The Gantry Launchpad

The Great Sled-Safety Cover-up

Meryl Yourish thinks that safety helmets aren't enough for sledders. I agree.

Not only do we need mouth guards and eye protectors, we need to do something about those bloody unsafe metal runners! Yep, it's all fun and games until someone loses a finger...

My proposal is to replace metal runners with Nerf runners. This follows in the footsteps of other great ideas like Nerf footballs, Nerf frisbees, and Nerf dartguns. Mind you, the kids won't go very fast with Nerf runners on their sleds, but isn't that all to the good? God forbid someone might get hurt having fun.

Will Smith, credulous fool?

This mindless bit of dreck has caused a bit of a stir by claiming that Will Smith said "Hitler was a good person." What stands out to me is that anyone actually reading the article should immediately realize that there were no actual quotes to that effect.

Word to the wise folks: look for the quote marks. If you don't see them, then the reporter is making things up.

Eugene Volokh, Ilya Somin, and Dave Price all agree that Smith never said anything resembling the quote attributed to him.

Mr. Price seems to think that Smith displayed a certain degree of naivety for his general point of view, while the Volokh Conspiracy writers limited their skepticism to the idea that someone like Hitler could be "reprogrammed" or psychologically reshaped; a position with which I agree.

Smith's general point rang a bell with me, and it bothered me for a bit. For quite a while I've held to the belief that no one sees themselves as evil, but I couldn't recall the seed of that belief. Then it hit me: Heinlein, naturally!

Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate--and quickly.

While the second part of that directive might prove problematical, I prefer Heinlein's formulation, especially his use of the word "villain" as opposed to "evil."

So maybe Will Smith isn't quite so naive after all.

Fred Thompson Facts...

This should go along nicely with the last post about the Fred bumper sticker.

Frank Facts about Fred Thompson.

Some of my faves:
* Fred Thompson has on multiple occasions pronounced "nuclear" correctly.

* Fred Thompson has blasted more people in the face with a shotgun than even Dick Cheney.

* Every night before going to sleep, Osama bin Laden checks under his bed for Fred Thompson.

* Though Fred Thompson left the Senate in 2003, Harry Reid still hasn't stopped wetting his pants.

* Fred Thompson's gaze can kill small animals.

* Fred Thompson once ended a filibuster by ripping out a Senator's heart and showing it to him before he died.

* Fred Thompson's sense of strategy is so great that he can checkmate you using only a pawn and a knight.

* Fred Thompson can know both the exact position and momentum of a particle. Furthermore, he knows Schroedinger's cat is dead because he personally strangled it.

Best Bumper-sticker to date!

Will Collier, over at Vodkapundit, has ID'd the best slogan to date for Fred Thompson.

Hell, I forgot he was even in that movie; it's been too long!..

John Edwards: Never Give Up, Never Surrender!

(apologies for the Galaxy Quest quote, but it seemed appropriate.)

I've been following the debate over John Edward's decision to keep running, including over at Dean's World. Since that thread seems to reflect some of the "real world," I'll ground my comments from that thread.

First up we have Arnold Harris, who says

If Elizabeth Edwards were my wife, with terminal breast cancer, I would not leave her immediate presence -- except for the obvious and vital sanitary purposes -- for as long as she could live.

I sure as hell would put aside every other activity.

I feel sorry for the former senator, even though I would not want him for US president. I feel sorry for his family. I feel sorry for his beautiful and gracious wife.

Well, Arnold, you -in spite of you very kind words- aren't John Edwards, are you ? Nor am I you.

Which is my point, really. This truly is a personal decision, one which pretty much by definition will be different for each person, as they are different people.

I have to say I have trouble understanding those who espouse the "can he still run the country" thread. Do these people think he'll just fall into an incoherent puddle if/when his wife dies? Have they been watching too many cheesy movies on the Lifetime channel?

Let's shift the question just a little. The personal pressure a recovering alcoholic faces every day is tremendous, because every day is a new challenge all over again. And it will be that way for the rest of their lives.

My question is: do you think someone who faces that kind of day-to-day emotional pressure can handle the job of President of the United States?

I hope -if you answered "yes"- that you didn't vote for Dubya, since he is in fact a recovering alcoholic, and will be so for the rest of his life.

Let's look at another facet: the men and women who have a spouse in Iraq or Afghanistan. Should we expect that each and every one of them to collapse into a futile heap of emotional goo if their spouse dies? From what I've read and heard, just about all of them (Cindy Sheehan excepted) have managed to master the pain & grief, and get on with their lives.

...How odd it is that I am on the same side as mikeca on this one. :))

I am reminded of the old question: would you rather have a long life, or a glorious one? Or -to rephrase the latter- would you go out fighting?

...Hmmm. How many of you critizing Edwards have seen (and loved! {g}) 300 yet? You know the drill: death before surrender; glory; fight for what you believe in... whoops, isn't that what the Edwards are doing?

Right now I'd like to cite the excellent Captain Ed on this. By way of context, his wife (the lovely First Mate) has faced several health challenges the past few years.

It's a tough call for Edwards to make, and it's tough to criticize it either way. I think it's fair to say that Elizabeth has invested herself pretty deeply into John's campaign up to now, and she probably strongly resisted a suspension in the campaign. If this is what will keep her spirits high, then Edwards made the right decision.

All I can offer is my own perspective. My wife has had a number of chronic illnesses and acute crises, such as the one ongoing now, and one simply cannot stop living life or making a living. That being said, it usually helps to stay closer to home and family, just for one's own peace of mind. Edwards might find himself distracted on the campaign trail, and nagging issues might get blown out of proportion as he gets frustrated with the stress. ...

Edwards has the good fortune to have a fortune, so he can keep his family close while on the campaign trail. If he can balance the needs of his family with a presidential campaign, then he's made the right decision. I'm not hoping he succeeds in his political ambitions, but I do hope he stays strong for his family and that Elizabeth can remain as healthy as possible from now on.

Bottom line, that's it; we need to keep Elizabeth & John Edwards in our prayers, respect his (and her) decision, and base our votes as sane adults.

CODA: Joe Gandelman has an excellent round-up, as well as a truly heart-breaking wedding photo of the Edwards. I defy you to look at that picture, and not shed a tear...

Ann Coulter stars in Jackass 3

I used to enjoy at least some of Ann Coulter's work. When she kept out of the gutter she could be inventively witty and genuinely funny.

Alas, she has become more and more hatefully unpleasant.

The most recent incident (courtesy of Captain Ed) involves calling John Edwards a faggot.

I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab.

That's bad enough. What's worse is that many in the audience actually applauded her! In fact a couple of commenters on Captain Ed's post tried to defend her. Sheesh. Thank God there are classy conservative folks like Ed who are willing to call Ms. Coulter out on her hateful remarks.

This is the sort of vicious, mindless drivel that convinces the rest of the world that conservative Republicans really are a bunch of mindless homophobes, no matter the reality. I think the Human Rights Campaign has it about right when Joe Solomonese said

We demand that every single Presidential candidate in attendance at this conference, along with Vice President Cheney stand up and publicly condemn this type of gutter-style politics,” continued Solmonese. “If not, then their silence will be deafening to the vast majority of Americans who believe this type of language belongs no where near the discussions about the future of our country.”

...Michelle Malkin is also disgusted, and recalls last year's Ann Coulter on "ragheads."

This is exactly the kind of crap which can drive independents such as myself away from Republican candidates. I've known and worked with gays/lesbians for over thirty years in local music, theater, and other areas, and (here in the midwest) they're pretty much like straights. It's just that their compass points in a different direction. One lesbian couple I know own a home, and want nothing more than to get married and raise a kid. How Republican is that!?

Sorry, Annie; you have now been officially defined an Idiotarian by the Gantry Launchpad Mission Control.

My experience in Ohio voting

Just got back from errands and voting; I live in John Boehner's district in Ohio.

I was surprised to see so many cars there at just before six o'clock. The sole "activist" (in favor of a local county levy to increase mental-health funding) out front told me it had been busy all day.

It turns out one of the reasons was the new voting machines. Yep, I finally got to vote electronically. My personal preference is for paper ballots, but this system seemed to work well.

First I had to provide identification, something new for Ohio. The nice ladies at the polling station told me the requirement wasn't restricted "official" IDs such as state of Ohio ID, or even a photo ID such as a driver's license.. All that is required is a valid document with your correct name and address on it. One woman brought in her checkbook, and the the nice ladies told me a phone bill and/or electric bill were equally acceptable.

This impresses me as a healthy compromise which helps eliminate vote fraud while not placing an undue burden on citizens.

Since this was the first time using electronic voting machines, folks (understandably) took a bit longer to make sure they got everything right. I know I made a point of double-checking everything.

Another time-sponge was the fact that the "ballot" was 14 pages long. Yep. 14 pages. There were some Ohio constitutional amendments (proposed raise of the minimum wage), as well as local and county amendments which took up most of that space. Whoops, almost forgot to mention the idiotic proposed state amendment to further ban smoking in "public" areas. Feh. I read through that one twice, to make sure I voted correctly (I'm agin it. {g}).

The process went as follows: I gave them proof I was really me, signed the register (which included a scan of my signature from the last election), and waited in line.

When my turn came, I got some sort of smartcard to activate the machine. I inserted the card as instructed, and was puzzled by the lack of activity on the screen. Just before I decided to ask for help, I saw small notice next to the card receptacle which instructed me to push the card in until it "clicked." Ah, that was it! Can't say if that was bad ergonomics, or me just staring at the screen and nothing else. Heh.

The screen itself was (didn't think to measure it at the time) roughly 18" high and about 12" wide. Easy to read; nice and big. To my mind the instructions were pretty clear. Touch the box next the person you wish to vote for, or the box yes/no, depending on your choice for a referendum. The instructions pointed out there was a help button at the bottom of the screen, as well as "forward" and "back" buttons (with arrows). There were also options to change the contrast and type size to aid visually-challenged voters.

Voting itself was straightforward, and closely followed the earlier punch ballots I've used in previous Ohio elections. Just touch the box next to the name of the man or woman for whom you are voting. A feature I liked was that the Republican and Democratic candidates were clearly labled as such; I don't know if that's common across the country, but it helps avoid confusion similiar to that apparently suffered by some voters in Florida back in 2000. Just look for the Democrat or the Republican, and press the appropriate box. Simple.

As I said, there were very large and easy-to-read "forward" and "back" buttons at the bottom of the screen. I was immediately reminded of a web browser. In fact, I used them several times, as I find "legal" language rather obscure, so I prefer to go over proposed amendments very carefully to ensure I understand just what a "yes" or "no" vote does.

Overall, the ability to navigate the ballot seemed -to me- more than adequate, and the options to validate your vote worked well. Once I finished my ballot, my selections were presented in pages (or screens, if you prefer); three if I recall. The instructions told me to carefully review each page, and go back (via the "back" button) if I had made any mistakes. Once I was satisfied with that page, I pressed a "commit" button (don't recall the actual word), and a hard copy of that page was printed on a log which resembled a grocery-store receipt, except that I couldn't access it. I could, however, read it quite nicely through a window. For example, my vote for governer showed Ken Blackwell [X], and so on.

Once I approved that page of choices, I went to the next; again I saw a summary on the screen of my votes, pressed "commit," then saw the hardcopy log of my vote, which allowed me to double-check the result.

After I went through three pages (or screens) to review I was presented with a screen saying, basically, "Ok, once you press this button your vote will be logged. If you want to make ANY changes, do so now!" So I pressed the final button, and Bob's your uncle.

One suggestion I would offer is ejecting the smartcard from the holder once the voter has pressed the final "I'm done" button, as additional feedback that voting has been completed. It would provide a useful ergonomic signal.

After that I removed the smartcard and returned it to the registrars, then bothered the nice ladies with more questions. When I asked what would happen if I had pressed "commit," then realized I had been an idiot and mucked up my ballot, they told me a voter had three chances to "re-do" their ballot, if I understood them correctly. I'm not sure if that meant I had three chances at that final "commit," or three chances to go back and fix things at the final review stage. Since (as I mentioned above) they were still busy at the time I didn't want to waste any more of their time.

All in all I found the system to provide more than adequate options to both review and correct my choices, especially the viewable hard copy as a paper-trail backup. Then again -full disclosure- I'm a college grad and a techno-geek. On the gripping hand my own preference is for paper ballots with X's as advocated by the Instapundit. I believe that's the most effective route if your highest priority is eliminating voter fraud and confusion. I don't think the extra day it would take counting the ballots; isn't that a trivial price to pay?

A closing note: when I queried the nice ladies at the polls, they said our precinct was busier than in 2004. Hmm...

Buchanan finally shoots self in mouth with foot

GayPatriotWest cites Pat Buchanan's latest idiot remark, and makes a strong case that the Patster shouldn't be considered a conservative any more.

Good stuff. Go read it.

Witch calling the cauldron black

Scott Kirwin manages to generate some light and heat over Ann Coulter's latest faux pas, when she disrespected the so-called "Witches of East Brunswick."

First, let me address the bottom-feeders who think it's funny to disrespect Ms. Coulter for her appearance: you are vile, superficial slugs. Cracking on someone's appearance has nothing to do with their argument, and that's the way I've always fought my (rhetorical) battles. Except for Micheal Moore. So, I'm not perfect...

The people who talk about Ann's height, "skinny ass," or imply that she's "really a man" (or in drag) are just as crass, superficial, and cruel as the people who crack on Condi Rice's color, teeth, "big nose," or other features just because they don't like her politics.

Those creatures -whether left or right- who have nothing better to criticize are some of the worst kind of bottom-feeders around. Why? Because their very arguments demonstrate their complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy. If the best you can come up with is cracking on how someone looks, how they talk or who they fuck; you ain't got nothin' to say to me.

Remedial rhetoric, people: attack the idea,, not the person.

Which mistake Ms. Coulser has, in fact, committed herself in this case. She has gone way past attacking these ladies' ideas, to attacking their very souls.

There are few worse crimes than betraying the one you solemnly swore to "love, honor, and cherish," which is exactly the crime with which Ms. Coulter has charged them. She seems to think that the four widows of East Brunswick have cheerfully traded in their husbands, their soulmates, the father(s) of their children, for the cheap coin of paltry political advantage.

Shame, shame upon you, Ann Coulter! What right do you have to accuse those former wives (now widows) of crass calculation? Is is, perhaps, the only political coin you understand?

Lest the hasty accuse me of moonbattery, I state here that I consider the public, political statements of those four women the worst sort of foolish tripe. Their political positions are emblematic of a silly and banal opposition.

That said, neither I, nor anyone else in this country has the "moral authority" to condemn them as human beings, or (in some ways worse yet) as wives and mothers.

Think about it; is it a good thing, to accuse these women of ENJOYING the loss of their lifemates, just to they might gain their "15 minutes of fame?" How does this compare to those on the virulently-unthinking Left who claim the military families are ignorant, unthinking dupes of the ChimpyMcHitlerBusHalliburton regime?

How would you, the generic supporter of the "War on Terror" react if the moonbats gleefully accused one (or more) of the Gold Star mothers of enjoying their celebrity? No, really?

