Florida's jurisprudence is an oxymoron

At the above link is a story about two teens who took pictures of themselves having sex and were prosecuted (as adults) for making child pornography.

When you combine this nonsense with The Anna Nichole judge and the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, you gotta wonder if there might be a maximum IQ limit for becoming a Florida judge.

I'm thinking just above comfortable room temperature, and you might be disqualified.

More Hillarity

This is absolutely wonderful. Nancy Pelosi is saying that Dick Cheney is questioning her patriotism, because Dick says that Nancy's plan for an immediate defeat (oops - strategic withdrawal (oops, I had it right the first time)) is just what Al Qaida wants.
So, let me see if I get this right: If you are a Democrat and accuse the President of every perfidy imaginable, you are exercising your patriotic right of dissent. But if you are a Republican and say that the person's plan will have unintended consequences that will aid the enemy - well, you are questioning their patriotism.
I guess this goes with William Arkin's statement that US soldiers are all just mercenaries and they should not have an opinion that differs from his own. It's amusing to me, that this is much like my wife (The Good Democrat) who tells me "here is my opinion on such and such." And when I try to address her thoughts by offering facts or information that doesn't comport with her view, she cuts me off and tells me that I am just being arrogant.
No wonder we don't have informed debate in this country. We have become a bunch of babies who are annoyed with anything outside of our world view.

How can she seem so happy?

Since she just held a vote to ensure defeat.

Do tax cuts for the rich help the poor?

At the above link, is a pretty good analysis of the effects of the Bush tax cuts. It seems that the Senate taxation committee relies on errant data or analysis in forecasting the effect of tax cuts.
If the objective of liberals is to increase revenue to the Treasury in order to pay for more social programs, the evidence points to tax cuts. If the objective is wealth redistribution, then tax increases are the answer.
So, do you want to help fund government programs, or do you want to punish the rich? Can't have it both ways.

I am guilty!

As anyone who knows me would have to testify, I am guilty of contempt of Congress. In fact, I have no defense at all, and am fully aware that if charged, I would have to admit to the allegation.
But my contempt doesn't stop there. Remember during the judicial nominations that the Democrats when they were in the minority would threaten to filibuster? At that time, it was considered by the MSM to be responsibly acting on the behalf of the minority party. Now, we get this. The media are stating that the Republican minority is blocking debate, when the reality is that the Democrats want to end the debate. What a crazy world we live in.
Kind of reminds me of the sage words I read before:

"When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'
The question is, said Alice, whether you CAN make words mean so many different things. . . .
When I make a word do a lot of work like that, said Humpty Dumpty, I always pay it extra. . . .

Maybe it is time to not make words work so hard.

A Proposed Senate Resolution on the Surge

The Senate is presently trying to reach a non-binding resolution to let Pres. Bush know that they are not happy. I understand that there have been a lot of different proposals which have failed to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. In the spirit of trying to he helpful, I am offering a proposal that I think pretty well covers all of their concerns:

110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 28

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 5, 2007

Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. HAGEL, Mrs. CLINTON and Mr. LUGAR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee of the whole
_______________________________________________________________________

RESOLUTION

Establishing the Sense of the Senate that it wishes to impart to Mr. George W. Bush, President (for the moment) of the United States.

Whereas half of the membership of our body is preparing or is running for the office of the President of the United States;

Whereas after the recent elections, the public having expressed its collective voice as we interpret it;

Whereas those of us who are not running for the Presidency are in deep trouble for our re-election;

Whereas those Democratic Senators who voted for the war in 2003 were reflecting the will of the public and their own chances for re-election;

Whereas the Republican Senators are now faced with the same choice as their counterparts earlier had;

Whereas we unanimously voted to appoint Gen. Petraeus as the Commander of all Multi National Forces in Iraq;

Whereas General Petraeus having requested more troops in order to accomplish the mission that he has been assigned;

Whereas we are getting beat up in the polls and recognize that our re-election is necessary for the safety of the Republic; and,

Whereas we have demonstrated that we collectively have the spine of an immature jelly fish;

Whereas we are desperately seeking a way to have it both ways;

Whereas we are willing to show our enemies and allies alike that we are feckless;

Whereas we don't know what to do, but agree that criticizing the President at this date and time has political advantages that simply cannot be ignored: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) it is the sense of the Senate that we pass a meaningless resolution with no teeth;

(2) the Senate--

(A) blames George W. Bush for every problem that exists in this world

(B) requests that the President issue a proclamation calling upon the people of Iraq to--

(i) take the blame that cannot be assumed by the President; and

(ii) give us the necessary political cover to look good..


