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.

New blog

I link to those blogs that I reguarly read. This is not to exclude anyone, but as I go through my blogs, I use my links to read those that I would look for because they are interesting to me. Sometimes, I check out my favorite blogs links, and I found the The Montana Misanthrope.
I now have to get up even earlier to check the opinions of people whose opinions interest me.

On Religion and Politics

My wife (the good Democrat) used to be frustrated with me whenever we discussed the war in Iraq, because as she put it "There you go, using facts again" whenever I pointed out the logical inconsistencies of her arguments. (Sidenote: this is a perpetual problem for anyone married to a lawyer.) So I encouraged her to get facts by watching news shows. Lo and behold, she has discovered Keith Olberman, who says what she believes and he does it so almost intellectually.
I listened to his tirade this evening, and while marvelling at a delivery that would have made Goebbels green with envy, I became upset with his use of "facts" that were anything but. For instance, the good Dr. Olbermann stated that we have "lost the war in Iraq." How can that be I wondered? Which American units have been forced to surrender. What divisions devastated, or brigades obliterated? Where can we not go whenever we want to?
This is not to say that we are winning. The reality is that we are winning militarily, in that the enemy is not able to exert his will on our forces, but we are losing politically. The enemy has found our week spot: Our susceptibility to propaganda.
Which was ironic when I found this article about delusions. This explains so very well why we have lost politically. Because we want to. With a constant barrage of hatred against the war which is really just a subset of the hatred toward Bush, we have come to believe that which we hear so often.

The article also got me to thinking about Islamic/Oriental fatalism. If nothing can happen except by Allah's will, then why was Israel allowed by Allah to exist? And if it is Allah's will to allow Israel to exist, then what good Muslim could seek its destruction?

I know, I know, religion and logic are automatically antithetical.

Why what we say matters

It had been awhile since I checked out Iraq the Model, and so I found the article that I am referring to down just a little bit. Titled "It's in our interest to make them understand..." Omar is saying many of the things that I have felt, but lacked the coherence to put them to paper like he has. Perception is everything when it comes to foreign policy. If your opponents perceive you to be strong when you are not, they will be more careful just because it is ambiguous. Conversely, if you appear weak, they will plunge ahead in misadventures.
The article details how the Middle East has taken the Democratic take over of Congress to be the first step in our surrender. i don't think any Democrat is actually advocating surrender. They just want us out of there now. But for the listeners in the Middle East, that is the same as surrender. I predict that there will be an upsurge in violence in the coming months as an attempt to convince us that we were correct to abandon Iraq. Unfortunately, it will be our soldiers and Iraqi civilians who will pay the enhanced price of our change in direction.
As Omar said:

The ideology of the extremists believes in "either victory or martyrdom" and now they think they are closer to the former and this will be used to attract more of the reluctant to the camp that considers itself close to victory and we'll see intensified media efforts invested in this field.
What I want to say here is that now I believe more that I must disagree with those who claim that wrong American policy breeds extremism, and now I believe more than ever that wrong signals that might be interpreted as weakness are what can be exploited by the enemy to give more credit to extremism especially under the current circumstances.

Now the fanatics in the Middle East will be able to point to the Tehran Embassy, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, Mogadishu, and now Baghdad as examples of how to bring the Americans low.

Maybe they are right.

Sometimes, Ya just gotta wonder

At the above link is James Taranto's Best of the Web latest installment about those who "didn't work hard enough" or Charley Rangel's refugees from poverty. What astounds me about this is how insensitive they (Rangel/Kerry) are. But I suppose they are playing to an audience that is used to hearing this sort of BS.
I have even had good intentioned and well educated friends of the Democratic persuasion relate the same nonsense to me, which was rather flabbergasting, since they knew that I had served long enough to retire. I suppose it fits their mold of how the world should be. But I would suggest that they consider an alternate story line in order to broaden their perspectives.

Having just read this, I realize that the same problem that I have with some Republicans acting in a patronizing manner towards poor people is just the same as what the Democrats are doing to the military.
Obviously, there is only one solution to all of this. Draft Democrats to serve in the military, and Republicans to take care of the poor, addicted and mentally ill.
That will never happen, but my next solution would be to have everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about to just shut up!!!

This is ridiculous

So Donald Trump and Rosie are having a public hissy fit. For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would care. But surprisingly, (or not so, if you are a cynic) more people are interested in this than anything else going on in the country.

How pathetic. And yes, they too have the right to vote.

Look for the Union Label?