No, Ms. Coulter has not only crossed the line, in this case she has obliterated it. All of us, left or right, Republican or Democrat, have an obligation to console, care for, and respect those who have suffered loss for the greater good. We have, in fact, a greater obligation: to confront the ideas with which we disagree, and not the people.

There have been far too many instances where both sides have "jumped the shark" since 9/11. Don't believe me? Ask Cynthia "Bush knew" McKinney. Or perhaps you should talk to Fred "God hates Fags (as well as American soldiers)" Phelps. Or perhaps you should talk to Ann "All liberals are traitors" Coulter...

This episode has provided our citizens with the opportunity to say "Enough is enough! No more 'hippies are traitors,' no more 'Bush is the AntiChrist;' come, now, let us reason together. (Isaiah 1:18)"

Comet to hit earth, Bush to blame...

You just can't make this stuff up!

A former French military air traffic controller says a fragment of Comet Schwassman-Wachmann will hit the earth in two weeks.

Better yet, it's all Bush's fault:

He concludes the May 25 event is tied in to the Bush administration's policy of preemptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran, and the effect of nuclear weapons on the realms of higher intelligences.

First Katrina, then this. What's next?

DAYS SHORTEN, LEAVES FALL OFF TREES, BUSH TO BLAME!!

A big thanks to Professor Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy for the original link.

How is the "Culture of Corruption" incubated?

I originally put this up in February 2005; I find it to be even more relevant today. Please note that I have taken the opportunity to add some detail wherein I felt the original occasionally lacked.

Any party that reigns unchallenged for a long period of time tends to become corrupt. Acton once said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Analog editor John Campbell once said that he would change that to "unchallenged power corrupts absolutely." I think that this is largely true.

A review of the political history of the United States does not indicate much Federal corruption for the first eighty-plus years of our existance. This is true mainly for two reasons: the Federal government lacked the political power it has today, and it controlled a far smaller percentage of the national income. Recall that tariffs were the main sounce of income for most of the 19th century; hence their importance for the Civil War-era politicians.

For at least a generation after the Civil War, the GOP reigned supreme over the United States, damn near literally. A single act sufficed, generally, to quell any possible Democrat upstart: waving the bloody shirt; a phrase introduced at this time by actually waving a bloody, torn shirt supposedly taken off of the body of a man flogged by unreconstructed Rebels in the South.

The Republicans could taint any Democrat with the slur of "traitor" until the Spanish-American War, wherein the old hostilities finally ended.

This granted the Republican Party nearly unchallenged political power for a good generation. This tends to explain the degree of corruption found in Republican politics of the time, from Grant on forwards. True, the method was frequently financial, but the goal was political.

What financial corruption which existed in the Federal government at the time was related to private corporation influence (rail companies especially) who bribed representatives to allow said corporations to literally charge all the traffic could bear, whether product was coal, clothes, machinery, food, or transportation.

Basically political influence was seen (by the corporations) as a legitimate method of maintaining a laissez-faire economy. In other words, controlling Washington, DC, was a means to an end, as opposed to an end in itself.

The Democrats, stymied by the perennial charge of treason and lacking a great leader, found little to lead with until the emergence of the Populist movement just before the turn of the century. That movement gave them the first impetus to an appeal to populism which lasted through the 20th century. Note here the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, coincident with the emergence of Populist/Progressive political thought at the national level. The amendment didn't effect any major political changes until the Second World War induced a tremendous increase in spending.

Woodrow Wilson managed to touch many Americans with his idealism, but he ultimately failed as a political leader. It fell to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to bring the populist message into the mainstream of Democratic thought, and his skills allowed the Democrats to regain their supremacy for the first time in over seventy years.

FDR melded together a �party of underdogs,� as it were; all those who weren�t part of the dominant party were attracted to the opposition. By 1932, this included the great majority of Americans, especially after the Crash of �29�

-An aside: This narration falsifies the hoary old myth that the GOP is the party of rich people. The GOP didn�t cater to, or target to rich men; rather rich men became so because they joined the Republican Party, which had been dominant for seventy years. This �again- illustrates the principle that any group or organization will become corrupt in the absence of any major external challenge.-

Let us return to FDR. His first two terms were marked by a return of optimism and hope to American political life (one of my favorite quotes of the time comes from Will Rogers: �Even if he burnt down the White House, we can say �At least he got a fire started!�� ). The Republicans of the time, in the face of a resurgent Democratic Party, could only regurgitate the ossified slogans of the previous two generations. They could offer no new vision to challenge Roosevelt�s work.

-another aside: FDR has to have been one of the most vilified men to ever hold the Presidency, bar one. I would say that, in order, the five worst would be
1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Washington
4. Bush Jr.
5. Clinton

One may wish to swap FDR & Washington. Or Bush Jr. and Clinton, for that matter. :) -

What really infuriated Republicans was that FDR broke the unofficial, but hitherto sacred precedent of Washington�s �Two term limit.� Worse yet, he did so to the tune of humiliating majorities in both houses for two elections.

When you add to this his brilliant leadership in World War Two, the GOP looked, well, like a bunch of selfish contrarians. They were up against a smart politician with a healthy vision who played it smart in a major war. I imagine they were tempted to cry in frustration more than once� One is compelled to conclude that FDR is the most successful president to date, including Reagan, mainly because FDR accomplished far more domestically than did Reagan. Rooseveldt's performance lead to a Democratic Party domination of national political life greater than the previous GOP performance, although of shorter duration.

The Truman administrations can be considered as an extension of the Roosevelt, with the additional issues of �who lost what to the Communists,� and the accusations of corruption. When put together, the FDR/Truman administrations (1933-1953) introduced tremendously larger Federal budgets, as well as a greatly increased level of Federal intervention in both local politics and private citizens' lives. The impetus was the percieved need to address the Great Depression, then the Second World War, and finally the beginning of the Cold War. The result was a Federal government which provided the winning party access to monies and power hitherto unknown even to the British Empire.

By the 1952 election the Democratic Party had reigned unchallenged for twenty years. Eisenhower was elected for 2 major reasons: he led the Allies to victory in Europe, and he symbolized a return to a less corrupt polis.

I believe it is significant that Eisenhower was the only real challenge to Democratic Party primacy until the 1968 election, and even Nixon�s election was a reaction to the Democrat�s poor handling of the Vietnam War.

It wasn�t until the 1972 election (AKA the �Great Ass-Whup of �72�) that the GOP scored a major victory over the Democratic Party, as I count the election of 1968 as a negative reaction to the party in power, as opposed to a positive reaction to the party in opposition.

So, really, the Democrats enjoyed nearly unchallenged power from 1932 until 1972; 40 years. This beats the Republican Party domination of 1865-1895 (30 years). This may appear to contradict my earlier cite of 70 years, but that number includes both the early Republican supremacy as well as their less-powerful domination of the early 20th century.

Watergate and the end of the Vietnam War tended to confuse things for most of the 1970s, so I shall pass on the next few years -Ford was unelected, and Carter quickly dis-elected- except to note that the Reagan administration signaled a renaissance of the Republican Party. The question whether the Clinton administration was a hiccup in the face of new GOP supremacy for the early 21st century I shall leave for the diligent student. :) Both administrations were examples of a nearly-untouchable, popular president contending with an opponent-controlled Congress.

My conclusions are:
First: any party in a position of unchallenged power tends to ossify and become corrupt. This happens in other areas as well: American auto manufacturers in the 1970s, for example, or IBM before Microsoft stole their thunder.

Second: when challenged, the dominant party has trouble developing a new meme to suit new circumstances, including a crumbling power base and loss of dominance. An example would be the Republican emphasis on "normalcy" during the first part of the 20th century.

Third: the now-eclipsed party clings to outmoded memes because they have no new ideas: they look back to past greatness and �good times.� I cite the Democratic nostalgia for the ante bellum and the GOP obsession with socialists and financial propriety in the 1920s.

Finally: any renaissance of the now-eclipsed party must come from an outsider (vis: FDR and/or Reagan) as the insiders still cling to past glory.

It should be quite apparent that I consider the Democratic Party to be the current �now-eclipsed� party.

Most of the Democratic Party leaders look back to the halcyon times of the 1960s, when the counter-culture and rebellion were not only stylish, but sexy as well. Rock songs feted their actions, while news organizations hung upon every word.

This was the time of Watergate, and the Washington Post; when the Fourth Estate could bring down Presidents.

Modern leaders, alas, confuse popularity and accolades with leadership and vision. They fail to see that rebellion, per se, is not a virtue, and must be viewed in context.

The modern Democratic Party harks back to old days of glory, when Buffalo Springfield could sing �must be a thousand people / in the streets,� and everyone knew that the government was after, well, everyone. Considering Nixon�s paranoia, this was not too far off the mark.

The problem is that Nixon�s dead, and Vietnam�s over. African-Americans have made great strides in economic as well as political terms, and even the gay-lesbian community has advanced their agenda to the point where gay/lesbian marriage is now considered a mainstream political issue, instead of something that only freaks and perverts worry about.

The problem is that the Democratic Party �as a party- has run out of traditional issues.

I do not claim that America no longer has any social issues, any more than I would claim that (as some have said) that history ended with the fall of Communism and the Soviet Union. I will claim that the issues we do face are exacerbated by Federal intervention, not ameliorated. Perhaps we should turn away from the governmental Goliath, and turn to the multitudinal Davids.

I will also say that, in this context, it becomes understandable why Democratic Party stalwarts fall back on hyperbole and ad hominem attacks on the Bush administration; they have no relevant new arguments to put forward as an alternative; only more of the "same old" from the past fifty years.

I conclude that the Democratic Party members, and all American citizens, need new memes, and new social paradigms to discuss modern challenges in a relevant way.

Otherwise we face the possibility that the GOP will be able to reign unchallenged for yet another generation, to the detriment of our country. Note that this is not an attack on the Republican Party; merely an observation that both parties are subject to the corruption of unchallenged power.

Who will be the next William Jennings Bryant, and (more important) who will be the next paradign-shifting FDR, or Reagan?

POSTSCRIPT:
In the fourteen months since I originally wrote this, the Republican leaders in Washington, DC have become a living oxymoron: leaders who won't lead. While the Democrats are stuck in the 60s, the Republicans are stuck in some bizarro never-never land where the aquisition and retention of political power have trumped all other considerations.

UPDATE: Thanks to John of Argghhh!!! for the link, and welcome fellow Denizens...

Linked to the Mudville Gazette Open Post May 9, 2006.

Legal "mumbo jumbo"

A recent thread on Dean's World induced this post, and I haven't even had the chance to read to read the Reaon Foundation article to which Dean originally linked, yet. Heh.

What sparked my post was bad reasoning, assumed beliefs about illegals (how they get paid, whether they "steal" jobs from Americans), blithering about what's "fair" or "right," and several magnificent posts by the inimitable Arnold Harris.

My thougts, as follows:

For those of you hyperventilating about "lost taxes," try investigating how hard it is to create and run a small business in the US today. Even a local drive-through has to take out fed, state, and FICA taxes before paying an employee.

Paul S. repeats a popular argument, but one that lacks force. I can testify from personal experience that -while there are jobs Mexicans will do that Anglos won't- the workers aren't paid less. Go to damn near any restaurant in America, and you'll find managers who will hire anyone willing to work hard at well above minimum wage. In fact, many Mexicans expect more exactly because they are willing to work so hard.

Paul is, of course, perfectly free to contradict my position by providing facts to the contrary. :)

Arnold (as usual) does a magnificent job defining the problem. While I don't agree with every word, the gist is inarguable.

Jeffrey: go back and read what Arnold actually said. Then read up on the coastal states (New York city especially comes to mind) who hire thousands of staffers just to print ballots in Spanish, or the bi-lingual teachers who psychotically resist English immersion techniques for first-generation kids. There is a large (and growing) group which expects to dispense with the tradition assimilation process. Ever hear of Aztlan?

In fact, Jeffrey really blows it later when he confounds the American expectation just to learn English with bigoted European attempts to preserve the "purity" of their culture. He obviously misses (or is unaware of) the tradition that one becomes an American by renouncing the old country. One chooses to become an American, which is exactly what the new-generation relativists are objecting to.

It occurs to me that Jeffrey is completely unaware of hoary old tradtion of native resistance to cheap immigration labor. Does "No Irish need apply" ring a bell? How about anti-China immigrations laws on the west coast in the late 19th/early 20th centuries? What about "a dollar a day is a white man's pay?"

So, no, the tradition has not always been open arms to new immigrants. But let us not confuse that with Arnolds (perfectly just) requirement that they become Americans first, and foremost. None of this "Aztlan," or "Europeans go home" crap.

And -apparently- Jeffrey believes laws of the United States are somehow optional. Tell me, Jeff, which laws do you follow? Do you do 80mph in a school zone? Or do you perhaps hump the underage high school girls you haven't killed with your car yet?

Or maybe you just gad about embezzling funds from honest citizens with get-rich-quick schemes?

Now, I don't think for a moment that Jeff does any of these things. The point here is that -while it is easy and emotionally satisfying to cavil about laws one doesn't approve of- this does not give anyone the right to summarily ignore those laws.

Yes, yes, I've heard of civil disobedience. I've also heard of the concept that one should be able to put forth a persuasive argument against any particular law before you start deliberately breaking it.

Even then, those who break a law in order demonstrate the moral, ethical, or legal bankruptcy thereof are obliged to face legal punishment, until such time as the law is changed.

Jeff seems to have trouble grasping the concept of sovereignty. In fact, his ignorance is breathtaking.

Just because Congress passes a law saying something doesn't make it something you have to agree with, or even obey.

The citizens of the United States have assigned to the House and Senate the right to pass such laws they find fit. We, as citizens, are then obliged to obey said laws. If we find them onerous or objectionable, we (again, as citizens) are obliged to vote out the old scoundrels, and vote in a new set who would change said laws. Until then, those laws are, well, legal, hence one is obliged to obey them.

Thats one of the ways things get fixed in this country, from the Boston Tea Party on up to those who ignored Prohibition.

Uh, no. The Tea Party was an act deliberately designed to inflame public opinion against the British authorities by a group of minority radicals. Also, those who ignored Prohibition (one assumes Jeff includes here the 20s gangsters as conscientious objectors) did not "fix" things. That was done by voting for FDR, who pledged to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment, which he did in a legal manner, not by ignoring it.

Voting rights for women? Passed new laws. Civil rights in the 60s? Passed new laws (and got old ones repealed or struck down). The pattern here is that legal action, taken in a court of law (or by passing new laws) is how one changes the status quo).

Neither you, nor any other citizen gets to ignore laws they find inconvenient, or with which they don't agree. You break the law, you suffer the punishment.

I hate to break it to you, but the fact that Mrs. Boser's little boy doesn't agree with the definition of "felon" doesn't mean a damn thing. A felon is one who has been convicted of a felony. If the representatives of the citizens of the United States passes a law calling illegal immigrants felons, then they're felons. QED. You want it changed? Run for office, vote for someone who agrees with you. Or shut up. There are nearly a third of a billion Americans, and they don't all agree with each other. The only way we avoid continual civil war is the (generally unspoken) contract that all citizens will abide by the law.

