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!"

On Health Care and Lawyers

Dave Budge has had an interesting discussion with Touchstone about universal health care, and the costs of health insurance. I am for universal health care just as soon as we get that perpetual motion energy source going too. It's a great idea, but making it work seems to defy reality.
But my comments here refer to a quote about some possible solutions. Specifically:

. . . 4) Reform malpractice lawsuits, at the very least, by requiring an affidavit from a medical professional that actual malpractice has occurred, and by allowing insurers and customers to enter voluntary arbitration agreements.

5) Suspend the medical licenses of negligent physicians on the first offense. This should not, by the way, be an AMA responsibility. We want this decision to be made by some body independent of the AMA, whose primary goal, of course, is to protect doctors.

In Montana, like a lot of states, we use the Medical/Legal malpractice panel to evaluate suits. If the panel feels that there was malpractice, then the plaintiff is given a letter of right to sue. Should the panel find against the plaintiff, then the plaintiff has to sue without the letter. Big Deal.

The first thing that needs to be done with regard to malpractice suits is to admit that medicine is as much art as science. In science, you have to control for the variables. In medicine, there are approximately 6 billion variables, or the total population of the planet. Everyone can react differently to the same procedure.
Sure doctors wear the white lab coat and are well versed in physics, chemistry, biochem etc. But like all of these stupid commercials telling us to see a doctor about a condition that we probably don't have, in order to determine if we should get a medecine that we don't need, there are a string of caveats that follow at the end of these commercials that warn of side effects. And those are only the ones of any statistical significance.

Let's start out with the assumption that most doctors are professionals, using their best professional judgment. Now let's throw in the exceptions; the doctors who are drunk or stoned (they are human after all), so how do you resolve treating them all the same in a court of law? Beats me.

The cure for the malpractice litigation may lie in the imposition of penalties and lawyers fees. For instance, your child has been born with brain damage. You are in such anguish, you want to make someone pay for the terrible tragedy so you sue. But the fact is, sometimes, some really awful sh*t happens. It's really nobody's fault. Now if the doctor was coming straight from the jail where he had just been arrested for DUI, you probably have a good case.

The old standard used to be "Gross negligence" in order to recover in a suit. Now the standard really is can you convince a jury that your client needs to recover. I am thinking of the former senator from North Carolina who bought a seat from the proceeds of his suits against doctors for something that has since been proved to be totally not their fault.

But in order to begin fixing med mal, you need to look at who is making the money. And the answer is that the lawyers on both sides are. My limited experience in malpractice (against another lawyer for sending a guy to prison wrongly) is that the defense lawyers made a killing. I would send a letter to the opposing counsel, let's say one and a half pages. He would spend and hour and a half considering all of the legal issues at $250 per hour, another half hour drafting a response, and then include my letter back to me stating that he was in receipt of my letter. Why did he do that? Because he would charge a buck a page to copy it, when the real costs were less than 5 cents, or $501.90 in profit. What a racket.

Plaintiff's lawyers aren't much better. Typically, a lawyer will charge 1/3 to 1/2 as a contingency fee. Sure they bear all of the costs, but those are removed from the client's settlement first. I read somewhere that only 10% of plaintiff's suits pay out. That is why they get such high fees, in order to make up for the 90% that fail. This is grossly ineffective.

So, my solution is instead of universal health care, let's make national legal care for malpractice. Take malpractice out of the hands of lawyers looking for a killing and make it only possible for government lawyers to sue or defend med mal cases. You take away the profit motive, while still preserving the patient's right to recover for gross negligence. Sure, government lawyers would lack the incentive to fight to the death on every issue, but that may not be such a bad thing.

Could be just as effective if not more effective than anything else that I have seen for fixing the problem.

What to do about Iran?

Much smoke and noise is being made about the Mad Mullahs making their own nukes, and what we are going to do about it. In the article above, it points out the problems with using military forces against Iran, and how that may solidify support for the regime.
We could also continue to use economic sanctions, which almost never work. In fact teh only one that comes to mind is South Africa. Otherwise, pariah states are always able to find someone to trade with for what they need.
My solution is the complete lifting of all economic sanctions in Iran, then bombing them with Victoria's Secret catalogs and credit cards. How long do you think that the mullahs can keep control once the Iranians have access to soft porn and the ability to buy it?

