Peace and Prosperity at last

My wife (the god Demomocrat) is absolutely giddy that the Democrats have taken the house. I am sure that we will now have years of peace and prosperity, at least according to her. But what really bothers me, is that she is really happy that Brittney Spears is divorcing Kevin Federlein. (I don't really know who he is)
My wife, I love her but don't really trust her with anything important.

John Kerry is an idiot

I have refrained from commenting on Kerry's supposed "joke" about being "stuck in Iraq" for several reasons. First of course, is because I loathe the man. The fact that the Democrats picked him as their standard bearer in 2004 more than anything else shows what bad judgement they have. The fact that he got 59 million people to vote for him is 59 million reasons why the Democrats should not be in control.
The whole joke business was just contrived because he knew that he was in trouble. After all, should you take him at his word that he was talking about Bush, then you would have to imagine that since Kerry had lower grades than Bush at Yale, he would be even worse off. But, instead of apologizing, he immediately went on the attack, blaming Republicans for what he said, and that he would apologize to no one. Karl Rove really must have mind rays that make Democrats idiots.
But what really gripes me is that what he said, I honestly believe, is what he believes. How many times from Fahrenheit 911 on have we heard that the American military is the repository of people who can't get jobs? Their desire to support their notion is a disservice to all who take the defense of the nation seriously.
Now I understand that Kerry has issued an apology on his web site. Methinks this is because he couldn't actually bring himself to mouth the words of contrititon. Good for Tester to call on Kerry to apologize. Bad for Tester because he is still associated with the group that says they support our troops, and with their words alone, feel content to leave it at that.

Pelosi on terror

Although the above link is to an editorial, it does fairly encompass rep. Pelosi's narrow view of the war. The funny thing is that those who are supposed to be wise and "nuanced" still run around with their reality blinders on.

Damn you Conrad Burns!!

Okay, it's been awhile since I last posted. Mostly because politics have become trite and boring. We have facile, inaccurate and just plain wrong statements by the two candidates for US Senatee, which are eagerly lapped up by their adherents. Negative campaigning works because it drives most of us away rather than inspiring us.
So, why the title of this post? Because for the longest time, Conrad looked like he was a goner. Tester was going to sweep to victory, and Conrad could go back to broadcasting. Because Conrad never seemed to have a chance, I felt free to cast my vote for the Libertarian candidate.
But now, Conrad has closed the gap to within striking distance, and could pull it off. This means that I actually have to seriously consider voiting for him instead.
I do know that I am very disappointed in Conrad and the Republican party in general, but Tester scares the bejeebers out of me. So when confronted with the only two choices, disappointment and fear, I have to go wtih disappointment. I do not want Chuck Schumer to have an extra vote in the Senate, and that is just what I think Tester would do.
So, congrats Conrad, you will now have my reluctant vote.

New Blog added

To the right is my Daughter's blog. The prodigal daughter has returned from 2 years on the East Coast. We shall slaughter a lamb and have a feast to celebrate her return to her natural homeland.

A Letter to Democrats

This is a very interesting article, and very telling. I think that it is correct that the one thing holding the Democrats from taking over the House and Senate, is that they can't shut up.
There are some very important points in the article. I wish that Shane Morrison, Wulfgar and to a lesser extent, Matt of Left in the West would read it without taking offense, but looking to see if there are valid points.
But that will never happen, because they believe that they are on a roll.
Maybe they are, but then, maybe they are not.

Now this is funny!

In my feeble attempt to run for the State Legislator, I did attend a couple of Republican events, and wasn't all that impressed. While Democrats are just plain insane with anger, Republicans are definitley boring. I say it's time to put the "party" back into the Republican party.
This link shows that the Republicans can have some fun. The true essence of humor is that it must contain a certain element of truth. Reading the America Weakly, you can see that it is entirely plausible what the priorities will be for the next Democratically controlled Congress.
On a marginally related matter, I found the quote from John Adams that seems to be very appropriate: "One useless man is a shame, two a law firm, and three or more a congress."