That's what the "rule of law" means. Defense of the sovereignty of this country is both ethical and legal. Please note that I have not expressed my own opinion about the poor buggers who've come north. That is to a great degree irrelevant, as is whining about what's "fair." "Fair" not an objectively arguable point; the concept is both subjective and analog. "Legal" is objective, and discrete. It is, in fact, binary.

I see Arnold has a follow-up post. I can add some specifics here. I won't mention the company I work for, but we do employ Mexicans. Apparently the rule is that holder of a valid green card who provides a SS# is assumed to be a valid immigrant. There is (again, apparently) no mandate to validate the SS#, and (perhaps more importantly) no mechanism to do so. FWIW, everyone -legal or not- gets city, state, and Federal taxes taken out, not to mention FICA and Medicare. As far as I know, this is true of practically any business in the United States which does not deal strictly in cash.

The irony here is that the statist liberals are the ones responsible for all the paperwork and regulations which help ensure that even illegals pay taxes... :)

It's not just Holocaust Denial, God Damn it!

One of the things which really irks me are historical hair-splitters who claim things like "Hitler was never democratically elected to power."

For all the Monday-morning-quarterbacking, Hitler was -in fact- legitimately elected to his defined job of Chancellor, according to the Weimar Republic.

And, despite the revisionist whining, the leader of the NSDAP followed all proper parilmentary rules and procedures while gaining the office of Chancellor.

The mistake the other parties made was that they expected Adolf to actually honor his promises.

What truly cemented the Nazi victory was a parlimentary vote to provide the Chancellor with a 1-year "emergency decree" of absolute power, which was allowed by the Weimar Constitution. That is what gave Hitler legitimacy.

The ultimate flaw was that German citizens trusted their rulers, not to mention what those rulers claimed. The very definition of American government has been, since the introduction of Federal power, has been the dispersion, dilution, and distrust of central power.

Despite the clamor in some quarters, Hitler gained power in a legitimate manner, in the same fashion that Oswald acted alone.

Sometimes ugly things happen, and you can't alibi them away, no matter how bad the flavor.

That said, Dean is entirely correct to state that incitement to riot is not protected speech.

In fact, John Irving nails it quite nicely. Claiming the Holocaust didn't happen is vile (but protected) speech. Saying "X did (or did not) happen, therefore we must attack Y" is not protected speech.

It's the difference between bitching about the New York Times publishing pictures of the "piss Christ," and burning down their central offices over the same question.

As I review, while I disagree with the contention that "Hitler was never democratically elected to power," it is entirely correct that Germany had a wide variety of speech-control laws in effect, and in fact Hitler was not allowed to speak in public for six or seven years after the Beer Hall putsch. We can all see how well those laws worked...

Hell, I live in Cincinnati: the city which is legally obliged to allow the Klan to put of a cross on Fountain Square at Christmas. It's not "racist;" the cross references Romans 12.

In other words, one (or more) groups had a hissy fit because the Klu Klux Klan wanted to put up a cross on Fountain Square with a Bible citation. Their objection? "It's the friggin Klan, guys!"

You see, that's the whole point of free speech. It's free. As in "ufettered," or "not officially controlled," or even "not according to what those in power consider appropriate."

In fact, while trying to recall which verse the "Cincinnati Klan cross" mentioned, I encountered a Cincinnati Post story which mentioned the "Black Fist, which has held protests against alleged police misconduct and racism, blame(s) the group which displays the menorah."

In other words, devout Jews displaying the menorah during a holy season are empowering racism. That's a "bad thing!"

Is it possible to find a better example of why "hate speech" laws are a bad idea?...

One of the more popular talking points on the right for the past couple of years involves mentioning that Wilson (the "idealist," "war to end wars" president) actually jailed anti-war commentators. Compare this to the Bush administration.

Despite all provocation, the Bushies haven't thrown people into jail just for criticizing them; Hell, if that were true, we wouldn't see any movies made for the next twenty years! Still, the liberals worry about suppression of speech.

And -in this case- the liberals are right. You can't (or shouldn't) throw someone in jail just because they said something you don't like, disagree with, or find morally/legally/politically/religiously objectionable.

If Andrew Sullivan wants to advocate unrestricted sodomy, that's his right. If Pat Buchanon wants to blame our war dead on faggots, that's his right. Even if he is a vile hypocrite...

If The Daily Kos wants to blame every unfortunate event in the United States of America on George W. Bush, that's their collective right; although I reserve the right to mercilessly ridicule them about it.

On the other hand, it's the God-given (er, apologies to the athiests out there {g}) right of every American citizen to make life a living Hell for our elected representatives, even if I don't agree with them, or they with me.

But, you see, that's the difference between Weimar Germany and classical America. They thought they had "throttled" and silenced Hitler. Hence, they were unprepared for his later popularity, and most politicians had no idea who they were dealing with. Most of them (most likely) would never have voted for that emergency decree, if they had a decent idea of his actual goals, publicly stated in Mein Kampf.

That's the bottom line. The function of free speech is to shine a bright light on every claim, every accusation, every statement made in the public arena. Only then can we contradict the obfuscation, misdirection, and unpleasant hatred of all stripes, whether from Ann Coulter, Ted Rall. Jimmy Carter, or Fred Phelps.

After all, only slugs fear the bright light of day, no?

UPDATE: added a link to Greyhawks excellent Daily Post.

Political Bon Mots

The ever-irrepressible Stephen Green links this New York Times article: Kerry Urges Alito Filibuster, but His Reception Is Cool, with the title What Do You Do With a Broken Party?

Ouch...

Fer chrissakes, Kerry literally phoned his objections in! From fracking Switzerland!! Does Frank J. know of this?

What is noteworthy about the Times article is the nearly uniformly negative vibe cast regarding Kerry's awkward attempts to promote a last-minute filibuster of Sam Alito. As they say in the boonies, "When you've lost the New York Times, you've lost," well, the mindlessly parochial urban upper-class vote.

But I'm sure there's a truly pithy quote regarding this in the boonies, somewhere...

The main reason I'm linking this -aside from the excellent "heads up" from Mr. Green- is this felicitous phrase:

In the space of 48 hours, the three top Democrats for 2008 proved themselves to have all the staying power of a nervous virgin on the set of a porn shoot.

I have to nominate this as the early front-runner of the 2006 Sweepstakes for exellence in phrase-coining. Or some such. ;)

Do these people really hate America?

Mary Madigan -on Dean's World- has been inspired by Neo-neocon to contemplate just why someone like Ramsey Clark would even think of legally defending Saddam Hussein. After all, Hussein is one of the worst sleazeballs down the pike since at least Idi Amin.

Does Clark hate his own country that much?

I think I have an answer.

It's very simple. Recall one of the basic elements of modern liberal mindset which has nothing to do with hating America, blue-collars, or anything else: the tendency to orient towards a morally binary ("all or nothing") point of view.

So, war is either inherently good or fundamentally evil. A law is either just and necessary, or corrupt and should be abolished. Any goal which is not perfectly just is -be definition- wrong.

Let us refer to an historical example, the Civil Rights movement. Anything which advanced the cause of black Americans was just, and proper. So any erosion of individual rights, states rights, or arrogation of power to the federal government was ignored. Their cause was just, hence any actions taken were just. Anyone who protested the steps taken were labled racists, no matter their reasons. This resulted in Barry Goldwater being lumped in with the Klan, since he was on the "same side" as the evil people.

You can see the same attitude today, which is frequently confused with "America hating," since both groups corrosively criticize the United States. The difference is that the haters are just that, while the "all or nothing" crowd use the following reasoning: The United States has committed an immoral/evil act (McCarthy, My Lai, Watergate, etc.), and is therefore evil.

First corollary is that America is just as evil as the USSR, Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Nicaragua, Cuba; take your pick.

Second corollary is that the US must persue a perfectly moral path in order to speak or act with moral authority. Since that's impossible, they regularly condemn America, no matter what America does.

This explains Clark, as well. Since he sees the world in morally binary terms, Hussein must be innocent or guilty; no "maybes." And -since a true liberal refuses to prejudge anyone, especially a lawyer- there must be a doubt about his guilt. Hence he is owed a true defense.

See? No hating, no deep, ulterior motives. Just a very simple worldview. One that is highly moral, within its precepts. Alas, those precepts far too simplistic.

Just in case any conservatives are tempted to pull a holier than thou attitude, let's recall the decades-long popularity of the Frankensteinian "communists bad, anti-communists good" mentality; no matter how much of a repressive, murdering rat bastard that anti-communist was.

ID debate, and who's in charge?

Foreword: Dean Esmay writes about A Voice of Sanity on Intelligent Design. After I finished writing this, I was surprised by my conclusions. As opposed to Dean, I'm agnostic, and believe there are "things on Heaven and Earth, undreamt-of in your philosophy." On the other hand, I still insist on scientific rigor when processing ideas.

So where does that leave me?

-Scott Kirwins says "Natural selection and Evolution has whethered[sic] 150 years of attacks and grown stronger with time."

So you've got the debate between steady-state evolution vs. catastrophic evolution all sussed out, Scooter? You'd better write Science and let them know! :)

Point being that there are many areas of uncertainty within the overall theory. Painting the basic theory as unassailable begs the question. We may find encounter data in the next fifty to one hundred years which calls at least some of the current assumptions into question. Einstein developed a theory which strongly altered Newtownian physics, but not until new data was introduced.

-JDS brings up various philosophical beliefs, 99% of which are utter twaddle. Compare the practical results of the last 2,000 years of philosophy, as opposed to the practical results of the last 200 years of science. Real science is easy to define: if you can't measure it, it ain't science. If it is science, you use mathematics for analysis.

Of course, this means that many areas called science, aren't, including psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and so on. You can call them studies, disciplines, or even areas of expertise. They just aren't science. JDS, alas, drops the ball with the claim "the value one places on science is, in itself, a philosophical view." Untrue.

Real science is -as I said above- measurable, repeatable, and subject to mathematical analysis. Real science (in fact) deals in objective, not subjective concepts. This is (as has been mentioned previously) why science cannot address the issue of God. There are no "God fossils" lying around, and He has been recently uncharitible in providing a convenient miracle to confound the skeptics. ;-) We are therefore forced to rely upon unpleasant facts, logic, and statistical analysis.

I would, therefore, like to take issue with Martin's remark that 'Scientists use statistics all the time to say: "This event is so statistically unlikely that we can dismiss it as impossible."'

That turns out not to be the case. An actual statistical analysis gives only one of two results: reject, or cannot accept or reject. I have to add that the latter is sometime referred to merely as "not reject," but I find that unclear, with an implication that "not reject" is equal to accept.

It works like this: one tests a hypothesis (say: smoking causes lung cancer) by creating a null hypothesis opposite to the starting hypothesis. In this case the null hypothesis would be "there is no connection between smoking and lung cancer." The next step would be in analyzing the statistics, which (the results have been established for years) show that there is a relation between smoking and lung cancer. We then reject the null hypothesis. This allows us to accept the original hypothesis, at least to the extent that we use further analytical techniques to further test it.

Please note that you can't use this approach to "prove" a hypothesis; the best you can do is not reject a hypothesis. You can view falsification as winnowing the scientific wheat from the inaccurate chaff.

I suppose I should point out here that a 90% level of confidence doesn't mean the research is 90% confident; rather it means that 90% of the time, the actual (as opposed to statistically estimated) value will fall within a specific interval. To take a common example, an approval rating of 35% [+-3%] for the president, with an established confidence level of 90%, means that 90% of the time the actual approval rating of the entire country will fall between 32% and 38%.

What most folks miss is the immediate corollary: 10% the actual value will fall outside of that range. This means that 10% of the time one (incorrectly) rejects the null hypothesis. For the above example, this would have meant that there was no relationship between smoking and cancer, despite the data indications.

This is known as a "Type I error:" incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis. A "Type II error" is when you fail to reject a null hypothesis. Again, note that a Type II error doesn't mean one has incorrectly proved a hypothesis, but merely that you failed to reject it. It is, in other words, not evidence to the contrary.

I just came across an interesting analogy while double-checking my memory: this is similar a court decision, wherein "guilty" is the definite rejection of a false hypothesis, and "not guilty" is failure to reject. Most people equate "not guilty" with "innocent," which are both legally and semantically different. One may fail to convict an actual criminal due to lack of evidence. One may fail to reject a false hypothesis for the lack of data.

What this boils down to is that -scientifically speaking- one may disprove a false hypotheses, but not positively prove a true hypothesis.

So those who say that any scientific theory -evolution, for example- has been "proven" are incorrect in their statement. It would be more accurate to say that the theory in question accurately explains the known data. Also note that I do not say that they are wrong, but rather inaccurate. A proper respect for science tends to instill respect for semantics as well. :)

This common confusion about statistics is also reflected in the common confusion about probability, as the study of any state with a lottery can attest. One of the more popular (bad) arguments is "argument by unlikelyhood."

You can even see this in political discussions, wherein one disputant makes the claim that event X was so improbable that it is only logical to assume that conspiracy/criminality/take your pick is the only possible answer.

The first problem with this is that these arguments never establish actual probability distributions before the fact, which begs the question. How unlikely is an event? Say someone rolls two dice 108 times. Furthermore, the roller gets "snake eyes" (two 1's) three times. An observer then immediately claims the dice are loaded, since there's such a low chance of rolling two 1's, which is non-quantitatively true. But an objective examination of the probability distributions shows that -in 108 throws of a pair of honest dice- one should expect precisely three sets of "snake eyes." This is a simple example. Generally, one must specify the probabilities before an event, not after.

Another area of confusion is trying to estimate after-the-fact probabilities. Our example: every US dollar bill has a serial number consisting of a letter, eight digits, and another letter, e.g. B11895196B. What are the odds of my having that particular dollar bill?

(For those completely unfamiliar with probability, the probability of a combination of statistically independent events is equal to the product of the separate events. In the above example, the probability of rolling "snake eyes" is 1/6 x 1/6 or 1/36. The probability of rolling three 1's with three dice is 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6, and so on. The probability of picking out two B's out of a bag of SCRABBLE tiles (assuming a single tile for each letter, and replacing the tile between picks) is 1/26 x 1/26, or 1/676, which is about 0.14%)

Someone who knows a bit about basic probability would reply "well, that's a series of independent probabilities, so you multiply 1/26 x 1/10 (6 times) x 1/26, and get 1/(26 * 1,000,000 * 26), or 1/676,000,000. Thus our math wizard answers that the author has a one out of nearly seven hundred million chance of having that dollar bill in hand. A very unlikely event, indeed!

There's only one problem with that: the actual answer is precisely 1.0.

How do you resolve this apparent paradox? Simple: the event has already occurred. That is, I already had the dollar bill in hand when I phrased the question! (Literally. I took one out of my wallet to get the example serial number.)

In other words, the probability of an event which has already occurred is always 1.0, or 100%. Therefore anyone who argues that event X (having already occurred) is suspect, because the event is statistically unlikely, is providing an argument which is statistically irrelevant.

...Which -now that I think about it- seems to shoot a pretty big hole in ID. Whoops. On the other hand, I doubt this would impress them very much, as they reject the classic definition of science I presented above, in terms of "real" science is that data which can be measured, analyzed, and reproduced. If you can't use the math, don't call it science.