Generals vs. Rumsfeld

Belly at Left in the West has a posting about the confrontation between the generals who oppose Rumsfeld and those who support him. He argues that this is a good thing, that it is healthy to have debate and dissension in the military. Oh, the lack of military experience is so telling these days.
Kind of reminds me of February of 1993, when the FIRST thing that Clinton did in office was the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. There was a lot of grumbling among the field grade officers that I knew until the Colonel came out and called a formation and informed us that President Clinton is the President, regardless of the fact that he had not garnered a majority of the popular vote. Our duty was to uphold the Constitution, and the fact was that he is our Commander in Chief. If we couldn't support him in his legally prescribed duties, we had a duty to offer our resignation. Pretty much shut us all up at that moment, because it reminded us that we are servants of the civilian leadership.
These generals that have retired and now, 3 years later are saying that Rumsfeld was "abusive" or didn't take their advice are playing a dangerous game. To think that generals are unable to deal with abusive behavior is like the pot calling the kettle, yada yada yada.
If they really did have a problem with Rumsfeld, they could have announced their retirement/resignation (there is a difference) and not participated. Instead, they seem to wait until after they are safely drawing their retirement pay to start carping. Very curious indeed.
But these are not moralists remedying a problem at the cost of their careers. These are like General Maxwell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who stayed on with President Johnson, even though he knew that what was being done was wrong or criminal. Trying to claim the moral high ground by complaining about the civilian leadership while safely retired is more an example of cowardice than heroisim.
We in the military are tasked with enforcing the Constitution, but are not allowed to take advantage of it. For instance, if you are on active duty, you cannot place a partisan sign in your yard. An infringement on the basic right of free speech, not to mention that of your spouse. But it makes sense.
Elections change parties, and the military has to serve whoever the American public selects. To be able to pick and choose between who you want to serve is the first step in the destruction of the Constitution.

I am running

At the last moment, I threw in my nomination for MT House District 96 candidacy as a Republican. I am of course, really more Libertarian, but of the two major parties, the ideals of the Republicans line up more closely than that of the Democrats.
After I submitted my nomination paperwork, I had initial misgivings, and thought about withdrawing. But then I thought, "What the heck?" The worst that would happen is that I would get elected, and be sentenced to 90 days in Helena during the winter.
I am running as a fiscal conservative, and therefore, won't spend any money nor solicit donations. No signage, advertisements or anything else that cost money.
Nor am I going to harass my neighbors by banging on their doors at dinner time. If they want to know where I stand, I will set up an appointment and come to see them.
Could be a hoot.
I started a campaign blog at Steve for HD 96 here.

Good analysis of politics at the moment

The article above is a very good synopsis of the present situation. I especially liked the comment "There are too many politicians and not enough statesmen."
At teh moment, I can only think of two potential statesmen, Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Neither of which is expecially beloved by his party at the moment.
Maybe that is the secret to being a statesman.

Jimmy Carter on being a Democrat

I borrowed this from the Best of the Web, mostly because I couldn't believe it:

John F. Sugg interviews Jimmy Carter for Creative Loafing Atlanta:

Carter fittingly used a parable to illustrate how he'd like to see the political/religious debate unfold.

"I was teaching a Sunday school class two weeks ago," he recalls. "A girl, she was about 16 years old from Panama City [Fla.], asked me about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

"I asked her, 'Are you for peace, or do you want more war?' Then I asked her, 'Do you favor government helping the rich, or should it seek to help the poorest members of society? Do you want to preserve the environment, or do you want to destroy it? Do you believe this nation should engage in torture, or should we condemn it? Do you think each child today should start life responsible for $28,000 in [federal government] debt, or do you think we should be fiscally responsible?'

"I told her that if she answered all of those questions, that she believed in peace, aiding the poor and weak, saving the environment, opposing torture . . . then I told her, 'You should be a Democrat.' "

Sugg doesn't say if Carter was talking with his eyes closed.

So, let me rephrase Mr. Carter's answers for the sake of discussion

Are you for surrender, or do you believe that freedom is worth fighting for? Do you favor taking money with the threat of incarceration for no better reason than you can, in order to buy votes? Do you want to destroy all forms of employment in the name of protecting the environment, or are you willing to actually do some deep and hard thinking? Do you think that it is fair to torture the American people with trite and contrived accusations or do you believe in finding out the truth?