Maybe it's time to stop helping

Dave has this interesting post about the differences between Wal Mart and Costco and their net effect on the poor. His post brings to mind one of the main complaints I have about liberals, that is, that they are very interested in doing something, even if it hurts more than it helps.
My wife (the good Democrat) is railing after me because she is going to support the increase in the minimum wage, and I am not. She learned from Oprah that there are 30 million people who are subsisting off of minimum wage, and she wants them to get a raise. I pointed out that the numbers mean that 90% are living above the minimum wage right now, but that is superflous to her, because she is a kind and caring person. Now, you have to remember that we are comfortably middle class, and the least that our three kids are earning right now is $13 per hour, so we have no immediate stake in the outcome of the referendum.
However, when I point out to her that an increase in the minimum wage will probably result in about 10% or 3 million people losing their jobs, she just snarls, "Whatever!" and is happy that 27 million are getting a raise. I know that she is a compassionate woman, and she is not happy to see 3 million people lose their jobs, but this way she can feel good abour herself, much like the general principals/principles of the Democratic Party. Too bad if you are one of those 3 million though.
But to examine this problem to the fullest extent, are people really getting a raise? If you consider that someone was making 6$ an hour before the increase in the minimum wage, will they get an increase as well? If not, do their experience and longevity go unrewarded? You can continue the increases all along the line. But no one asks the question "Where does the money come from?"
The answer is from the employer, who passes the costs along to the consumer, resulting in higher inflation, because the increase in wages is legislatively driven, not productivity driven. So, with more minimum pay, that means the increase is eroded proportinately, so that there is no real increase in wages, but 3 million people are out of work.
Some help. Maybe we shouldn't always be so quick to help.
Of course, I always complain about carpers who do nothing but point out a problem, and offer nothing to solve it, so I am obligated to offer a solution to the 30 million people that are living on minimum wage. How about this, government funded education that will enhance an employee's assets to the business? Send someone to school to learn how to do spread sheets, or word processing, or whatever it is that the employer requires to maximize output and productivity. This will result in better skilled employees who can command higher wages based on their abilities and contributions to the bottom line.
Hmmm, nah, makes too much sense.

Silence of the Blogs

If you really listen carefully, you will hear the breeze making a soft whistling sound as it blows across keyboards all over this land, dangling from their cords below the computer desks of bloggers across the middle and right of this fair land. Why the quietude? Why the lack of passionate arguments? Hard to say really.
Dave included this post which shows all sites are having a reduction in traffic. But it is larger among the center and right blogs, even though left blogs are also experiencing a reduction.
One answer might be that the beauty of summer has drawn us away from providing insight or even questions, into the outdoors to enjoy the halcyon days of the joy of life. But maybe, there might even be a different answer.
I think that the blogosphere has finally evolved to the level of real life. That is, we no longer actually discuss anything anymore. We shout out our opinions, and if the other side fails to be impressed with our volume, we simply relegate them to the great unwashed "idiots/criminal fools" that we always knew the other side to be.
There is almost no intelligent discussion. Instead, there is the presentation of a point of view, and the denigration to the point of questioning any opposing commenter's lineage, rather than a discussion of the points rasied.
There really seems to be a lack of curiosity in seeing the other side's perspective on an issue. Instead, anyone out of the poster's line of thought is considered to be a heretic, and unworthy of salvation after a few feeble efforts to rehabilitate them.
Compounding this problem are the trolls. Those who lack the courage or intellect to make their own blog, (they're free you know) but choose instead to populate another's blog with witticisms more appropriate for a kindergarten playground for juvenile delinquents.
My favorite example is Larry Kradj, the self proclaimed environmental ranger, who trolls the blog Left in the West. Larry loves to make fun of people's names, a wonderful technique for debating an issue. He further expounds on his service to his country giving him full authority for challenging anyone who is not quite as deranged as he is, even though he probably only spent his tour in Viet Nam stoned to the gills, and visiting the local ville to get a child prostitute every payday.
The real problem with Larry is not just his infatile postings. The problem is what do you do with such an obnoxious beast? If you take him on, he inevtably drags you down, since he cannot rise to the level of civil discourse. If you ignore him, he has an influence well out of proportion to his argument, as witnessed by many of the letters to the editor.
Reading Larry is a lot like being forced to sit on the flight from Missoula to Minneapolis with a four year old having a tantrum the entire way. There is no reasoning with the child, they simply want to have a fit. There is no way that you can make the child appreciate how odious their behavior is by acting the same way, because the child like Larry and his ilk lack the capacity to see beyond their own ego. Thus you are forced to sit and suffer while the obnoxious brat carries on, unable to say or do anything that will have any meaningful effect.
I hope with the cooler weather to come, we will see more of the intelligent debate that I used to read. Of course, that doesn't include discussion of football teams. That is a discussion that is really one sided. Football is of little real consequence but it does provide amusement.
I wonder if that is what has become of political discussion.

The beginning of the End?

Interesting take on Kos being coy about his success in ousting Lieberman. Couple this with the commentary by our former Congressman Pat Williams who misses the irony of calling for the removal of "partisan Rebublicans" and their replacement with (partisan) Democrats, and I am beginning to see the end of the Netroots community as a force in the Democratic Party.
What's that you say? Are they not at least successful in the CT race? Probably will be, and thanks to missteps by Conrad Burns, will pick up his seat as well. They may even have enough success to recapture at least one of the chambers of Congress. So much for 2006.
What will happen next, is that Kos and others like him will begin to target those who are not the "true believers" and the internecine combat will begin. It doesn't matter that you are 99% in my camp, I will find someone who is 100% and remove you from tainting the purity of our ideals and goals.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, this will mean that they will be seen by the 35-40% who do not see politics as a blood sport, and who will reject the over the top hyperbole (I know, redundant, but nonetheless, necessary and apt) of the Kossacks and crew.
2008 will probably see a Democratic challenge to Baucus, and his eventual replacement by a Republican, since Montanans seem to prefer divided government. But for 2 years, they may have their say.
Too bad for them.