Actually, if you go here, and read some of the arguments presented by the Discovery people, you'll find they're hyping philosophy over science, preferring metaphysical hot air (but I redund) over objective, measurable reality. Basically, they attack real science as "positivistic," and try to vitiate the elemental concepts of measurability, observability, and falsifiability.

Instead (assuming that Steve Meyer's article is representative of the whole) they try to make ID acceptable by formulating "philosophical" definitions of science which allow the introduction of supernatural intervention via appropriate definitions.

By the nineteenth century, attempts to distinguish science from non-science had changed. No longer did demarcationists attempt to characterize science on the basis of the superior epistemic status of scientific theories; rather, they attempted to do so on the basis of the superior methods science employed to produce theories. Thus science came to be defined by reference to its method, not its content. Demarcation criteria became methodological rather than epistemological.

(emphasis added) In other words, Meyer prefers the philosophical, subjective approach -arguing about "true" vs. "false' knowledge- as opposed to the modern, objective approach, which still relies on measurement and analysis, despite what he has to say about it, such as his complaint that Newton's laws did not "explain" gravity

First, many laws are descriptive and not explanatory. Many laws describe regularities but do not explain why the regular events they describe occur. A good example of this drawn from the history of science is the universal law of gravitation, which Newton himself freely admitted did not explain but instead merely described gravitational motion. As he put it in the "General Scholium" of the second edition of the Principia, "I do not feign hypotheses" -in other words, "I offer no explanations." Insisting that science must explain by reference to "natural law" would eliminate from the domain of the properly scientific all fundamental laws of physics that describe mathematically, but do not explain, the phenomena they "cover." For the demarcationist this is a highly paradoxical and undesirable result, since much of the motivation for the demarcationist program derives from a desire to ensure that disciplines claiming to be scientific match the methodological rigor of the physical sciences. While this result might alleviate the "physics envy" of many a sociologist, it does nothing for demarcationists except defeat the very purpose of their enterprise.

In other words, Meyer insists that a natural must explain the ultimate "why" of a process, as well as the process itself.

I could go on, but basically the above article (and again, by extension the ID position) relies on philosophy and fancy tap-dancing about definitions instead of science.

True, Carl Sagan once observed that the scientific process does include at least one metaphysical concept: the world is a rational place, and operates according to physical laws, which can be derived and comprehended by human beings. So far, that assumption has withstood examination.

The odd thing about this is that I have no theoretical objection to God, I just expect His works to follow the known laws we have derived from our (aha) God-given faculties. If you check up the Roman Catholic position these days, the Pope decided a few years ago that evolution was compatible with Christianity, as long as one posited some sort of "divine spark" inherent to the speciation of homo sapiens. It's gonna be bloody difficult to test the idea, though!

A major part of the confusion in this debate is, I fear, yet more confusion about terms. This isn't really about science, or the "philosophy about science" (what the fubar is that, anyway? how can you get philosophical about the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics?) It's about control of the political entities in our lives.

In this case, it is the question of who runs the local school. Is it the local community, the county, state, or federal authorities? Jerry Pournelle has repeatedly pointed out that the best answer to this question is to reduce authority to the smallest denominator; in this case the local school board. As the good doctor has pointed out, this will no doubt result in some very silly-looking reading lists, but that's the cost of liberty. The beauty of this approach is that 90% of the worthless dolts (er, politicians and lawyers) who interfere now, can't.

This isn't a case for the courts, nor even for the state legislature, as long as the school isn't breaking any laws. Certainly it's none of D.C.'s business.

The problem is that everyone likes to talk about liberty, but they hate to let other people exercise it. Simply put, the left breaks out in hives about "God in the classroom," while the right wets their pants about "sex in the classroom." Here's a new idea: let the parents decide. It's their kids, and it's none of our business. If you're that worried about it, work on your own kids first. If you don't have any, shut the Hell up, as it's literally none of yours.

The aftermath, and the bodyguard of lies, and no one's to blame...

Mary Madigan -while writing at Dean's World- recently quoted a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll to the effect that " 38 percent said no one is to blame" for the Katrina disaster.

Not to break up the mutual-congratulation party, but FEMA has come in for a bit of legitimate criticsm, including Republican reps in Congress.

Apparently Mike Brown's performance has underwhelmed more than a few folks who can't be called Bush-haters. Some folks have pointed out his absolute lack of anything resembling experience for his appointed position, while others say that his role is primarily ceremonial.

Either way I see no problem with shit-canning him. Even if he didn't screw up, it would be a tremendous confidence-builder for the nation.

For those who consider this somewhat harsh, I recommend dropping by Castle Arrgggh! and seeing what John has to say about all this, such as this:

And obviously, it doesn't look good for the people in charge. And I fault the people in charge.

John Derbyshire's arrogant ignorance kept pissing me off. Until I realized what I just said. Ignorance. Lack of knowledge. Derb isn't stupid, he's ignorant. And whose fault is that? Not his.

In order -

The Government of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, Governor. It was their job to get the ball rolling. The Federal government doesn't respond, by law, until the Governor asks them to. (If you think FEMA in their Ops Center at Weather Mountain wasn't already alerting you're wrong, but *acting* is governed by law).

The Federal Government, George W. Bush, President.

Because neither of them have got the Public Face of the Government getting out the info. Believe it or not, that, to my mind, is actually the Most Important Thing to be doing up front and early. Because the professionals will be handling the details of getting the response moving. That isn't the politicos job. Crying on camera is fine - as long as it's preceded or followed by "This is what we're doing, this is how we're going about it, and this is how we're coordinating for more help." Not just being stunned. Getting.Out.The.Word. Guys like me will be getting out the Stuff.

I think the President should have called off the California gig and headed for Washington.

WTF? Donovan is saying getting talking heads out putting out info is more important than Boots on the Ground, rescuing people and delivering aid?

Yes. That's what I said.

Why? Because Controlling The Perception of The Disaster in it's early stages will help shape the form of the follow-on actions. Guys, I've worked with FEMA. They're smart people and well-organized.

BUT IT TAKES 3-5 DAYS TO GET PEOPLE IN PLACE AND FUNCTIONAL. Minimum. Not the prepositioned people in the waiting-to-be-activated DFO, Disaster Field Office... the Outside Responders.

One solid criticsm I've heard re:FEMA is that they really should have anticipated a quick breakdown in New Orleans. After all, isn't the corruption of the "Big Easy's" government proverbially infamous by now?

In other words -for this city at least- the feds should have counted on an early breakdown, instead of surprised.

... While I was double-checking the links, I re-read an update by John here, where he seems to be coming around to that line of thought:

As I read through this - while I think NOLA screwed the pooch, they were hip-deep in water while they did it.

More and more, my jaundiced eye is looking at the Louisiana State government, especially it's Department of Homeland Security, as being damn near criminally negligent in the performance of their duties - and with the leading elements of the Federal response (to include the President) as being insufficiently sensitive to that fact.

(emphasis added)

For that matter, what would you call leaving one thousand first-responders (firefighters) hanging in Atlanta taking a sexual-harassment class instead of heading for New Orleans.

Instead, they have learned they are going to be community-relations officers for FEMA, shuffled throughout the Gulf Coast region to disseminate fliers and a phone number: 1-800-621-FEMA.

On Monday, some firefighters stuck in the staging area at the Sheraton peeled off their FEMA-issued shirts and stuffed them in backpacks, saying they refuse to represent the federal agency.

Federal officials are unapologetic. "I would go back and ask the firefighter to revisit his commitment to FEMA, to firefighting and to the citizens of this country," said FEMA spokeswoman Mary Hudak.

Me, I would go back and ask Mary Hudak to "revisit" my rear end, but hey, that's just me talkin'...

The firefighters - or at least the fire chiefs who assigned them to come to Atlanta - knew what the assignment would be, Hudak said.

One fire chief from Texas agreed that the call was clear to work as community-relations officers. But he wonders why the 1,400 firefighters FEMA attracted to Atlanta aren't being put to better use. He also questioned why the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - of which FEMA is a part - has not responded better to the disaster.

The firefighters, several of whom are from Utah, were told to bring backpacks, sleeping bags, first-aid kits and Meals Ready to Eat. They were told to prepare for "austere conditions." Many of them came with awkward fire gear and expected to wade in floodwaters, sift through rubble and save lives.

"They've got people here who are search-and-rescue certified, paramedics, haz-mat certified," said a Texas firefighter. "We're sitting in here having a sexual-harassment class while there are still [victims] in Louisiana who haven't been contacted yet."

The firefighter, who has encouraged his superiors back home not to send any more volunteers for now, declined to give his name because FEMA has warned them not to talk to reporters.

... [snip]

[Salt Lake Fire Chief Steve] Foote said his crews would be better used doing the jobs they are trained to do.

But Louis H. Botta, a coordinating officer for FEMA, said sending out firefighters on community relations makes sense. They already have had background checks and meet the qualifications to be sworn as a federal employee. They have medical training that will prove invaluable as they come across hurricane victims in the field.

So, Louis, what you're saying is that you more interested in the bloody paperwork than oh -I dunno- looking for, and finding victims to save!?

Christ on a fracking crutch! Have we decayed to the point where some bureaucratic paper-pusher is more worried about someone's paper trail than actually helping people in need?

I repeat:

Federal officials are unapologetic. "I would go back and ask the firefighter to revisit his commitment to FEMA, to firefighting and to the citizens of this country," said FEMA spokeswoman Mary Hudak.

(emphasis added) You know, like maybe they should re-think the whole "saving people" thing, or something.

But, hey, the got to do something important:

But as specific orders began arriving to the firefighters in Atlanta, a team of 50 Monday morning quickly was ushered onto a flight headed for Louisiana. The crew's first assignment: to stand beside President Bush as he tours devastated areas.

Not to worry, as the local authorities have now announced that no civilians will be allowed firearms in New Orleans, despite the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments.

One historian said about Pearl Harbor: "there's enough blame to go around."

Another wit once said: "to err is human; to really screw things up it takes a computer!"

In this case they might have said "it takes overlapping levels of unaccountable bureaucracy" instead.

Now. Yodeling "IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!!," while morally satisfying, is ultimately non-productive. New Orleans has become a Bitches' Brew of feckless human incompetance, from the corrupt New Orleans PD, to Mayor "Where's the buses?" Nagin, through governor "tears" Blanco, up to "What me, worry?" Mike Brown.

I also think it's very arguable -in this case- that Bush fumbled the directive which John outlined above, of "the Government getting out the info."

Both the military and the engineers of our country have a process called "lessons learned," in which a study lists the mistakes made during a specified exercise/project, why the mistakes were made, and how we can do better in the future.

One of of the key features of these studies is their dispassionate nature. Very few engineers or soldiers are interested in CYA excuses. They tend to ask hard questions such as "did the person in charge have sufficient knowlege? Did they show foresight, or recieve appropriate guidance and direction? Could they (in fact) have materially changed the course of events by their personal actions?"

The studies aren't limited to specific decision-makers, but to organizations as well. What worked? What didn't work? What can we change to do better next time?

Winston Churchill once said that "In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." In modern America, that has been twisted to "In peace-time, our political goals are so precious that they should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

We -all of us, as Americans- have already stepped to the challenge of Katrina. The contributions of time and money, as well as "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" have demonstrated that.

Aside from the ongoing challenge of rebuilding, which I don't doubt will take many years, we -as Americans- need to face the challenge of an honest and dispassionate examination of "what went wrong, and how do we fix it?" in terms of Katrina.

The next disaster may be another hurricane, or a bioweapon disaster, or a dirty bomb. It might even be something as prosaic as the Spanish Flu.

The supreme defense against that sort of challenge are citizens who recognize the grey challenge.

New London bombings!

Just over a half-hour ago London suffered another series of bomb attacks on subway stations.

London Police Chief Ian Blair origonally reported four explosions or attempted explosions. Later reports used the word "bang(s)."

The latest developments at the Command Post blog seem (to me) to indicate that some detonators went off, but no known major explosions as yet.

UPDATE: BBC has more info: "The BBC's Andrew Winstanley said devices had been found but appeared to have been dummies, containing no explosives."

MORE: Instapundit is on it, and apparently the London media is as self-destructive as the D.C. crew: "Some idiot correspondent asked Blair if the attacks were his fault because of the Iraq war. And others are taking an equally negative line -- one asks if the propaganda war against terror is being lost."

I like Reynolds' response:

You're idiots, cowards, and political hacks. Yes! The preening, point-scoring irresponsibility of the press, which is if anything worse in Britain than in America, is one of the most striking things about this war, and it will be decades before it recovers. If it does.

The kind of question I'd like to see from the media? How about: "Mr. Prime Minister, how long do you expect before we hunt these rat bastards to their graves?"

Middle of the road, or hole in the road?

Just what is the "moderate" political position in America today?

Dean Esmay asked the hard question: is there a moderate position today? He concludes -righly, I think- that "moderate" is an approach or a temperament, not a political position.

On the other hand Alan, of The Yellow Line argues that centrist is a more appropriate word. But "centrist" is just as bad as "moderate." The reason being that one is still defining a political position in terms of other people's political positions, especially when you consider that Alan says that centrist/moderates "are more interested in moving outside the dichotomy of left and right." In that case, they aren't centrist anymore, because they've changed the frame of reference.

I also have to severely disagree with the definition of moderate as "socially liberal/moderate and fiscially conservative." Is that "the" moderate posistion, or is it just one of them? And just who defines moderate? Is there a central (aha) comittee for the Centrist/Moderate Party no one's heard about? Or is this some sort of alleged statistical measurement of a mean or median? If so, who measured it, and how?

What is a moderate, except someone who is willing to compromise? If so, are they willing to compromise on all issues? If that's the case, they're spineless jellyfish. There are some things worth fighting for; but as soon as you take a definite stand on an issue, whether free speech, gun ownership, small government, or the war on terror, haven't you stopped being centrist/moderate? If not, why not?

If you read Alan's post (which you should), you'll see that he explicitly defines centrist/moderates as "middle of the political spectrum," but this contradicts the rest of the article, which relates more to a moderate approach to politics than a "center of the road" moderate position.

One of Dean's questions is: what are the political principles which define the centrist/moderate position? That's a good question. Alan objects to this, and calls the reasoning "ridiculous," but neglects explaining just why this is so. He does go on to explain what centrist/moderates are not, and therein lies the clue.

Centrists in America aren't defined by what they are, but what they aren't. Listen to a self-labled centrist/moderate; what you'll hear is "we aren't..." Jack Grant takes the same (flawed) approach at Random Fate.

Listen further, and you will percieve that these people are, indeed moderate, but not politically. There's no generic "middle of the road" political position. But they are moderate in their approach to political questions.

Now, generally, this is a good thing. Certainly I'm sick of the mindless mud-slinging of "fascist!" and "traitor!" we've seen the past five or ten years. But is a moderate approach by itself neccessarily a virtue? Recall that all "moderate approach" means is that one discusses an issue in a civilized manner.

Suppose a communist or NAMBLA member tries to discuss their cherished views in a civilized manner? Does that make them moderates? I have to say "no," since one follows a corrupy, vicious ideology, and the other buggers young boys.