This is just my proposal, maybe all the members of the blogosphere should provide their own version for consideration.

Matt: Where are you?

Last November, voters ousted the corrupt Republicans like Conrad Burns because he had received campaign contributions from Abramof in a purported quid pro quo. Now we learn that Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried got a personal increase in his personal wealth for an obvious quid pro quo.
Make me wonder if Matt at Left in the West would be condemning this obvious corruption. I haven't heard from Matt on this issue, but I am sure that he is working on it behind the scenes.
Go Matt, don't let partisanship excuse corruption.
Heh.

Wulfgar Reads Me!!!

Wulfgar has included me in his rant abour how we have already lost the war. Darn, you work hard and you miss all of the news. I really didn't know that we had already lost. Nobody tells me anything anymore.
But he expresses an interesting view. One that is shared by my wife (the good Democrat) that we have lost the war for the Middle East, so let's just get out now.
I still don't see how we have lost yet. I can agree that we have not won, but not winning is not necessarily the same as losing. Think of it this way, suppose two heavy hitters are slugging it out, with one absorbing untold punishment, and the other growing weary from inflicting blows. Which one should quit first?
As Black5 notes maybe we are winning, and we just don't know it. This kind of reminds me of the call for sacrifice that has been bantered about for so long. Maybe we should have scrap metal drives, and collect old tires and ration gasoline, just so we can all feel a part of the war effort. On the other hand, Sally Fields is on the TV telling me of the plight of her good friend who has to remember to set aside time each week to take her calcium pill instead of once a month like Sally does. I think that we have hit the limit of how much sacrifice most Americans are willing to make.
Hmm, makes you think that we are such a powerful country, that only we can defeat ourselves.

Greater Love Hath No Man . . .

One of my problems with the discussion of the War in Iraq, is that it has taken on such a political tone that it is impossible not to see opposition to the war as purely cynical. As I noted below, the Democrats were for the surge when Bush was against it, and when he agrees with them, they immediately flip flop. But my greatest concern is with the effect of the cynicism on the troops.
Approximately 1000 soldiers signed a petition for redress about the war and that was trumpeted all over the news as showing even the troops were against the war. Okay, 1000 out of 140,000 serving. What if 2000 troops signed a petition that said they were for staying and finishing the mission? Would that receive the same level of coverage? I don't think so. But the fact is, in spite of rapid return of units to Iraq, the soldiers keep re-enlisting. When you check out the Milblogs you find that the military as a whole still supports our endeavor.
But the reason for this post is the title. Quoting Jesus from the Bible, "Greater love hath no man than that he should lay down his life for another." 3,000 of our best and brightest (despite what Rangel "vicitms of the economy" or Kerry "study hard or you will end up in Iraq," think) have demonstrated that love.
Understanding why men and women fight is not that difficult, it's just not what you think. Soldiers, being human beings, are complicated creatures with many and varying motives for doing anything. But in this context, soldiers fight for their brothers and sisters in arms. They may start out with some lofty ideal or political goal, but as S. L. A. Marshall found, it is the soldier to your left or right in the fight that matters. So, first and foremost, they fight for each other.
Beyond that, the milblogs show that the soldiers still have hope. They see progress that isn't being reported. They would like to see the Iraqis take more action for their own defense, but they have not given up. They know that the terrorist attacks are aimed at the American public through the willing cooperation of the media, and know that these terrorists attacks, while having no military value, are working on us here at home.
But their real love is for America, the ideals, and hopes that we all have for the world. A world that is peaceful and respectful to each of us that live here. A world where parents don't have to watch their daughters raped in order to coerce a confession. Or see their sons thrown into a vat of acid for the same purpose. Or to see anyone killed simply for having the wrong religion. They believe in America. Unfortunately, it appears that America is not keeping faith with them, nor honoring their loving sacrifice of their friends and brothers and sisters. For them, to quit now is the same as America spurning their loving sacrifice.
I wish we could communicate to them, that the introduction of politics into the debate is done for purely partisan purposes, not because of what they have done.
On the other hand, maybe we shouldn't communicate that idea. Just reading it again chills me to the bone.