Sheesh, Just goes to prove the axiom "Never listen to anybody who's philosophy can fit onto a bumper sticker.

McKinney as a verb

Politicians know that the worst thing in the world is to be laughed at, especially when you didn't mean it to happen. But the best ones to laugh at, are those who don't even realize that they are being ridiculous. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D. Ga.), recently attacked some poor security guard of the Capital Police, because he didn't recognize her new hairdo, and she wasn't using her ID pin as she walked around a security check point. Trying to stop the good Congresswoman, he came under attack from her and her cell phone.
Now McKinney is claiming that the only reason she attacked the policeman is because he is a racist. In fact, her lawyer is now claiming that the Congresswoman is guilty of being in Congress while black and female. I am sure that Shirley Chisolm is rolling in her grave over the legacy that she had created.
McKinney's baseless accusations of racism have brought to mind a new verb to deal with warrantless allegations of racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever: To McKinney someone. As in, "You called me a racist? Are you McKinneying me?" To show the ludicrousness of the accusation.
Charges of racism are easily laid, and impossible to disprove, shifting the burden unfairly onto an innocent victim, who can never recover. Now, the victim can just ask the accuser; Are you McKinneying me? to show that the accusation is without merit, absent some real evidence.
Could be fun.

Feingold Hearings

So, the Senate judiciary committee is holding hearings, and the first witness up is John Dean (Yes, that John Dean of Watergate fame) who is going to say that this is worse than what Nixon did.
I want to know how Dean knows more about the program than anyone else who is not working it. Could it be that he is making it up?
I thought so.
But here is the $64,000 question. Should the censure hearings go forth, and yield nothing, could Feingold be censured by his fellow senators for bringing a frivilous motion against the President during war?
Hmm.

Why I have been away

So, I was over at Chico Hot Springs in Pray Montana for our annual Criminal Defense Continuing Legal Education. There is nothing more fun than all that drinkin, smokin, cussin and braggin that goes on with criminal defense attorneys.
I was standing outside and telling one of my best war stories. It involved a sexual intercourse without consent charge. The prosecution during voir dire was explaining that the defendant was alleged to have forced a woman to perform oral sex on him.
About that time, the first juror in the box, a single female, 60 years old raises her hand and says "Miss, Miss, can I ask a question."
The prosecutor, sensing an opportunity to establish rapport with a potential juror said "Sure, what is your question?"
The juror then asked what the punishment was for this crime. Now in Montana, juries only decide guilty or not guilty, except in capital cases, so it would have been inappropriate for the prosecutor to say what it was.
However, wanting to take the sting away from telling the juror to shut up, it was none of her business, she turned to the judge and asked if he would answer the question. Hoping the judge would tell the juror that she was not supposed to be concerned with punishment.
Instead, the judge, a former prosecutor turned to me and asked if I had any objections?
No objection your Honor, I replied. Whereupon the judge started intoning "The maximum punishment for this crime is life in prison, with not less than two years, nor more than 100."
At this the juror blurted out "That's an awful long time for a blow job isn't it?
Just as I finished telling this story, I heard someone laughing, and looked over to see Karla Grey, the Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court laughing along with us.
Only in Montana.

An Iraqi view 3 years on

Mohammed at Iraq th Model has a very cogent examination of the results of the last 3 years. I especially liked the line: Are we free or are we lost?
The problem with freedom is that you have choices. I know that doesn' seem to be a bad thing, but we are used to haveing choices. Imagine someone who had their choice dictated to them for years on which clothes to wear, and then were suddenly thrust into a mall and told they could wear anyting that they wanted.
The overwhelming variety can result in overstimulation and (at least temporarily) a withdrawl to the simpleness of no choice.
Iraqis now have a choice. As I have said many times before, war is a catalyst, it is not an end to itself. It simply creates the condition for change. Think of razing a slum to make way for new and better apartments. The razing is a destructive act. But you couldn't improve the apartments without removing the slums.
Read the whole article. If you can get to the end without a bittersweet tear in your eye you have no soul.

Gary Hart, Military Genius?