Some may know (but most don't care) that I have signed on with the State Office of the Public Defender. The program went fully active on last July 1st. However, prior to becoming active, public defenders in both Missoula and Billings (who were county employees) held a vote to determine who would be the union that represents us at the state level. So, I never had a chance to vote for a union that was brought in before the enactment of my job, and now I will have to pay dues to said union. WTF?
I find it ridiculous that lawyers have unions. I am a professional, in that I exercise a skill for the best interests of my client, without regard for outside pressures. I am a member of a group that requires specialized training, and required me to pass a test and to be examined and found worthy first, in order to exercise my skills. Skills that the majority of the public are prohibited from doing.
What I want to know, though, is what in the heck is this union going to do for me? Are they going to say that I have too heavy of a caseload, and that if management doesn't reduce it we will go on strike? Let me tell you, the courts can and will impose punitive sanctions for failing to do my job, even if the union does call a strike. What about if some other union is picketing the courthouse, am I going to be allowed to cross the picket line? And if I don't who goes to jail for failure to represent my client?
As i understand it, we are supposed to be having a decertification vote next June. I can hardly wait.

This is too funny

Click on this link if you are a blogger, or read blogs.

I love the part about "written by fools, to be read by idiots."

The problem with ideology

Meagan McCardle lists her disappointment with PIRG work as the basis for her turning from liberal to libertarian. I think that the future of libealism (as opposed to Leftism) is going to be libertarianism. The reason for this is the difference between ideology and values.
For the most part, I have always believed that all human organizations become so large and unwieldly, that they begin to destroy the very reasons for their creation, in order to continue their existence as they perceive it needs to be. One of the examples cited in her comments was unions paying sub minimum wage to protest Wal-Mart wages, which are above minimum wage already.
The only organization that I can think of which hasn't fallen into this trap is the US Army. Upon relfelction, I think that is because the Army trains to accomplish something that it hopes will never happen. So, you have an orgainzation that seems to be doing something pointless. While some may argue that because it is pointless, it should not be done, I would argue that is pollyanish at best, and extremely dangerous at worst. Pure pacifism requires surrender to anyone immoral enough to demand it and willing to employ force to accomplish it. This is a surrender of your basic values for the purpose of upholding those values. A worthy contradiction, don't you think?
But getting back to the Army. The thing that held it together was called the Army values. These were (I am sure that they have been massaged since I was in) Courage, Candor, Commitment and Excellence. Each and every soldier regardless of rank or responsibility was expected to hold each of these values and to base all of their actions on these same values. If you look at the listed values, they are all fuzzy. Any MBA would find them inadequate for Management by Objective, but their fuzziness actually made them stronger. If you were to err, you would always err on the side of the decision that was closest to the Army values as understood by the group as a whole. Technicalities were not allowed. The only thing that mattered were did you accomplish the mission, not how hard you tried, or how well you meant, just did you do the job. The reason for this is that accurate information is a life or death matter in this type of job.
When I was teaching the Leadership course in ROTC, I always used the example of a tank platoon that was crossing a river in Korea during that war. The engineeer in charge of blowing the bridge asked the lieutenant of the tanks if he was the last of the Americans. The lieutenant thinking that with all of the fighting he had been doing said "Yes I am." So the engineer blew the bridge, and when the smoke cleared, there was an American infantry unit stranded on the other side of the river.
The moral of the story is that the lieutenant conveyed false information. Not that he meant to, but that he didn't know better. If he would have said "I've been fighting them all the way here and haven't seen any other Americans," that would have been an accurate statement, but different from his being the last Americans.
Values are something that has to be spread throughout and organization. Ideology can be a basis for forming values, but ideology can also destroy values. (I am doing this for the good of the cause.) If you have good basic values, your actions will always be moral and just. If you have a good ideology, your values will fall by the wayside whenever they conflict, because ideology is more important.
I would rather people with strong values lead than strong ideology. I can trust people with values to do the right thing. I can trust people with strong ideology to do whatever is needed to propagate that ideology as they perceive it.

I'm Baaack

Football season is now over, and once again I can concentrate on something other than my beloved Grizzlies, at least until September. I apologize for the lack of posting, but nothing seemed as interesting to me until now.

On Income Redistribution

Matt of Left in the West is decrying the fact that some people actually have the temerity to be rich!! Oh the nerve of some people.
This reminded me of an interview I saw on Fox News Sunday where Barney Frank was being interviewed and was asked if it was alright for the government to take wealth from one group and give it to another. Rep. Frank was pointing out that the top echelons are amassing more wealth than ever before. This would be a legitimate problem if and I mean only IF it was due to some government policy. But I know of no such policy. Instead, it just seems to be "unfair."
Why is it the role of government to forcibly sieze wealth from one group to give to another? What moral or legal basis would allow, much less condone such robbery? I am at a loss for an explanation.
I know that some have argued that the rich have too much and the poor have too little. Okay, why is that a problem for governmental intervention? Again, I am at a loss.