John McCain for Pres.?

I don't usually care for John McCain because of his campaign finance reform which is an abridgment of the 1st Amendment, but as I am watching his performance on Meet the Press, I may have to consider him nonetheless. Some of his hits on opponents of the troop surge were quite impressive. One was that the idea of the Senate voting a resolution against the surge is essentially a slap in the face of the troops. Basically "We sent you there to do a job, but you are'nt doing it right, but we support the troops." He also slapped at Harry Ried who had said that he is only a senator, and therefore has no responsibility for proposing a different plan except retreat. How wonderfully droll.
Politicians talking about war reminded me that our own golden child politician, Gov. Schweitzer delivered the rebuttal to the President's address yesterday. Although rebuttal is ridiculous because his comments had nothing to do with what Bush was talking about. But Brian was saying that we need a political solution not a military solution. Well hello? War is politics by other means. Yes we need a political solution, but it goes hand in glove with the military solution. They don't exist in a vacuum.
It amazes me how stupid politicians must think we are. They keep saying that we don't have a strategy in Iraq. Well here is one: Train the military and the police to standards that are similar to our own; defense of the country, not a party; and help to establish a free and democratically elected government that is able to sustain itself and protect itself. Oh wait, that is what Bush wants. Hmmm, makes me wonder why they are complaining.
I'm still not sure that I could ever vote for McCain, but he sure does have the ability to put stupidity in its place.
This could be interesting.

Interesting Developments

Omar at Iraq the Model is reporting that both the Sunni terrorists and al Qaida are leaving for another province since Baghdad and Anbar are going to be shutting down. The interesting thing about this is, that apparently, Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army is also planning to relocate to the same province.
Now both of these groups actually hate each other more than they do the Americans. Could be interesting if the troop surge actually forced the rats into one place where they can kill each other.

A Law I Can Support

At the above link is a proposed law that I really could support. It says that if a lawyer gives a contribution to the campaign of a judge, the judges have to recuse themselves from any case with that lawyer. In a way, it makes sense. After all, if lobbyists are going to sway legislators with their contribution, then surely judges are no less vulnerable.
I normally don't give money to politicians, since it only serves to encourage them. But in this case, I am more than willing to give to the campaigns of certain judges that I would rather never have to practice in front of. A $10 contribution seems a small price to pay just to never have to deal with them again.
You gotta love small minded legislators.

New Look

I was getting tired of the old template, and frustrated trying to straighten out the margins. So, I have tried this new style. Any comments?

Democrats for Democrats' Sake

Now that Bush has announced his plan to increase the numbers of troops in selected areas, the Democrats are howling. But it was not always so. See here, here, here, here, and, well, you know. But, now that Bush has stated his intention to increase the forces, the Democrats are all over saying that this will never happen. They also seem to be saying that they want an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, but not an immediate withdrawl (insofar as they can be caught up in it).
The ability of the Democrats to flip on this issue is just further proof that whatever Bush is for, they are against. I don't understand how anyone can be so shortsighted about the Middle East to believe that our failure to succeed will result in anything but a disaster for us and the entire Middle East. You almost get the impression that prior to March of '03 they believe that Iraq was a bastion of peace and stability. They now say that if they had known that the intel was wrong that they would have never voted to allow the war. Fair enough, but the subtext (although openly addressed by less responsible people) is that Bush lied about the intel. Hmm, as the Hammond Report makes clear, they were for the intel before they were against it.
Now the Democrats are saying that their opposition has been widely vindicated by the recent elections. Elections in which they won a majority (1 seat in the Senate), and the the President needs to heed opinion polls that show the American public dissatisified with the way the war is going. Of course, the flip side is that if you only follow the whims of public opinion polls, Bush was correct in '03 when we went into Iraq (More than 70% supported the war then). Ah, but perhaps we were manipulated back then. Maybe, and maybe we are being manipulated now.
It seems to me that the Democrats offer no alternative, except that they are not Bush. This is extremely shortsighted now that they are the majority party in the legislative branch. They have a responsibility to act in the nation's best interests now that they no longer are the minority party. Unfortunately, they seem to see the nation's interests as keeping the Democrats in control.
It's not that they are unpatriotic, just that their definition of patriotism is anything that the Republicans are for they are against. Unthinking opposition often results in unthinking in all actions.
Should the Democrats prevail in their petty opposition, I fear for the country. But I live in Montana, I know that my and my family's personal safety is not threatened by their childish antics. I just feel bad for the rest of the world.
Good Luck to you all.