So a moderate approach, by itself, does not define a "moderate." And we still haven't managed to define "moderate."

I don't think we can. Why? Exactly because moderates generally define themselves in terms of other ideologies; even Alan does this when he defines moderates as "socially moderate/liberal but fiscally conservative."

But there is yet another clue in Alan's approach, and I've already quoted it, in part:

Centrists are more interested in moving outside the dichotomy of left and right and finding new solutions altogether. ... my solution isn't to just decry the methods of idealogues but to convince enough people that they don't have to be right or left. Politics is not a straight line. It's not either/or.

So what he's really saying is that he wants to go to the root of the problem (perception of a left/right dichotomy) for a solution. Do you know what you call someone who attacks the root of a problem?

That's right! A radical.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Alan Stewart Carl is a RADICAL!

Lock up the kids and hide the silverware....

Just don't ask me what a moderate is. :)

It just keeps getting deeper...

Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters points out that Senator "white nigger" Byrd has tried to paint the Bush administration as Nazis, because they want to change the Senate committee rule on cloture.

What's that? Simple. The minority party can block, indefinitely, a committee approval or disapproval of a presidential candidate by keeping that nominee approval in committee. How? By talking. And talking. And more talking. And, by not sending the nominee for an approval vote to the full Senate. In other words, they can shove the nomination in a hole, and ignore it, unless 60 out of 100 senators approve a move to a full vote on the nominee. That's a cloture. And how many times has one party (or the other) had that kind of super-majority in the Senate? And that's the problem...

The Democrats have been dancing around this for a couple of years, now, and the bottom line is that the minority party is keeping certain Bush nominees from getting a simple, for-the-record, up or down vote.

Why? Because the nominees are too conservative. They're not "bad" or "incompetent" judges, nor have they been accused (much less convicted) of any crime. Heck, the worst accusation against some of them is that they're "too religious." -Um, hold on a sec, while I go warn George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and FDR...-

The Dems have been piously reassuing everyone that they're just making sure that only the best of the best will become federal judges, but that's dishonest. If any given senator has a problem with any given nominee, then they may vote "no" on that nomination. That's not the problem. The problem is that the Democrats in the Senate are trying to avoid the vote completely.

My guess is that they hope Bush will become tired of pushing for the people he really wants, and nominate people acceptable to the Democrats. AKA the people who have lost the last three general elections in this country, and are now (quite officially) a minority party. Which is the real problem These people want influence that they haven't earned at the ballot box.

The Republians have the Senate; they have the House, and they have the White House. That gives them the right to nominate judges, and (reasonably) expect them to be approved. Now if one of the nominees turned out to be genuinely unacceptable (say, for joining the KKK, or cheating on his wife; but I digress...), then the Democrats have an obligation to turn said nominee down. No worries there. But if there is no real reason to reject a given candidate, they should say so, then turn the vote over to the full Senate.

That's the really dishonest part of Byrd's speech. Not the part where he compares the Bush administration to Nazis, (and where have we heard that before?) No, the dishonest part is where Byrd won't admit that his part is, in fact, blocking the proper function of the United States government.

You see, the controversy about cloture votes isn't in any definable, or citable book of rules or laws. I can promise you it isn't the Constitution.

No, it's a custom; a guideline, rather than a law. That's where the current controversy of the "nuclear option" (i.e. changing House rules) comes in. And -to the chagrin of the Democrats- some of us remember what the Honorable Thomas B. Reed accomplished a century ago.

...Who is Thomas B. Reed, you ask? Why, only the most influential Republican between Lincoln and Reagan, I have to say. You have heard of Reed, indirectly. One of his colleagues in the House once pretentiously quoted Henry Clay to the effect that he "would rather be right than president." Reed retorted �the gentleman will never be either.�

Another Reed saying is that "All the wisdom in the world consists in shouting with the majority," while his "A statesman is a politician who is dead," is a modern classic.

In any case, back in 1890 one of the traditions of the House was the silent (or disappearing) quorum. To quote Barbara Tuchman, from her excellent The Proud Tower:

The system Speaker Reed had decided to challenge was know as the silent -or disappearing- quorum. It was a practice whereby the minority party could prevent any legislation obnoxious to it by refusing a quorum, that is, by demanding a roll call and then remaining silent when their names were called. Since the rules prescribes that a member's presence was established only by a viva voce reply to the roll, and since it required a majority of the whole to constitue a quorum, the silent filibuster could effectively stop the House from doing business.

As you can see, this could be a very effective tool to prevent the House from doing any business at all. How did House Speaker Reed deal with this conundrum?

Very simply: by counting those present, as present, whether or not they acknowledged the roll call. Democrat "ex-Speaker Carlisle let it be known that any legislation enacted by a quorum which had not been established by a 'recorded vote' would be taken to be court as unconstitutional."

Does any of this ring a bell, yet?

In 1890 the Committe on Elections awarded a contested seat in West Virginia to the Republicans. The Democrats immediately asked for a quorum, and proceeded to their time-tested method of refusing to answer the roll call, in order to obstruct business. 163 men responded as "present" for the call; 166 were needed for a quorum. Their plan -to not conduct business as usual- would succeed.

Or would it? Instead of calling the roll again, Speaker Reed announced "The Chair directs the Clerk to record the names of the following members present and refusing to vote," followed by the names of those representatives who remained silent.

In one of the few appropriate times to invoke this adjective, pandemonium broke loose. Republicans loudly cheered and applauded, while Democrats screamed their objections. Representative McCreary (D - KY) exclaimed: "I deny your right. Mr. Speaker, to count me as present, and I desire to read from the parliamentary law on the subject."

Reed quietly gazed at McCreary, and asked "The Chair is making a statement of the fact that the gentleman from Kentucky is present. Does he deny it?"

Um. Ouch.

For the next four days, Democrats would employ every tactic they could think of, to no avail. And every time they tried to invoke the silent quorum, Reed would serenely list those present and not responding, then declare that a quorum existed to do business.

Finally, well, I'll let Ms. Tuchman describe it:

Now the Democrats, changing their strategy, decided to absent themselves in actuality, counting on the inability of the Republicans to round up a quorum of themselves alone. As one by one the Democrats slipped out, Reed, divining their intention, ordered the doors locked. At once there followed a mad scramble to get out before the next vote. Losing "all sense of personal or official dignity," Democrats hid under desks and behind screens. Representative Kilgore of Texas, kicking open a locked door to make his escape, made "Kilgore's Kick" the delight of cartoonists.

...

Five years later Theodore Roosevelt wrote that in destroying the silent filibuster, Reed's reform was of "far greater permanent importance" than any piece of legislation it brought to enactment at the time.

Food for thought, the next time a Democrat objects to "unconstitutional" rule changes...

Radioblogger has a concisely excellent summary of some of the constitutional points of interest on this...

I am not an animal! I am a Democrat, and a human being!

(with apologies to The Elephant Man)

I was just catching up over at Dean's World, when I caught a post by Michael Demmons announcing that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has Hodgkin's disease.

Now Michael -who wishes well for the Senator, as should we all- remarked that 'There are going to be people on the extreme right who will salivate over this - just as people on the far left get giddy when life throws curves to their "enemies."'

This bothered one conservative regular, who felt that conservatives had been insulted. Apparently he missed the adjective far in the phrase "far right." :) Micheal, in reply, suggested a quick check to see what the freepers (regulars on the Free Republic blog) had to say about Specter's illness, and I decided to take him up on it.

You can find the Free Republic thread here.

At the time I posted this, there were 80 comments, and 31 good wishes, godspeed, and prayers extended to a man the freepers generally don't like. Two should suffice;

Agreed. I hate Specter, and think that the fact that he conned his way to the GOP nomination cost Bush PA in November, but I hope he pulls through all right. And I'm not just saying that because RAT Governor Rendell would name Specter's replacement if he had to step down.

Although I wanted to see Specter go, it was NOT like this.

Good luck in your treatment Arlen, even those of us Toomey supporters are behind you on this one!

So what we're seeing is 39% "good wishes rating" against an opponent. That's pretty good, when you think about it, especially in today's environment.

Naturally one of the commenters had to bring up the DemocraticUnderground, so I tripped on by over there as well. And yes, they had a thread going too.

There were only 53 comments made when I arrived there. And, here's the thing: I counted 22 "good wishes" out of 53 comments, giving a 42% "good wishes rating."

Ok, so it's "only" 3%, but still... I thought the crazy lefties were supposed to be the haters. Oh, yes, there were a couple of nasty remarks, but I'm not quoting them here. If you must see them, follow the link. There will always be a very few, very sad minority who just can't help themselves. But I have to say even I was surprised. I expected a few folks to say nice things, but not nearly half.

What strikes me is that -when you step back and look at the overall picture- both sides in effect reacted similarly to the plight of someone with whom they don't agree. The Donks don't like him because he's a Derm. The Derms don't like him because he a moderate-to-liberal Derm, or (in crusty con terms) a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

So maybe the crunchy cons should stop and consider this the next time they want to call the squishy liberals nothing but a bunch of haters. And maybe those squishy libs might want to consider that the crunchies aren't as heartless as they thought. Yes, you, in the back; I'm talking to you. Stop shaking your head in scorn! Heh.

It's really sad that someone has to get a terrible disease like cancer before we start seeing something in common with the other side.

Is turnabout fair play?

Another bloglist newcomer (for me) is Gay Orbit, where you can "discover your inner homo." Heh.

In this particular post, Michael Demmons asks "Ahmmm, again, why is it judicial activism when gays and lesbians use the courts, but not when conservatives use the courts?"

Well, that's a good question.

My first reaction is "It's not 'activism' when you move to eliminate the offending decision." That is to say, the original decision proposed changes far beyond the original intent of constitution of the great state of Massachutsetts. While I haven't studied the decision in great detail, I think the judges went too far, far too quickly.

This is not to say that I oppose gay marriage. This is not the case. But more than a few folks (including a few gay/lesbians I know, including one self-professed "Green/Yellow-dog Democrat" {g}) hold that pushing for complete acceptance, now actually increases resistance among middle-of-the-road Americans. Add to that the bad idea that many Federal judges apparently believe -that they are collectively Earl Warren, and that they Constitution is written in pencil- and you have a recipe for negative reaction against gay marriage. I cite the various November, 2004 State referendum/amendments as evidence. The results were decisively against gay marriage.

I think this is less a widespread prejudice against gay marriage than a reaction against what many feel to be a frequently abused judicial override of the administrative perogative.

A careful study of employee benefits packages offered by many corporations -which are generally held to be "conservative" in many ways- in the 1990s shows that they were offering progressively greater benefits to gay couples in order to hire the best people available. While the "dot-com" bubble burst several years ago, this demonstrates a basic truth: that the general American society is at least potentially ready to accept gay/lesbians as full partners in the social circle. It also shows that money-power is not only color-blind, but gender-neutral. But what else would you expect from a currency which prominently features men in pigtails?...

Point being that -I believe- gay/lesbians will achieve full political, social, and economic participation in American life in less than a generation. I'll even say the "tip over" point will be reached by 2020.

What can injure the advancement of gay/lesbian rights is the dogmatic, doctrinaire insistence of "freedom, NOW," by either the GLBT extremists, or the fringe elements of the modern "left." And, while I make it a point to strenuously avoid civil rights/gay rights analogies, it must be pointed out that extremist abolitionist groups in the North generally tended to reinforce Southern resistance to emancipation, not reduce it. Which influences tended to force, well, a solution of force instead of compromise.

Food for thought....

Someone that should go to Canada

Captain Ed has done an excellent job dissecting blithering idiot former General Attorney Ramsey Clark's ...defense... of Saddam Hussein.

Apparently we've been "demonizing" Hussein. This definitely qualifies as a Duranty Report.

You just knew it...

Dean has been (rightfully) happy about the great turnout in Iraq today. Of course, he's right that the MSM would find a negative spin. CNN, for example:

President Bush today called Iraq's historic election a "resounding success" as Iraqis "take rightful control of their country's destiny." With polls now closed, Iraqi officials are reporting a higher turnout than expected, despite a spate of attacks and threats aimed at disrupting the vote. At least 25 people were killed and more than 70 wounded in a string of attacks.

First sentance: Bush is happy too.
Second sentance: turnout is "higher than expected." (as opposed to the rumored 70%+ we've seen cited elsewhere)
Third sentance: yep, gotta bring up the terrorists insurgents.

Call it the speed-bump method of spinning the news; each successive sentance is progressively more negative. Also note the complete absence of context, either in the lede or the body linked above.

So instead of reporting that attacks (and casualties) were damn near non-existant, with an excellent turnout, CNN instead quotes Bush, then implies with two down-twists to imply that he's being over-optimistic again.

Feh.

The elections are on...

It's Sunday, January 30, 1:00AM Eastern time as I write this. I see from One Hand Clapping that the voting has already started in Iraq. Apparently the first man to vote was Interim President Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, a Sunni Muslim. As Don Sensing points out, it would seem that this was choreographed so that Sunnis would be encouraged to vote.

Don includes a link I've seen mentioned elsewhere, and I've been meaning to mention it here: Friends of Democracy. Do not walk, run over there and read (as they say) the whole thing. The people writing there are Iraqi citizens. They aren't "shills" for any US political party, nor are they CIA operatives. They are just men and women who want to make a difference for their country.

For those who are oh-so-blase about the elections, and the odds for success: here's a photo of Mehsin Imgoter absentee voting in Michigan. His son was killed in the 1991 uprising.

If that picture doesn't touch you somehow, there's something wrong with you...

UPDATE: I foolishly forgot to mention the ever-indispensible Command Post for up to the minute blogging as the Iraq election unfolds.

Ok, maybe not so dumb

Ok. In this post, I accused Michael Demmons of bad reasoning.

Discussions in the comment thread with Michael cleared things up somewhat. He was commenting on which party -if any- was responsible for abortion rates in the US. Thing is, one of the posts upon which he was commenting linked back to Oliver Willis; someone I avoid reading in the same way I avoid "reality" TV and Ben Affleck policitcal commentary. Hence I didn't read the original posts.

I have to admit that "if you had to blame a party, I would blame Republians" (later changed to "social conservatives") is semantically much different from the absolute statement that Republicans (or "social conservatives") are responsible for the abortion rate, etc.

So I retract the vehement tone of my original post, but stand by the facts presented. Said vehemence was due to percieved bad reasoning, not the social position per se.

Yes, boys and girls, that's one of the things that gets Casey fired up: really bad reasoning. Now you know. :)

Rationality not included

It really should say that on some columns. Honestly. Take this one, for example, in which Michael Demmons blames the pregnancy and abortion rates in America on Republicans, although in a later comment he backtracks in order to place the blame more squarely on the "social conservatives."

The mind boggles...

Naturally, I felt compelled to reply. ;)

I'm amazed. Floored. Damn near speechless.

The complete lack of logic in blaming America's abortion rate on "social conservatives" induces a terrible sense of awe in those of use who can actually engage our brains in useful work.

Mr. Demmons, just for starters: you do realize the basic ethos, moral code, and expectations of "social conservatives" were the norm for this country for (oh...) several centuries, yes?