The right to freedom of speech means that even if you don't know what you are talking about, you can sound just as self assured as someone who actually understands the problem. Hart here, shows himself to be a dilletante of the highest order. Unfortunately, as his future obit will say, the former senator from Colorado and Presidential candidate, carries a certain amount of weight, especially among those who hold like opinions, and who will use his stature to verify their posisitons.
Perhaps he is just like so many of our fellow citizens who believe that right now, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Of course, a higher percentage of Americans believe in UFOs, but no one except for the nuts around Area 51 have actual proof of them existing. Poll numbers do not reflect facts, they reflect manipulation. Hart must be influenced by these poll numbers to write this tripe.
This seems to go hand in hand with Murtha saying that we have lost the war. Hmm, did I miss the news where our forces have surrendered to the Iraqis? Which divisions have been destroyed? What brigades or battalions are no longer operational? What company was massacred? Which platoon pulverized? Saying that we have lost the war does not make it so. Unfortunately, no one is interested in the facts, just confirmation of their opinion.
I am coming to believe that politics in all forms should be labeled as fiction.
If you want to know what is going on in Iraq, and lack the ability, or the heart to go yourself, check out Will to Exist on the right. I believe him far more than I would anyone who isn't there.

The CIA is at it again

So, now the CIA is saying that it wants to prevent the Libby defense team from access to material that they say is needed for their defense. On the face of it, it looks as though Libby's team is overreaching.
But maybe, the real story is that the CIA wants the case to be dismissed by the judge so that no one will be really able to dig deeply into the story and find out the CIA is mucking about in politics.
Hmmm. Makes you wonder.

Idiotic Idiots

Lucianne.com has a picture of Barbara Streisand and the following underneath it:

Barbra Streisand accused President Bush of having 'the arrogance of a 'C' student'

Misspellings from her most recent web posting:
• Irag
• curruption
• dictatoriship
• crediblity
• Adminstration
• warrented
• desperatly
• preceedings
• ouside
• subpoening
• responsibilty

Is there anything worse than an idiot who thinks that they are a genius?
Me, I know that I am dumb.

Crash the Movie

James Taranto of Best of the Web (you have to scroll to the bottom) feels that Crash may have been a good movie but that it was "manipulative and unrealistic as the day is long."
My wife (the good Democrat) and I watched the movie on Sunday just before the Oscars, and I have to say that I really enjoyed it. Now, I may be putting too much into this, but it seems to me that what the movie was saying is that racisim is essentially laziness; a sort of shorthand way to react to the frustrations of life over which we have so little control.
It does add in two examples of racisim that show the absolute worst form which is racisim by the authorities. Watching the charachter played by Matt Dillon grope the female passenger in front of her husband after a stop about made me quit the movie right there. Then later, when the LA County District Attorney and his assistants allowed a white detective to be blamed for the death of an off duty black officer, it showed that while our personal racisim is bad, at the institutional level it can destroy our entire civilization.
It is a good movie and shows the corrupting effects of racisim. Go see it if you get the chance.

Deblogging ideas

Dave and Matt are busy deblogging each other. I would just like to say:

Both of you, just put down your keyboards, and slowly back away, and no one will get hurt.

This is not the only instance of "purifying" by all sides of any ideas that are uncomfortable. Pretty soon, everybody will be pointing out to commenters to just stay on their own side of the Internet.
I list on my blogroll all that I am interested in. It has always been my experience that I need to fully hear someone else's argument and weigh it against my own. If I am right, I have a better argument. If I am wrong, I learn and become better. If I ignore the other side, I become even more ignorant.
Both sites will remain blogrolled here, even if I am kicked off theirs.

Update Dave corrects me that he is not changing Matt's link from his page. Sorry for the mix up.

Sorry to be so slovenly

I spent a week in a golf school at Las Vegas. Golf is reaaly like remarriage - a triumph of hope over experience. But the good news is that I have learned that when I do something wrong, I now know why. Doesn't stop me from doing it, but at least now I know why.
I read this piece by Ralph Peters, and it reminds me once again: Never trust the news you haven't seen with your own eyes, and never think that you can ever really understand the Middle East.
When I was in Saudi Arabia, I learned that the phrase, "I will see what I can do" is really code for , "Sorry bud, your are on your own." When the Golden Dome shrine was blown, I was afraid that the Sunnis in Iraq would become only a distant memory. Instead, the Shias have responded with a certain amount of measured restraint that has to be admirable. The fact that all out civil war has not taken place gives me a great deal of hope, and this article by Peters just adds to it.
Now, it is possible that I am being manipulated in the same way that I think that the MSM is doing, but my own experience has taught me that there is more of value to believe in Peter's reporting than that of the NYT.