believe that the rich are hard workers and will continue to work just as hard for no incentives. I think that they are wrong, but time will tell.
So, in either case under the proposals of the President and the Democrat Party, we will not close the debt, we will destroy the country and unemployment is going to make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. But they also are using Qualitative Ea&sing to inflate the dollar to cover the debt. This will result in a complete destruction of personal savings, and forcing old people on fixed incomes to clip coupons just to buy their one can of Alpo they can afford each day. Not to mention it will be impossible to buy a home on a mortgage of 21% or more.
Hope and Change, and the unbelievable thing is that Obama may get re-elected because of the weakness of the Republican Presidential candidates.
My advice is to face the facts and grab all you can before it all goes to hell. There is no hope with this administration that either consciously or not is working to destroy our nation. It's too late, unless you have enough savings to flee to Australia. Oh wait, they are no different either.

Damn, what's a sensible person to do?

Global Warming Has been Cured

April 18th, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.

I said when I walked in that Global Warming was a lie, and one of my young earnest associates reminded me that it's currently called "Climate Change." I told her the climate is changing in the wrong damned direction.

What the Tea Party is Really About

“It’s amazing to me to be lectured to and hear about how awful the Tea Party is.”

So began Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) defense of the Tea Party on the Senate floor yesterday. And he took off from there, inviting detractors to visit an actual rally and chastising Democrats for trying to blame the Tea Party for the delay in approving a budget bill.

“They want to blame it on the Tea Party because in their secret caucus meetings they’ve done a poll that says the Tea Party could be the villain. Call them extreme, call them all Tea Partiers, say the Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party,” he said. “Well you know what the Tea Party believes in? Good government. We Believe in balancing the budget. We believe in reducing spending.”

I suppose that is why they are demonized. Because the status quo allows for the continuing ripoff of the taxpayers and they don't want it to stop.

Free Obama!

In spite of his announcement that he is running for re-election, President Obama is bemoaning his loss of privacy. He can no longer just be a dad without the world having to wait for his decisions.

I know I will do my part to help him reattain that level of anonymity of Jimmy Carter.

Paul Krugman Says There Will be Death Panels

Sheesh, why in the world anyone would believe this idiot is beyond me. Doesn't he know that the official Lefty line is that Death Panels were made up by Fox News? Of course, he could finally be coming into contact with reality.
My bet is that Krugman will find a way to spin this as a positive.

Rethinking the Argument

While the Left is concerned because their message isn't getting out (it really is, that is why it is rejected) the Republicans seem to have a problem framing their argument as well. For instance, on the recent budget compromise, the agreement was to cut $38 billion from an already bloated budget. $38 billion sounds like a lot of money, and the opponents have been able to demagogue Republicans as wanting to starve old people and kill kids with that amount of cuts.
But what if instead of arguing for that amount of cuts, they were instead to call for a 5% cut across the board in all government spending? That amount doesn't seem so much does it? Surely the government could exist on 95% of what it had before. And the beauty of the thing is that a 5% cut would equal about $180 billion in savings. Still too little concerning a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit, but if you keep cutting 5% every year, you could actually get down to a real number.
Another argument that needs to be made is that we need to balance our priorities while we balance the budget. For instance, the corporation for public broadcasting received $422 million in federal subsidies last year. How many meals would that provide for the elderly? How many children could receive immunizations for that amount? In fact, let's keep going, National Endowment for the Arts? How many homeless shelters could we provide for the same amount? Green energy subsidies - those that raise the price of food and fuel? Instead of doing that, reorienting the money into mass urban transit. In fact, if you were to eliminate the Department of Education, how many more Pell grants could be offered from the savings?
The trick would be to defund these organizations, and put half the savings into debt reduction and the other half into more worthwhile aid to the truly needy.
But they don't call Republicans the "Stupid Party" for nothing.