Another take on Global Warming

Sure it's dang hot, and yes the forests of the Bitterroot valley are burning, but this wonderful article raises the idea that increases on carbon dioxide will actually be beneficial.
Sure, it is obviously written by someone for whom English is a second language (spelling the word program with an extra m and e). But the science is interesting and certainly worthy of discussion.
But, still it is hot. The problem is when you confuse weather with climate. Because our life span is so short, we think all weather is climeate.

Libertarians and War

There is a great discussion about what the role of libertarianism and war should be. I highly recommend it and the comments to see that there are many thoughtful people out there who are looking into this issue.
One of the fun things about being an adult is dealing with moral dilemnas. This is just one example. Another question for the Volokh Conspiracy might be what is the propler libertarian stance on abortion. On the one hand, you don't want the State to dictate what people should do. On the other hand, do we not need to protect all people in order to allow them to make reasoned and informed opinions?
What fun, especially when good and moral people can come down squarely opposite one another on the issue.

On Illiberal Liberals

A darned good analysis here of the improper use of the word "liberal" by those who claim that they are. Here is the money quote: "

True liberalism is dedicated to a full and rational exchange of views in a mutually respectful manner. In the classical sense, liberals are centrists on the political spectrum, open to persuasion and seeking to persuade. They value the thoughts and policies advanced by persons both on their right and their left. They defend the right of every person, private citizen and public official, to speak freely, and they condemn any effort to restrict freedom of speech or to drown out others with shouting or vulgarity.

The intolerance and illiberal behavior of those who present themselves as modern liberals is a betrayal of true liberalism. Today's liberals would do well to rededicate themselves to the defense of the right of every individual to speak and be heard in the public forum.

Far too many of my Democratic friends assume that you are either a Democrat, (good) or a Republican (bad), with no other alternatives available.
God save us from these illiberal liberals.
(oops, that will drive them nuts).

On the Flag Burning Amendment

Well, a political stunt to change the Constitution has failed. Or, gutless cowards are afraid to defend the one true symbol of all that is good about America from desecration. Take your pick.
I have felt the tremendous joy that can only come from seeing the American flag for the first time after doing the country's bidding. You can't explain it unless you have felt it, so there really isn't a lot to discuss about it. However, I as opposed to tinkering with the basic structure of a document that is designed to protect our freedoms from the predations of the government.
I would suggest that rather than make it a constitutional amendment, we instead provide legal immunity for any veteran who kicks the sh** out of anyone who burns a flag. Burning a flag is really nothing more than a means to instigate anger. Sometimes it really works. Don't beleive me? Go down the VFW and burn a flag. See how many approving comments you receive from those who served under the flag that you are burning.

Coercive interrogation?

In the above link, a blogger points to Andrew Sullivan's atrocious phrase and the attemtpt to link to Rumsfeld what happened to the two soldiers who were executed by the Islamic butchers.
But even looking at it amorally, there is still a difference between the two: Taking the worst that has been said about Rumsfeld, the purpose of such "coercive interrogation techniques" is to extract useful information to prevent future atrocities; Here, the barbarism was done for its own sadistic sake.
Don't tell me that we are no different.

I still think that we need to contract with Hormel for all the pig skins that they can produce so we can bury each and every one of these "holy warriors" in them.

The Experiment is over.

I decided at the last minute to throw in for the legislative district representative that I live in. I chose the Republican side of the ticket because I believe in the ideals of the Republican party, not necessarily what they have been doing.
I promised to not bother people nor to solicit nor spend money. My entire campaign consisted of going to anyone who invited me (except when I had trials), newspaper interviews and the blog, Steve for HD 96.
Interestingly, my opponent was selected by the Central Committee since she had paid her dues, and they gave her money and assistance. In addition, she actually did knock on every door in the district. She is a nice lady, and I am sure that she would be okay. But here is the rub: she only won by 120 votes.
So, if you spend money to put up signs, get volunteers to help you and go door to door to talk to all of your future constituents, you only win by 120 more votes. Seems to be cost ineffective.
However, to be fair, there is the possibility that there are those who only voted for me because she is a woman, and they should remain at home and raising children. Although at 57, she, like me, has little to do with child raising at the moment.
The only other thing that was different between us, that I advocated Libertarian ideals. I think that this is where the majority of my support came from. As evidence I would propose that we consider the absentee ballots. Of the 39 cast, 21 went to her and 18 went to me. Since absentee voters in primary races are more involved and interested in campaigns, I think that the only reason I did so well was the fact that the Missoulian interviewed me about 5 days before election day.
May have to ponder this some more, but I think that it gives hope to those of us who think that the Republican party would do better with Libertarians than without.