Triteness in Political Discourse

In case you missed it, Sen. Boxer of California made a complete ass of herself in her personal attacks on Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice. Rather than apologize for a remark that was over the top, she now defends herself by saying that "she was speaking truth to power." What a load of crap.
Can we please just use some plain old English? Speak truth to power? This is as trite and meaningless phrase as there ever was. Okay, maybe "make the rich pay their fair share," is in the running, since that would mean that they are in line for a tax cut.
I am not big on the language police, but people need to be called when they use trite phrases with no real meaning as a subsitute for intelligent thought.
On the other hand, maybe that is as intelligent as Sen. Boxer can get.

Kudos to Matt at LITW

Matt at Left in the West has stated that he is more interested in accountability than he is just in having a Democratic majority. Good for him!
I have often disagreed with Matt on philosophical reasons, but I admire the way that he thinks. Because I am old, I am willing to make a prediction: Matt will soon find out the syllogism that all politicians are human, and all humans are fallible, ergo all politicians are fallible is true. When he does, he will be faced with a choice, surrender to his ideals, and go along to get what he thinks is important, or decry those who failed him.
The true measure of charachter is the ability to remain true to yourself. I hope that Matt does. Who knows, maybe someday he will run for office himself, and I will be forced to seriously consider voting for him.

c'est plus change

The Democrats managed to win the national level of government by decrying the ethical problems of the Republicans. Madame Speaker Pelosi et al. have promised to restore ethics and accountability to government. So, she has examples like Rep. Conyers to look to as an example of her profound concern about responsible and ethical government.
Or, how about cold cash William Jefferson? This is really only too funny. But it is nice to know that the problems of corruption are not unique to the Republicans. They just seem to be unique to anyone seeking elected office.
But hey, with the ability to fully investigate any perceptions of wrongdoing, people like Rep. Mollohan will be able to root out corruption immediately.
I feel so much better already.

Good Intentions, and the road to . . . .

It's wonderful to know that within the grand scheme of things, there are immutable factors which never change. At the above link, a Montana Legislator is actually trying to pass a law to make sure that there are paper towels in every restroom in the state of Montana. I first heard about this on MT Public Radio, in which even Sally Mock seemed to be mocking the idea.
This sort of proposed legislation makes me think that one of two things are happening. Either there are no serious problems for our legislature to consider, or there are no serious legislators. Hmm, methinks it's the latter.
What we probably need aren't sunset laws, but sunrise laws. Let the legislature pass laws like this, but make them unenforceable for five years. If there is not complete destruction of our civilization during that period, the laws will be rescinded before they come into effect. That way, silly legislators can pass silly laws, but with no real effect on the rest of us.

Dummy Scientists

In the link above are several celebrities (most of whom I have no idea who they are) and the dumb things that they are saying. It is almost predictable that some group feeling intensely that they are correct about an issue, will find some muddle headed celebrity to agree with them, and that celebrity will become their unofficial spokesman.

Just remember, that all of the great lines uttered by movie actors (Do you feel lucky punk, Go ahead, make my day, or life is hard, it's harder when you are stupid) were written by someone else than the person we associate them with.

Which reiterates my point (now that I am old) - will everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about, please just shut up!

Fair Taxes? Not in our lifetime

I was checking out Will to Exist, and he had linked to Publius Rendevous about a change to the tax code which would be inherently fair, and was wondering why the Congress isn't doing anything about it. What he fails to understand is that the tax code serves two purposes: Generation of revenue, and implementation of social policies.
The ability to manage people's behavior is what is really liked by the Democrats. Make a flat tax, where everyone pays a pro rated share, and the rich will not pay more. Horrors!!

Check out Publius. Maybe he is right, with a grass roots effort we just might be able to get Congress to do the right things. Get rid of lobbyists and you could eliminate the prime source of corruption. But again, it's just too good to be true.