You do realize that -for many, many decades- there wasn't any question of the high rate of abortions in this country, because it was bloody illegal? You are aware of that? And that those laws were based on the "social conservative" ethos. Not to mention those same "social conservative[s]" opposed the legalization of abortion.

Yet somehow, in some odd way, the people who are against abortion the most are the ones getting the blame. Odd, that... One wonders if the author actually thought their way through the proposition, or merely spilled some some dogmatic beliefs into the blogosphere.

Some numbers might be in order. The CDC itself says that abortion rates steadily increased between 1970 and 1984 (you know, when the Democrats controlled the federal government most of the time, and lead prevailing thought regarding the anti-war movement, women's rights, gay rights, and so on.

After 1984, the rate has steadily decreased, while Republicans (one certainly tends to equate "social conservatives" with the GOP), falling from 364/1,000 in 1984 to 311 in 1995, and down to 246 in 2000. In other words, when the social conservatives steadily gained ground in Washington, D.C. and the national culture became more conservative, the rate of abortion decreased.

An examination of the tables by state show that generally the highest abortion rates are in areas that are strongly Democratic, such as New York (30/1,000), District of Columbia (25), Washington (20), New Jersey (18), and Oregon (18). Alabama stands at 12, Oklahoma at 10, and Idaho a paltry 6. Yet it's still the fault of those darned "social conservatives!"

Several folks have compared the abortion rate in America to Amsterdam, accompanied by a corresponding sneer. Yes, and the murder rate in Nazi Germany was lower than that in the United States. I suppose that means the National Socialists developed a less violent culture in 1930s Germany...

If you look carefully, you'll see that the CDC has managed to confuse things by only differentiating by race (white and black/other) in one table, and by "ethnicity" (hispanic and non/hispanic) in another table.

This obscures the fact that abortion rates are much, much higher for both hispanic and black women, compared to white, non/hispanic women.

So maybe all those morally superior, condescending ...people... comparing the abortion rate in America to Amsterdam should examine those groups and locations with very high rates, and attempt an effective generalization on just why said rates are so high.

Damned inconvenient things, facts. They really should be used more often.

But there are no racist liberals...

Dean Esmay recently linked to this article by Michelle Malkin, about some of the issues that minority conservatives uniquely have deal with, as conservatives.

Some of the comments at Dean's World display a remarkable lack of sympathy for Ms. Malkin, including the observation that

freedom also includes the right to not be locked up in a cage simply because you belong to a certain race. That's something Malkin doesn't understand.

not to mention the discussion of Ms. Malkin's "narcissistic rambling." apparently "supposed to make liberals look bad."

My reaction started life as a response in that thread, but I decided to put it up here as well.

Well, you can see how open-minded those two are; even suggesting the possibility that the FDR administration might have had some non-racial motivations inspires vicious scorn.

Some specifics: Mr. Knapp displays a significant historical deficiency (or, perhaps, a reading problem); no one was "locked in a cage" soley due to race. Alex, if you honestly think that's what happened, please read some factual history before exposing your ignorance in public again.

The displaced Japanese-Americans were on the west coast, in near proximity to the major ports supporting the Pacific War. One of the motivations involved was concern about providing easy access for Japanese (or Japanese-American) saboteurs. Another concern was that many young men (even born in the US) still looked to Japan as their primary loyalty. Many, when asked to swear exclusive loyalty to the US (re: "question 27 & 28") refused to do so.. Also note that Imperial Japan was fairly liberal in funding political parties in America who might look upon them with favor, later. Some of the parties recieving such funds are still classified to this day, because those revelations could kick up a serious ruckus, even now.

Yet another point was that no one was "locked up;" the camps were to provide housing for the detainees until they could find more permanent residences. They were free to leave the camps. Alas, it didn't happen that way.

Please note that Italian-Americans and German-Americans were also on the recieving end of significant abuses during World War 1 and World War 2; some of it worse than anything done to the Japanese-Americans.

My own belief is that while the administration might have had good arguments for moving at least some people from the west coast, the actual implementation was so broad, and heavy-handed that serious injustices occured. For example, those who owned property would -in theory- be fairly compensated. This did not occur. Another failing point was the utter lack of discrimination (in the alternate sense): everyone had to leave.

The housing situation was a similar pooch-screw. Terrible, cheap housing which took no consideration for the culture of the internees. Even the nisei weren't as assimilated to the same degree 2nd-generation immigrants would be today. One example would be the lack of privacy for personal hygiene. On the other hand, calling relocation areas "concentration camps" cheapens the terms' actual meaning, not to mention blurring the very significant differences between the two systems. This is similar to the current habit of labelling even mild treatments such as sleep deprivation as "torture."

In summary, the treatment of Japanese-Americans was, in fact, a terrible injustice which was barely recognized by the later court-ordered compensation. What many people fail to see is that the relocation was not just rabid racism, even though that was certainly present.

Too many people -correspondents Knapp and Vogel in evidence- insist on portraying relocation as study in black and white, with no grey involved. Their position puts them, oddly enough, on the "good" side. Pleasant coincidence, that. Convenient, too.

As for Mr. Vogel's claim of "narcissistic rambling," he reads Malkin neither thouroughly nor well. The point of that article was that certain types (again, one is tempted to point to Mssrs Knapp and Vogel) would use that scandal as a brush to tar all minority conservaties. She merely cited specifics from her personal experience relating to "liberals" who disagreed with her in an especially vulgar way.

Mr. Vogel seems to be deliberately ignoring the way liberal commentators, cartoonists, and public figures (Harry Belafonte, for example) have vilified black conservative Americans. The editorial cartoons about Condolezza Rice are particularly offensive, but (hey!) these are liberals we're talking about. Everyone knows liberals are always kind, considerate, and respectful of others' opinions, and never, ever descend to race-baiting. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.

There's a lot of racist liberals out there. The difference is that racist conservatives are (justly) called out on their bad habits while the racist liberals are (usually) ignored. I cite in evidence the above-mentioned Belafonte, the wide variety of vulgar cartoons re: Ms. Rice, and catty comments ("skeeza" Condolezza, etc) regarding same. I can see why people such as Ms. Malkin hold a jaundiced view this hypocrisy.

Conservatives are more forthcoming about "their" bigotry these days, as evidenced by the Trent Lott fiasco. The left would do well to pursue the racists in their own ranks as vigorously.

And, if Mr. Vogel had read Malkin more regularly, he would have seen her column with a compare & contrast between her and Margaret Cho. Both are women; both Asian-American, both outspoken, and so on. The difference, of course, is that Cho is definitely liberal while Malkin is definitely conservative. In fact Ms. Malkin expresses some sympathy for Cho, since they both no doubt are on the recieving end of many of the same bigoted insults.

Another difference is that Michelle Malkin is -as a conservative- regularly pilloried as a "race traitor" and is reminded that she "isn't white." Only minority conservatives face this particular burden. Since when have Cho or (say) Russell Simmons been branded "race traitors," or (in Simmons' case) "not really black?"

That, my friends, is the point.

I'm callin' it...

Ok, it's time to crash for the evening.

With 97% of the votes counted, Bush is showing at least a 120,000 vote edge.

And yes, I know, there's a lot of absentee ballots that have to be cast. I'll bet you money they're mostly military personel, and we all know how that's going to break.

Seriously, the absentees would have to break at 75/25 for Kerry (maybe more) for him to win. It's over. And someone tell idiot Mary Beth Cahill to shut up, and leave!

I'm callin' it 286-251, in favor of Bush. If you want to see my breakdown, check out the extended post below.

Bush:
ALABAMA - 9
ALASKA - 3
ARIZONA - 10
ARKANSAS - 6
COLORADO - 9
FLORIDA - 27
GEORGIA - 15
IDAHO - 4
INDIANA - 11
IOWA - 7
KANSAS - 6
KENTUCKY - 8
LOUISIANA - 9
MISSISSIPPI - 6
MISSOURI - 11
MONTANA - 3
NEBRASKA - 5
NEVADA - 5
NEW MEXICO - 5
NORTH CAROLINA - 15
NORTH DAKOTA - 3
OHIO - 20
OKLAHOMA - 7
SOUTH CAROLINA - 8
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3
TENNESSEE - 11
TEXAS - 34
UTAH - 5
VIRGINIA - 13
WEST VIRGINIA - 5
WYOMING - 3

Total: Bush 286

Kerry:
CALIFORNIA - 55
CONNECTICUT - 7
DELAWARE - 3
DC - 3
HAWAII - 4
MAINE - 4
MARYLAND - 10
MASSACHUSETTS - 12
MICHIGAN - 17
MINNESOTA - 10
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4
NEW JERSEY - 15
NEW YORK - 31
OREGON - 7
PENNSYLVANIA - 21
RHODE ISLAND - 4
VERMONT - 3 or 4?
VIRGINIA - 13
WASHINGTON - 11
WISCONSIN - 10

Total Kerry: 251

Read it, and weep, guys.

And now, Steve Gardner

Dean Esmay has done a magnificent job of interviewing several Swift Boat vets, and now he presents #3, Steve Gardner, gunner's mate on PCF 44. The boat that John Kerry commanded in Vietnam.

This stuff is "must" reading for anyone, Democrat, Republican, or Independant, who is honestly curious about Kerry's history, and the men who saw him in action.

While you're over there, check out his other interviews:
Van Odell
George Elliot

After you're done reading, tell everyone you know...

Ohio Issue 1: NO!

As I hinted in my previous post, I'm going to vote for Bush next week.

I strongly support Bush's work against islamofascism. But while I'm voting for Bush, I'm neither a conservative nor a Republican. I'm just picking those guys for national representation. There's a fair number of conservative/GOP positions with which I do not agree.

One of them is gay marriage. Now, I opposed the Massachutsetts descision, but that's because I can't stand judges who seem to think constitutions were written in pencil. I'm pretty libertarian on this one; let's let folks sort things out for themselves, shall we?

But there's always someone, isn't there? I just found out last week that Issue #1 on Ohio's ballot this fall proposes to amend Ohio's constitution to specify marriage as between one man and one woman. The wording is intimidating:

Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:

That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:

"Article XV, Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

(emphasis added)
Note that this wording would even prohibit civil unions.

Now -originally- I intended to put up a short, incisive, well-reasoned argument against the proposed amendment, but we're past that. If you're for it, then so be it. I'm speaking to the more relaxed folks out there:

Excuse my language, but this amendment is just bullshit.

I'm betting that many folks, like me, didn't even know the issue was on the ballot for next week. What I want to do is jump up on the roof and shout out that we have to defeat this amendment.

Screw that. We don't want to defeat it; we want to beat it to death with a big rock, drive a stake thru its atrophied heart, and bury the very idea under a big landfill; by such a large margin that the next goober who tries to mess with the personal lives of this great state will be ridiculed into oblivion.

Tell your friends, email your pen-pals. Log on to your favorite blog and tell them about this; urge the author to link here (or elsewhere) so that we can politically obliterate this.

For those who consider conservative Ohio to be full of whacky homophobics, I offer the following:
-The Cincinnati Post says no
-The Cincinnati Enquirer says no
-Governor Bob Taft is agin' it
-so is Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro
-both Republican US Senators, Mike DeWine and George Voinovich say nay

Go here for more information.

Just Vote

The past couple weeks have been a bear, but y'all don't want to know about my personal problems. :)

Sgt. Hook has posted a link to a letter from a man who lost his son in Afghanistan, about the slogan "vote Bush, or stay home." Read it.

I think my own preferences for the White House are obvious, but that's not the point, here. The point is that every one of you has the moral resposibility to vote.

Returns from early voting in Georgia tend to indicate a record turnout, even though that state is pretty much red. Here's hoping the rest of the country follows suit.

Many people are praying the same thing: "Please, God, don't let it be a close one!!"

Amen, brothers and sisters!

Is it the wrong messenger?

In reply to my last post, Democratic Contempt, fellow blogger Mark Adams said that I had the "Right message," but the "wrong messenger lynched." He then asked a very good question:

Why do we abhor the same things but believe that the source is on the other side of the fense? I know I'm correct and you know you're right. The evil we see is the same. What gives?

Ok. That's two questions. :) Still, good ones. I decided to put up my reply in new post.

---

Well, Mark, in this case my first impulse is to point out the Democratic obsession with the Florida 2000 election, and all the "selected, not elected" horseturds ejected about it ever since. :)

Then there's the hysteria about the "Republican Attack Machine^tm," but it's the Democrats who have called their opponents "Digital Brownshirts," claimed that the President has "betrayed" this country, and said -flat out- that anyone who votes for Bush is "out of their minds." Just to name a few examples.

Oh, and then there's the rash of attacks, shootings, and break-ins lately as well. All on Republian offices.

And the GOP hasn't literally embraced a dishonest demagoge such as Michael Moore. We can disagree, and argue about, whether Bush "had a plan," "not enough soldiers," and so on, but what Moore puts out is just vicious slander.

I agree that there are issues which should be discussed. The PATRIOT act, for example. (BTW, before the Donks start flogging the Derms about that one, recall that the act passed unanimously, thankyouvermuch! {g}) Even the ACLU has calmed down to the point where they admit that certain parts of PATRIOT have turned out to be useful, but that the bill -as it stands- is flawed, and should be objectively reviewed.

I have no problem with this. In fact, I've always viewed PATRIOT with far more suspicion than -for example- Dean Esmay has (at least from his comments), since quite a bit of the provisions are from a huge wish-list that different law agencies have been working on for years. I also think that the entire TSA is a massive cluster-fuck, and should be jettisoned ASAP. After that we should hire the security folks from El Al for direction.

I also think that we should raise two more active-duty divisions. Not because "we don't have enough troops in Iraq," but because I estimate that those troops will be there for at least 3-5 years. We need the strategic reserve.

I just hope that Democrats who keep yelling about "not enough troops," and the guys who repeat Kerry's slogan about 40,000 more troops (not a bad goal; that's approximately two divisions), remember that those new divisions will add billions more to the defense budget.

And maybe, (God forbid!) we should start talking about cutting some parts of the federal cancer? Hm?

But no, Mark, from what I've seen, the worst of it the past few years has come from the Democratic Party, from their refuse to accept the decision of a disputed election, from their cavalier treatement of local elections (can you say "Torricelli?" I knew you could!), to the marshalling of legions of lawyers weeks in advance of the presidential elections, and the actual invitation of the freaking UN to "monitor" the election.

In other words, the Democrats respect neither the voters nor their decisions.

UPDATE: I really should give Michael Moore credit for -once in his life- doing the right thing. Moore actually turned down the Ra^thergate memos, because he couldn't verify them, and that they sounded "too good to be true." Good on ya, Mike! Now lay off the freakin' doughnuts... Heh.

Democratic contempt

You can take the title two ways: contempt for Democracy, or the contempt that current Democrats have for our system.

Either way, Stephen Green solidly nails the issue to the wall for everyone to see:

Democracy is the free market of political systems. And like any free market, it can't function without some basic level of trust. That trust comes, slowly, from hammering out rules even competitors can live with. That trust comes, with difficulty, by honoring those rules, even when your candidate doesn't win. That trust exists in relatively few places around the world.