On Memorial Day

This is a good article by a Marine Reservist who has served in Iraq. But it has brought to my mind a question that I hardly dared to ask before: Are we worthy of the people who are serving in our military? Or are we like the children who benefit from trust funds established by those who have sacrificed for our improvement, and fail to appreciate what has been done for us?

Too often, people regard those who serve as economic victims, people who had no choice to escape poverty but to go and fight and die in order to escape our malicious economy. Such tripe is disgusting to me. The reasons that people join the military, like all human decisions are complex and complicated. To reduce them to one simplistic reason is an insult to mature, independent human beings who see more to life than simply providing food for their table.

There is one thing that I do not agree with in this article. When the author says:

If we can put 2003's debates behind us, there is a swath of common ground on which to focus. Both Republicans and Democrats agree we cannot lose Iraq. The general insurgency in Iraq imperils our national interest and the hardcore insurgents are our mortal enemies. Talking of troop reductions is to lose sight of the goal.

I am not so sure that all sides agree that we cannot lose. When I think of Rep. Murtha, and most of the senior Democratic Party leadership, I do not hear that we need to complete the job we set out to do. Instead, I hear calls that our efforts there are futile and pointless, and that we should immediately "redeploy" (otherwise known as run away) and turn Iraq over to the insurgents. Evidence of this attitude is best described by those who point out that President Bush's handling of the war will lead to a Democratic majority.

I am not saying that the Democratic Party is more interested in helping the insurgents to win. But it is more interested in attaining their return to majority status and if the insurgents win, then so be it. This would not be the first time that one party has placed its priorities over that of the national interests, but it is still disgusting nevertheless.

The sad thing though, is that the Republicans are trying to do just the same thing in many belated ways. The unpopularity of the war is leading them to abandon their party's leader in their own self interest of being re-elected.

If you look at the conduct of the war without a prism of ideology, you see that we are on the whole largely successful in Iraq. Bush was right when he landed on the aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished." That is, it was true that organized units were no longer in existance. The problem is that the enemy changed on us, and we failed to realize it in time.

Where the enemy has been spectacuarly successful is in the manipulation of public opinion. The constant barrage of car bombs and IEDs has accomplished little of military value. They are unable to use these tactics to destroy their opponents, nor seize key terrain. The real target of these tactics are the television cameras that will rebroadcast the images to those of us sitting here safely at home. And their tactics are working, as evidenced by the drop in support for our actions in Iraq.

So, while the finest people that our country produces are striving to actually change a country, and through that metamorphosis the region, we here at home have let them down by failing to recognize that Bush was correct when he said that this would be a long hard war.

Kinda makes me wonder.

Scientists and Global Warming

In the above article, they have actually done a pretty good job discussing the ambiguities with global warming. The problem with the discussion is that it relies on the consensus of scientists. As someone very smart once said. Consensus is not science, and science is not consensus.
My problem with the scientists who rely on computer models, is that from my experience, you can make the models say anything by tinkering with the assumptions, and the weight given to the variables. For instance, if you increase the amount of heat, and assume that will result in more moisture being pushed into the air, you get more clouds, which serve to reflect sunlight back into space, and can actually lead to global cooling. So, which is correct? Darned if I know. But until they can tell me with 95% accuracy what the weather will be like in two weeks, why should I believe them when they say it will be warmer in 100 years?
Part of the problem is that science is being mixed in with politics. The same people who say that Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools are saying that Kyoto is the only way to save the planet. Just one problem though, Kyoto does nothing to reduce emissions of CO2. It just transfers it to Russia, China and India.
I did find it interesting that the scientists were complaining that the argument was taking on a legal nature, in that they were arguing like lawyers. Too true it seems. The problem is that as a lawyer, I have to argue for my side by maiximizing the positive side of my argument, and minimizing the negative, and hope that the jury can sort out what the truth is. Scientists are supposed to be open to the idea that they might be wrong. The way this argument is shaping up, neither side is willing to admit that they may be wrong, all to the detriment of real science.
Too bad.

More Lies Exposed

In the article linked to above, the writer puts in a more cogent and coherent form what I have argued for before. Somehow, myths become more important than facts, especially by those who claim to be "speaking truth to power." How they can use this cliche with a straight face is beyond me.
Doesn't anyone get angry at being manipulated anymore?

On the Real ID and voting business

Amusing article, especially since it is published in a Canadian newspaper.
Kind of reminded me of the sign I saw during a recent immigration march: "We're here, we're illegal and we vote!"