It's already started!

I have thought for some time now that the biggest loser in the last Senatorial election after Conrad was Max. As 4&20 points out he is even more vulnerable than I thought.
The problem for Max has always been that he is a Democrat for four years, then moves decidedly into the middle right before election. If he fails to implement the Netroots agenda, I think that they will be looking for a Lefty champion to take him on in the election. I think they feel confident because of Tester winning, and are using this as a justification to knock Max off just like they did to Morrison.
As I have long said, never believe your own propaganda. I think that the electorate went with Tester as a general disgust with Republicans as a whole. However, it was still pretty close in the final vote. And Matt notwithstanding, I think that there is a more conservative streak in Montana than the last election showed. With the Democrats now in charge in both Washington and Helena, they will have to produce in order to keep their seats.
So far, I have not seen the kind of maturity that would require. Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party ran on the strong platform of "We're not Republicans!" And it seemed to have worked for them. With Republicans in the minority, I don't see how that will be useful in '08.
The rumor mills are swirling with Denny running to take Max's seat in two years. I think that this is an excellent opportunity to ressurrect my campaign to have Dave Budge elected to the House.
We were looking at this earlier last Spring, when Denny was unwilling to rein in the profligate spending that gives Drunken Sailors a bad name. Timing is everything, and even if Dave had won, he would probably have been discarded like so many other Republican candidates. Now, the political fortunes are starting to look better.
I have met with Dave when we were discussing it, and Dave wanted me to know that he has a less than perfect past. I think some might have even called it flawed. I disagree, flawed means that you are still broken. I prefer to think scarred. Scars are the result of healing. You are tougher and stronger around a scar then you were before.
The time is coming, and we all need to keep our powder dry until January 2008, when Dave will be urged by all of us other scarred individuals to run and save the country. Or at least keep it from destroying itself.

Do You Feel a Breeze?

The above link is to a pretty good discussion about Rep. Rangel's call to reinstate the draft. Earlier, I had snarkily asked about Rangel bringing back the draft, and now he is talking about doing it.
I do not understand the political logic of this at all. Does he think that they can ram it through both houses of Congress when they become in charge? Even if he did get majorities in both houses, he is going to give Bush a bright shiny wrapped present, when GWB vetoes it, in order to protect the military and America's youth.
These Democrats, I don't understand them, but they sure to provide a certain level of comedic relief.

Social Conservatives vs. Libertarians

At the link is a speech by McCain that was interesting.
When you look at the margin that Conrad lost by to Tester, then look at the number of votes given to the Libertarian candidate, I am sure that Conrad is now wishing he would have courted us more. Of course, this is not to say that Libertarians would necessarily have voted for Conrad to begin with. In fact, it could be argued that the jump in the Libertarian vote was really more of a "None of the Above" kind of vote.
While some in the Republican Party are blaming their losses on the Libertarians, it has to be because they have taken us for granted for too long. There is a natural affiliation with the ideals of the Republican Government: i.e. Small government, fiscal conservatism, which is why the two parties have worked together in the past.
However, the present day Republican Party seems to have abandoned those principles and with it us. They had taken to spending like mad in an effort to try and maintain popularity with the voters by essentially paying them off.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, this abandonment of principles has cost them our support. Unfortunately for Libertarians, our voting clout is so much smaller than that of the Social Conservatives.
Social Conservatives have found themselves ostracized from the Democratic Party. One recent comment that I enjoyed is that Democrats who support right to life are considered moderates, while Republicans who support right to life are extremists. But Social Conservatives are in many ways the complete opposite of Libertarians.
If the fundamental essence of Libertarianism is the right to be left alone, the fundamental essence of Social Conservatism is that the world is going to Hell in a Handbasket, and only the Government can stop it.
Part of this is a reposne to the Courts taking on non-legal political issues, and the government is the only check and balance to a court exercising authority over what is a purely political question. Nonetheless, whether justified or not, their goals would conflict with our ideals for the most part. Since they are antithetical, and there are so many more of them than there are of us Libertarians, the Republicans may be drawn to the idea of tossing us overboard in order to keep the larger number of social conservatives.
So, what is a good Libertarian to do? I hate to admit it, but I think that we will need to try and work harder with the Republicans in order to corrall the courts. If we can convince the Republicans, and through them the public as a whole, that the courts need to butt out of social engineering, the social conservatives would have no reason to complain, nor to manipulate the Republican party any longer.
A Win - Win for all.