That, my friends, is why I'm voting Republican this year: because too many Democrats -especially the party leaders, movers, and shakers- have bought into the "Worst. President. Ever." and by any means neccessary dogma they've been spewing for years. They really do believe that the ends justify the means, and that's a frightening thing.

If you don't ask me, ask the people who survived the Terror.

One of the enduring lessons of the French Revolution, and the ensuing Terror, is that the incorrupt leaders of a Republic can wreck the rule of law as well as any tyrant, especially when they do so from the highest of motives.

Casey's Rule for Idealism: any person or group who thinks that they are above the law is a threat to the rule of law, and the Republic.

There's a certain kind of leftie who enjoys twitting Southerners; never mind why; and that kind of leftie displays a marked preference for outspoken bumper-stickers. One of the more popular ones has a message for Dixie: "You lost. Get over it."

Excellent advice, I think, for everyone, the day after an election.

Novus ordo seclorum

The accepted translation from the Latin is A new order of the ages.

A rather appropriate ageis, I think, for the first democratic election in Afghanistan.

As the United States obsesses over last night's presidential debate, and the incessant wrangling over Iraq, a small miracle has slipped under the mainstream media radar: Afghanis are voting for their first representative government.

While we're talking about it, here's another small miracle the MSM missed: 13 million eligble voters registered, out of 28 million people.

The first corallary of that statement is that -obviously- quite a few women registered.

Since some of the ballots will be transferred from Hindu Kush voting stations via mule, the final result won't be known until late October; but we know who cast the first vote: the young lady -and science student- Moqadasa Sidiq.

Is it too soon to nominate Ms. Sidiq as the 21st Century's new Lady Liberty?

A tool for everyone!

Now here's something which should be on every blogger's list of links:

The U.S. Constitution Online.

You can read the Constitution as plain text, or with (excellent) hyper-links, and views for kids of different ages.

They have a balanced and intereresting discussion of the current marriage debate as well.

This, my friends, is the sort of chewy goodness that the internet was made for! Highy recommended.

The Truth...

A long time ago, a man once asked "What is truth?"

The answer was debated pretty vigorously the next two thousand years...

Most of the time, I prefer discussing facts, over "truth". Or the lack thereof.

In this case, The Truth About Iraq.

From Blackfive:

Steven [Moore] was in Bagdad for nine months, from July of last year through April of this year, doing about a dozen polls and seventy focus groups, and advising Ambassador Bremer on Iraqi public opinion.

Since returning from Iraq, Steven was disgusted with how the media was portraying events in Iraq and thoroughly nauseated by Michael Moore (who has never been to Iraq) and the lies that he is propagating. So, Steven started The Truth About Iraq.org where he uses some of the polling information from Iraq to debunk some of the myths that have been created by the media.

As the saying goes, read the rest.

What impresses me about Moore's work is that TruthAboutIraq.org actually backs up specific claims with specific fact. And links...

An excerpt from their homepage:

Welcome to The Truth About Iraq.org! The more than forty countries that comprise the Coalition Forces have done a great service to the Iraqi people, the American people and the world by deposing one of the most brutal and prolific killers in history.

Our goal is to help the American people better understand the situation in Iraq through sources other than the mainstream media - public opinion research, statistical analysis and personal accounts.

No snippy comments about moonbats; no "cut'n'run" sarcasm. Just a calm measured, and honest exploration of what's really going on over there.

This site should be in the toolbox of every blogger who supports the war.

Whoa, Nelly!

I've heard of the The Joy of Cooking, then later The Joy of Sex, but The Joy of Politics?

And what the heck is a Votergasm!?

You have to admire a site which encourages political activity via er, other activity, like Doing the Nasty on election night. Not to mention the disclaimers for the Votergasm pledge:

* Pledge-fulfilling sex must be consensual, legal, and generous. And safe. And hot.

* Acceptable sexual positions include, but are not limited to: missionary, doggy-style, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, leapfrog, butterfly, humpback whale, cling wrap, squashing of the deck chair, accordion, reverse piggy-back, advanced ("twin") leapfrog. Male-male, female-female, group, and oral variations of these positions can also be used to satisfy the pledge.

* Taking the pledge indicates a good-faith effort to abide by its provisions. Pledge-takers who have violated withholding provisions become effective non-voters, and are barred from sex with fellow pledge-takers.

* Pledge-takers who fail to vote are forbidden from masturbating. (Exemption: pledge-takers who are not eligible to vote are encouraged to masturbate frequently.)

* "Cybersex" does not satisfy the pledge, dorkwad.

* Non-voters may render themselves eligible for sex with American Heroes by voting at least twice in local, primary, and/or 2006 congressional races. Those voting in only one such race qualify to perform, but not receive, oral sex on American Heroes.

* Achievement of a Votergasm during election-night sex is probable, but not guaranteed. Those encountering difficulty reaching Votergasm are encouraged to slow things down, talk about it, and reduce the pressure. Other techniques include the use of massage oils, toys, "dirty talk," "ballot stuffing," and "exit polls."

* Per the U.S. Constitution, children conceived on election night are eligible for gigantic interest-free loans from the U.S. government, and special t-shirts.

Thanks to The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid for the link.

Just no hearings, please?

GOP Congressman Chris Cox has called for hearings about the actions of the CBS News division, and 60 Minutes II in particular, while publicizing the forged "Bush memos." In particular, Mr. Cox said that "despite the growing abundance of evidence that CBS News has aided and abetted fraud,'' CBS still refuses to divulge their source, or sources. (emphasis added)

Apparently Mr. Cox is upset by the idea that one of the major new organizations in this country (and the world) would stoop to fraud. Well, so am I.

The difference between us is that I think a Congressional investigation is exactly the wrong way to go about it. To my knowlege neither Congress, nor any other federal agency, has jurisdiction over the network's actions, unless the FCC fines Dan Rather for baring his chest on national TV.

And there goes my lunch...

On a more serious note: the investigation is a bad idea. Not only is there no legal precedent for such action, if held it would create a precedent of Congressional interference in reporting the news, and open the door for Federal harassment whenever a representative finds a story "suspect." Merely claim fraud, and pound the table.

I would suggest that if Representative Cox is that upset with CBS, he should file a civil suit in court.

Let's not compound the arrogant incompetance of the bungled forgeries with the absurd fatuity of Federal interference in yet one more part of our lives.

Um, ouch.

The articulate and quick-witted Ara Rubyan dropped by recently, and with tounge in cheek pointed out that Ms. Knox -former secretary to TexANG Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian- will be dismissed as a "leftist partisan hack," after she said that the statements in the forged memos were true, and asks

Will these Kerry campaign operatives stop at nothing?

Well, Ara, I hope they stop soon; they're making themselves look like fools. What y'all don't realize is that most normal human beings don't care about Kerry's Vietnam, or Bush's TexANG! I've heard it myself, over and over; even here in southwestern Ohio, in counties where I'm sure Bush will win comfortably a few weeks from now. They're tired of hearing about it.

And will you look at the latest exhibit? I have no doubt that Ms. Knox is a fine lady, and a decent human being -her opinion of the President notwithstanding ;) - but can anyone consider her statement as anything but hearsay, especially after thirty years? That she knew what her boss was thinking, even though said statement is directly contradicted by LT COL Killian's filed evaluations of Bush, as well as the testimony of Killian's wife and son?

I am sure that at this point the first reaction of the Kerry supports will be to retort "And the Swifties aren't relying on hearsay, eh?" No doubt in a sarcastic and skeptical tone. :)

Well, no, not really. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have made sworn affadavits as to what they saw and heard during their time with Kerry in Vietnam, which at the very least makes them liable for perjury charges; not to mention there's a great difference between one secretary testifying as to what she thinks her boss was thinking, and over 250 combat vets testifying as to what they experienced in combat.

Of course, part of the problem is that these testimonies contradict each other; Hell, Kerry contradicts himself more than once! But that's the problem. Don Sensing, the same fellow I quoted in my original post, wrote an article about the ...fragility... of memory in combat. A classmate of his spent time in Iraq during the Gulf War, and was surprised at the variety of recollections of a particular fight written down just a few days later; is it any wonder there's disagreement about something that happened 35 years ago?

I'm thinking -if I can get the energy up- of writing an article on how neither side has introduced much in the way of irrefutable fact during the "Great Vietnam Debate." As best I can tell, 99% boils down to he said/she said/they said. You picks your memories, and you takes your choice.

Point being here that the Kerry supporters are flailing away at a an equine that's not only dead, but bled, butchered, and sold by the pound at the local grocery store.

Dobbin-burgers, anyone?

Winner for "Best Scandal Title is..." II

We have another winner!

The piquant and picturesque Rachel Lucas certainly coined one:

The Revolution Will Be Blogged

Gotta love it!

Winner for "Best Scandal Title is..."

The Puppy Blender, of course! Glenn Reynolds has decided to call this scandal:

Ra^therGate

Ya gotta love it!

The sharp knives are out!

Don Sensing has posted some excellent articles on the forged TANG memos, but his most recent to date has raised an interesting point I haven't seen before:

...the mainline media are now going to be very wary of dirt slung by the Kerry camp because CBS was so badly hoodwinked by the Kerry campaign. One thing I learned about the news media in my years of media relations management: when they turn on you, they use sharp knives. Kerry's camp has committed an unpardonable sin: it has made them look like fools.

Given that, his conclusion that "The Dems' campaign strategy is dead and buried" is spot-on. And where does that leave Kerry for the next seven weeks?

News alert: political candidate missing!

Just caught this at Llamabutchers:

Is there nothing we can do to help this poor man?

Well, that settles it!

Run on over to the Kerry Spot, and scroll on down to the [09/10 02:04 PM] Entry:

"MCAULIFFE BLAMES ROVE FOR CBS DOCUMENTS

From the Washington Times:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe today said neither his organization nor John Kerry�s campaign leaked to CBS documents questioning President Bush�s service record, which may have been forged.

He suggested White House adviser Karl Rove could be behind the documents.

"I can unequivocally say that no one involved here at the Democratic National Committee had anything at all to do with any of those documents. If I were an aspiring young journalist, I think I would ask Karl Rove that question," Mr. McAuliffe said.

Christ on a Crutch! McAuliffe has finally jumped the shark!

Ladies and Gentlemen, we can now summarize the Democratic Party Platform in one sentance:

Bush lied, and Rove planned it!

Um, ouch...

After the Great Meltdown of '04, I lost a lot of links to terrific places.

One of those places was the Dissident Frogman, one of my favorite amphibians! I finally made some time to drop by and I found the Big Red Button.

WARNING: press the Big Red Button at your own risk!! You Have Been Warned...

He's just resting...

Oh. My. GOD.

-step 1: cover keyboard and monitor.
-step 2: remove all spillable drinks from computer area.
-step 3: Read this. (WARNING: probably not work safe if your boss doesn't have a sense of humor!)

What's really funny is that it's dead-on accurate...

Thanks to Don Sensing for the link!

UPDATE: I suppose I should explain that, if you don't "get" Monty Python, you probably won't get the joke... :)

Kerry reveals new strategy

Spin like Hell...

In the very latest fatuity from the sinking ship known as the Kerry campaign, Senator Waffles now says that the Iraq war was the "he wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." The Rueters story also quotes Kerry's earlier statement that

he would have voted to give Bush the authority to use force if necessary against Saddam Hussein even if he had known at the time that the Iraqi leader had no weapons of mass destruction

The man just can't make up his mind. By the way, if the above quote sounds familiar, it should; it was a popular way to describe the Vietnam War. I can see that Mr. Kerry is maintaining his repuation for "nuance."

Thanks to Greyhawk over at the Mudville Gazette for the link; I was going to comment on that quote but he beat me to it! While you're at it, why not drop by the Gazette, and drop something in the tip jar? The 'Hawk could use the help, and I'd hate to lose a fine commenter.

Smackdown!

Just cruised on by the VodkaPundit, where he put up a link to the Zell Miller interview on Hardball after his speech.

My analysis: Damn! Miller is a real bulldog. He got right back in Mathews' face and didn't back down. Ya gotta love it!

My favorite part: where Miller said he wished he could still challenge Matthews to a duel.

I just wish I had the disk space to put it up here. Anyway, run on over there, and enjoy the show.

UPDATE: Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters has a link to the transcript , and shares his thoughts on the exchange.

Tell me, again, why I'm voting for these guys?

You know, every once in a while I just have to cringe when I hear someone like House Speaker Denny Hastert make the clumsy effort to imply that George Soro's money comes from drug cartels.

HASTERT: ...You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money. I don't know where -- if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from. And I...

WALLACE: Excuse me?

HASTERT: Well, that's what he's been for a number years -- George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he's got a lot of ancillary interests out there.

WALLACE: You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel?

HASTERT: I'm saying I don't know where groups -- could be people who support this type of thing. I'm saying we don't know. The fact is we don't know where this money comes from.

After all the time I spend bitching about Lord Pork Pork (AKA M. Moore), the bloody House Speaker has to pull a bonehead stunt like this one...

I suppose he's just trying to uphold the tradition that the GOP is the Stupid Party.

Thanks to The Volokh Conspiracy for the original link.

Oh, no, he did NOT just say that!

Caught this citation over on the Corner at NRO.

The original story can be found here.

You should definitely read the whole thing, but the bottom line is that Kerry (while recently campaigning down in Florida) bragged about supporting the Helms-Burton sanctions against Cuba back in 1996.

''I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.

Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: "And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

The Miami Herald continues:

There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.

Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier. (emphasis added)

In other words, he voted for it, before he voted against it. And where have we heard that before, hm?

A note about the word "apologist"

I've noticed that what I consider to be a really bad habit has been spreading lately.

It seems that quite a few folks have gotten into the habit of using the word "apologist" as a derogotary term. This started out back in the early spring with the moonbats who kept pushing the "Bush AWOL" and/or "Halliburton runs everything" sort of foolishness. They insisted on calling anyone who defended Bush an apologist, as opposed to "supporter" or "defender."

Here's the thing: now Bush supporters are calling Kerry supporters the same damned thing in reverse! So we have "Kerry apologists," whose chief offense seems to be defending their chosen candidate. Certainly it's their right, as American citizens, to do so, no?

Now don't get me wrong; I intend to vote for Bush this fall, and I certainly believe that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have at least some legitimate claims.

My question is this: just what is your overall objective? If you want to preach to the choir, bash the other side as a bunch of clueless idiots, and pile on the latest "gotcha," knock yourself out, it's your dime, amigo.

But. if you are in the slightest bit interested in actually threshing out some of the issues, and maybe even opening up someone on the opposing side to a new interpretation (even if you don't change their mind), then I humbly suggest that you may want to consider not using the word "apologist."

Not too long ago, my friend Dean Esmay asked conservatives to take a pledge that they would faithfull support Kerry should the Senator from Massachusetts win the presidency this fall. My goal is more modest.

Right now I'm asking Bush supporters to refrain from using condescending, hot-button/buzzwords such as "apologist," even if their opponents won't.

After all, it won't hurt us to show them respect, which any adult citizen is reasonably entitled to expect; and if they refuse to return the favor, the onus is theirs, not ours.

So, what do you say?

MoveOn, Please!

I can see the presidential campaign is moving into high gear; the MoveOn(Please) folks are really kicking it into high gear!

