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!"

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.