Comedy

There are times, that I envy the Left. Unconstrained by logic, facts or consistency, they are ardent in their misguided adventures. Some argue that all government spending is good for the economy, except military spending. According to them, if we don't pay for NPR and Planned Parenthood, the entire US economy will collapse into shambles. There seems to be absolutely no awareness of a moral obligation to pay one's debts. Why this is seems to escape me. But that is just one of their advantages.
But the best part has to be how they feel that their messaging is just not quite good enough. Apparently, it's not enough to describe Republicans as being villains who want to starve 6 million old people, kill everyone on Medicare, or who just want to eat the flesh of babies who escape abortion. No, they feel that isn't working well enough, so Matt Singer has come up with a new solution: The Tax Cheat as a villain. From the article:

But of course there's no reason why we can't learn from our mistakes by copying their strategy. And to those ends I'd like to suggest that our new villain is the "Tax Cheat". The name itself tells us a few things. We're not going to say that he's rich, we'll let the voters fill that one in for themselves. Which is great because this lets us play the class card, without offending any of our wealthy allies and donors who happen to have a conscience. But more importantly it says he has tax liability or that he owes something to society. Few people actually enjoy paying their taxes (although most people like what our taxes afford us), but we pay them nonetheless out of obligation to each other and future generations. Most importantly regardless of what we pay, each of us thinks individually that we pay our "fair share." But the Tax Cheat doesn't. He doesn't contribute a dime toward all the things that make our system work. He still uses the parks, schools, and bridges like everyone else, but we the "tax-payers" end up footing the bill.

Emphasis added.
Now, I actually like this one. But there's just one problem, they are viewing it through their ideological prism, and don't see the missteps inherent. First, if you want the rich to pay their "fair share" you have to argue for a tax cut for them. How is it "fair" if we go out for a group gathering and when the bill for the 10 of us comes, one pays almost half, four pick up the rest and five pay nothing? Obviously, to be fair, all should pay, but that apparently isn't the "fair share" that is envisioned. "Fair share" has been beaten into something that no longer represents the common understanding of the word.
But what about all of those people who use our parks, schools, and bridges and don't pay anything? Essentially the 47% of the public that effectively pay no income tax. Or how about using schools and voting for school bond levies without owning property subject to tax, in other words, getting by scot free.
Just further evidence that the Democrats have moved from representing the working man to being the party of government.

What Was The Point?

When Obama first decided to enter the Libyan civil war on the behalf of the rebels, I wrote that I supported him, just as I would have hoped that the Left would have supported any president who sends American forces into harms way. But now that American forces have been withdrawn, I have to ask, "What the hell was he thinking?"
Bombing another country, then walking away saying "Never mind" is not a usually successful foreign policy. Especially when that country has been know in the past to use terror agents to kill Americans. I have a feeling that this act of humanitarianism is going to come back and haunt us in the not too far future.

Obama and the Libyan rebels remind me of the Murphy's Law that "Professional soldiers are predictable; the world is full of dangerous amateurs."

Why Conservatives Should Vote for Obama

They told me if I voted for McCain we would have tax cuts for the wealthy, military intervention without Congressional approval, Gitmo would remain open and terrorists would not be tried in civilian courts, not to mention secret terrorist detention centers. That there would be increased secret communications monitoring, and less transparency in government, that the government would prosecute its enemies
But at least with Obama, there aren't those massive protests of by all of the Lefties. Just kind of goes to show that the only thing wrong with Bush is that he wasn't a Democrat.

Barone on the Ryan Budget

I always enjoy Michael Barone, and dd not know that he is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, but he has a piece out talking about the proposed Ryan budget. What is sad and yet so predictable at the same time are the opponents demonizing a plan that they do not know, nor understand. But we are facing a predictable crisis, and half the politicians are using it to beat over the heads of their opponents. But if we fail to act, health care costs will be nothing compared to payment on the debt.
We have three options: Raise taxes, which lowers economic growth, except for tax avoidance; cut sending and finally; increase GDP. By doing the first two, we will automatically cause the third.
But I have little faith in my countrymen at the moment. I am sure that the Democrats will demagogue this thing to death, and will continue to make the problem worse.