Man. I don't know if Bush can take any more devastating campaign hits like this...

Thanks to Emperor Misha for the link.

THAT'S Gotta Hurt!

Veterans have been grumbling about John F. Kerry ever since he became the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

Now that he's officially the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, the vets have stopped grumbling, and started talking.

Now I know the first thing the Kerryites will claim is Republican Attack Machine^(tm)! The only problem is that the men in the ad actually served with Kerry.

Ooopsie.

Not to mention that several of these men were also awarded the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and other decorations. Most especially not to mention Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman. That's flag rank, bunkie.

Oh, a request for the Republican Attack Machine^(tm) paranoids: show me some cancelled checks, or receipts, before you start puking out more accusations, as evidence.

I'm thinking Kerry is really going to regret saying "Bring it on." by November. Heh.

And introducing...

Dean's World regular Scott Eiland has coined an entirely appropriate nickname for He Who Must Not Be Fed (which I also like):

Lord Pork Pork.

Heh. For the historically challenged, it's a take-off of the Nazi propagandist Lord Haw Haw during World War 2.

I like it...

Dean has a nice post about the sane people in the world which reminded me of that lovely sobriquet.

Yet Another Nail...

For some folks, the need to believe that BushLied^(tm) supercedes any call to a rational debate. This has caused Donald Sensing at One Hand Clapping to ask We expect Michael Moore to lie about Bush, but is prevarication a virus infecting all Bush's opposition?

Donald carefully and methodically lays out the facts for everyone to see that not only did President Bush not lie, he has in fact consistently pursued the same strategic goals outlined in his speech to the UN on 9/12/02.

This is the best approach in refuting the notBush supporters: we have to patiently and consistently continue to cite the facts of the matter, and avoid ad hominem personal attacks. Don Sensing leads the way.

Read it here.

The numbers are in

Looks like the Kerry/Edwards/Oompah-Loompah ticket is running into a rocky start after the convention.

Apparently the projected deficit will be $100 billion less than earlier anticipated.

Thanks to the Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid for the link.

A Measure of Civility

Dean Esmay recently published a pledge which he asked other citizens to take: no matter who wins in November, try to treat the President with the respect the office deserves, especially during the challenges we currently face.

The interesting thing is that he's not the first one I've seen put it that way recently. If you check out the conservative site Free Republic Network you will find similar sentiment.

I can't find a permalink, so here's a quote from their Mission Statement:

Guiding Principles

The Free Republic Network believes:

* that this nation's framing documents -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- establish the guiding principles for a just and free people
* that government is a double-edged sword -- potentially the greatest champion of the rights of citizens, but also the greatest threat to their freedom. To safeguard against tyranny, we believe Americans should strictly limit the scope of our government to those powers, duties and responsibilities assigned in our Constitution.
* that taxation should not exceed the minimum amount needed to accomplish the legitimate duties and responsibilities of government set forth in the Constitution.
* that American citizens must educate themselves and engage in civic and political action, to secure Constitutional rights and liberties for themselves, their families, and future generations.
* that individuals are responsible for their own livelihood and the support of their own families, and that each of us is personally accountable for his or her words, actions and decisions. We believe it is the responsibility of our government to promote the general welfare, not provide it, and to ensure equal access to the American Dream, not to enforce equal outcomes.
* that each of us has a personal obligation to help others overcome misfortune and become productive, and that this work is best accomplished through private rather than public efforts.

Code of Conduct

Network members are asked to abide by our basic Code of Conduct, which includes the following guidelines:

* Do not commit, promote or encourage unlawful actions or acts of violence.
* Maintain the highest ethical standards in dealing with other organizations.
* Maintain courtesy and a professional demeanor.

Especially note the last part. Also, if you read the most recent article there, by John Armor, you will find this remark:

No matter who is President of the United States, the office is entitled to a certain level of respect regardless of the opinion you have about the individual currently occupying the White House. Others have made this point, so I support their position.

For instance, I have spent more than eight years condemning Bill Clinton as a person. It�s more than eight years because even though he�s out of office, he will not go
away. But always my objections were based on facts of what he did or did not do. I did not resort to schoolyard name-calling. Never did I approach the depths of �rhetoric� that Whoopi Goldberg applied to President Bush.

Could this signal -God forbid- the return of manners to politics? Stay tuned!

After the Convention

I just wanted to take a moment to point out that quite a few commentators have projected a bump in the polls in Kerry's favor after the convention.

Apparently it's traditional; both parties' candidates each get a bump after their respective conventions which last a few weeks, then evaporate.

Why am I saying this? Because I anticipate a great deal of joy among the Kerryites when the post-convention poll results come out. "Oh, look, Kerry is killing Bush in the polls! We're a shoo-in!"

Um, no. Bush will see the same sort of bump/evaporate after the GOP convention. It's nothing to get excited about. Even Republican National Comittee Chairman Gillespe has predicted an 8-12 point increase for Kerry after the election.

Consider it the poll equivalent of Indian Summer...

Karl Rove and the President

Chris Muir is a talented and funny cartoonist. He also frequently shows a deft touch with his commentary, and he even tries to show the "squishy liberal" point of view once in a while. :)

This strip, however, is a true gem!

Who's crushing dissent now?

From Lawrence Jarvik Online:

Agustin Blazquez produced and directed the documentaries Covering Cuba (which premiered at the American Film Institute cinema in the Kennedy Center), Cuba: The Pearl of the Antilles, Covering Cuba 2: The Next Generation and, Covering Cuba 3: Elian.

The interesting thing is that the AFI has refused to show Covering Cuba 3: Elian, since they view the film as "too controversial."

Mind you, this is after the American Film Institute bumped an Orson Welles retrospective so they could show Fahrenheit 9/11, which is (apparently) not controversial at all.

It's those damn neo-cons and the right-wing Bush attack machine, crushing dissent again.

Curse you, George Bush!

Sudan Intervention

Milblogger Blackfive discusses interventing in the Sudan, and closes with an intelligently provocative suggestion.

The usual "willing" include Great Britain and perhaps Australia.

And -as usual- France, Germany, and Russia have all said "nyet!" In fact (from other sources) those three countries have indicated that they won't even send money, much less troops, to help.

The suggestion?

I believe that we must seriously consider who is a "responsible" world member and how to support them.

An excellent suggestion indeed! Who wants to start?

Democratic Party Vote Fraud

Liberals are now publicly advocating voting fraud via Air America.

The wonderful folks who gave us "Bush==Hitler" are now suggesting that Democrats migrate to Ohio -just for November-, since our lovely state has a simple 30-day residency requirement, and Ohio may be the critical swing state in the election.

Let's import voters from other states to influence an election...

Hey Al, Randi: y'all forgot the old Daley trick of having dead people vote!

Yep, the Democrats are all class: "Vote early, vote often." Heh.

Thanks to the Conspiracy to keep you Poor and Stupid for the story.

Just in case you weren't sure yet...

Don Sensing over at One Hand Clapping asks the $64 question:

Does anyone still doubt that we really are at war?

"Kidnaped American civilian Paul Johnson, Jr., held as hostage by al Qaeda terrorists in Saudi Arabia, was murdered (not executed, murdered!) by having his head hacked off either today or yesterday.

The terrorists gave photos to Arab media of Johnson's head resting atop his corpse. Caution, these photos are sickening (link may be perishable). But don't avert your eyes. This is what these adherents of the so-called religion of peace are doing."

That, my friends, gets right to the root of things. When will people stop parroting the same mindless pacifist cant over and over again, and understand that there are people (and organizations) out there who are dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization?

Not because the West "exploited" the Arabs; they've been the beneficiaries of literally hundreds of billions of dollars the past two generations.

Not because the West (ok, just America) "sponsored" Israel; over fifty years ago the Jews of the world decided never again, and that the next time anybody tried a pogrom, the anti-semitic rat bastards were going to get their cojones stuffed down their collective throats.

And not because classic Western (AKA "Dead White Male") civilization represses Islam; Islam has done a wonderful job of repressing itself for a millenium. I repeat: we are facing the results of over one thousand years of medieval fascist kleptocracy

We are at war. If you have a problem with that: lead, follow, or get out of the way.

In other words: oppose the war honestly, with every tool at your disposal ; do not drool some mealy-mouthed fence-straddling "We support the troops, but we don't like what they're doing." crap. If the war is wrong, say so. Tatoo it across your chest. Fight it with every breath you take, from the bottom of your heart. Don't snipe, nitpick and connive on how to best situate yourself for the next election.

Or you can follow; join the war effort, but try to inject some sanity info the mix. But if you honestly can't see the difference between the abuses of a handful of incompetant screw-ups and the Hussein Family perversions, there's something wrong with you. And, yes, I think that every one of those idjits should face maximum jail time if convicted.

Of course, there's always "get out of the way," but for some odd reason -can't put my finger on it- I have this silly feeling that the moonbat pacifist fringe won't do that. One of their deepest collective needs is the validation and adulation of the great, unwashed masses.

My Kind of Endorsement

Motorcycle group Rolling Thunder, comprised of 70 chapters and over 7,000 members, endorsed President Bush today in Washington D.C.

When Bush accepted the endorsement from group leader Artie Muller, the president joked "Artie, I thought you were going to offer me riding lessons."

The group organizes an annual Memorial Day gathering in Washington, D.C. This year (according to Yahoo! news sources) "The straightlaced US capital was shaken by the furious roar of 80,000 leather-clad bikers riding Harley Davidsons for the annual Memorial Day rally."

Rolling Thunder is dedicated to POW/MIA and veteran's issues such as better veteran's benefits, and volunteers to provide time, food, and clothing to local veterans and communities.

Bikers (and veterans) for Bush. Is this cool, or what?

Strength

Sometimes someone hits the nail right on the head.

Every once in a while, someone drives the nail right through the wood.

Bill Whittle is not only through the wood, he's out the other side and across the street. All I can say is read it.

Strength Part 1
Strength Part 2

I generally tend to be pretty verbose when I get worked up, but this work has left me speechless.

I repeat: read it.

A big thanks to Misha I for the original link!

Word for the Day

His Awesome Impressiveness, the Emperor Misha, has coined a delightful new word.

"Assweasel."

Sally forth, and enjoy the latest broadside from His Majesty.

Payback of a different kind

Chris Muir has, in his usual inimitable way, gone to the root of the problem.

Hmm... What If?...

Ara Rubyan, buttocks still stinging from a recent spanking, has presented an interesting possibility for the Democrats this year.

What if Kerry picked John Glenn for his running mate?

As I said over there:

This may shock a couple of folks, but I voted for Glenn regularly. :)

Now, if it were Glenn/Kerry, instead of the other way around, now... Heh.

Actually, Glenn is probably the only Democrat who could beat Bush at the flight-suit game: Marine aviator, ace, war hero (no "missing" medals or war crimes here!!), and the first American in orbit to boot.

I have to say, if he were (say) 10-15 years younger, and the Dem Presidential candidate, I would be tempted. Really, I would.

So, what do you think, y'all? Could a Kerry/Glenn ticket do it? Even more so, would a Glenn/Kerry ticket make you stop, think, and maybe putl the "D" lever this fall?

The phone lines are open...

They Bear FULL Responsibility!

I know this analogy has been drawn before, but I couldn't resist linking to the new trailer at apple.com.

From The Life of Brian, What have the Romans ever done for us?

The REAL obscenity

I got quite a bit of traffic a couple days ago regarding my little rant regarding the hypocritical hysteria over the Abu Ghraib "torture." Apparently at least a couple of folks found that offensive. Some of those sort of folks like to use the word "obscene" when talking about Abu Ghraib.

Well, they're full of it. They don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. What, you want an example? Ok.

This is obscene.

In case you haven't heard yet, a young man named Nick Berg was beheaded on videotape, just like Daniel Pearl. Watch the tape. Listen to that poor boy screan as they saw his head off with a knife, and then hold it up in front of the camera. Then, think about the "naked butt" pyramid, and other "tortures" inflicted on the Iraq prisoners.

Then, after that, look me in the eye and tell me about the "obscenity" of Abu Ghraib.

What in the hell is wrong with these people!? How morally obtuse do you have to be to not comprehend that we are talking about two tremendously different ways of life here?

On the one hand, we have some idiot reservists who embarassed some prisoners, for which they should be soundly punished. On the other hand, we have sick cowards who don't even have the courage to show their faces as they slowly murder a civilian who never did them any harm.

The really sick part is that the looney part of the Left will immediately say we "provoked" this foul atrocity, because they are pathologically locked into a "hate Amerikka" mode that prevents them seeing the bloody reality in front of their faces.

Let me paste in a quick quote from Emperor Misha's excellent post regarding Abu Ghraib and the Berg murder:
"Now, first I have to say that it was, is and continues to be my impression that the idiots parading around in our uniform that did this are nothing but a bunch of sick pervs doing all of it for shits and giggles, and there is nothing at this time that makes me believe otherwise. For one thing, professionals would never EVER pose for pictures and distribute them to G-d and everybody.

However, and this is a big however, if you consider stripping people naked and putting hoods over their heads "torture", then you need to turn Oprah off, right now, and get the fuck away from the TV until you've re-acquainted yourself with the real world that we live in."

There are too many people who still don't seem to understand that there is, out there, a way of life which is devoted to the death and destruction of America. Those people need to wake up, and tell the world where the stand, because sometimes you just can't sit on the fence and hope the world ignores you.

Me, I stand with the West. Where are you?

EXCUSE me!?

If you have delicate ears, or are of otherwise of refined disposition, do NOT read the following post.

I apologize to my regular readers for the following language.

Oh, my stars and garters.

The New York Time has truly jumped the shark this time. (registration required, but it's free)

In an article on the prison abuse at Abu Ghraib, the Times actually said:

"More than a year after the fall of Baghdad, Mr. Bush found himself in the remarkable position of having to persuade Iraqis and Arabs generally that Iraq was better off under the American occupation than it had been under Saddam Hussein."

Excuse my french, but what the FUCK is the Times talking about!?

No. Really. I've been holding off on this, since better men than I have done quite well on explaining the facts, but this is ludicrous. I mean, this is the "paper of fucking record," and all they can do is repeat the same mindless bullshit that has infected half of the planet?

Ok, let's review here. We will call the columns "no more" and "now."
-no more ears cut off for desertion, now we write scurrilous words on their buttocks.
-no more mass graves, now mass "naked butt" pyramids.
-no more real tortures, now we don't plug in the wires. Psyche!!!
-no more feeding people feet-first into plastic shredders, now we feed them feet-first into the public maw.

Ok. That last was pretty nasty.

Right now every known Arab country is collectively squirting a brick out the south forty over the "human rights abuses" committed by the US in Iraq. My question is: where the stinking Hell were these two-faced, hypocritical rat-bastards when Iraq slaughtered a million of its own citizens over a border dispute with Iran, when it used chemical weapons against its own citizens, when it destroyed 99% of the wetlands which hosted the Marsh Arab population of Iraq, and when the sons of of the mighty Hussein picked up women off the street, raped them, and then branded them as whores? (unless they just murdered them, of course)

I'm sorry. I've had it.
I've had it with the hypocritical mindless barbaric fucks who viciously torture "the other" on a regular basis, and then have the monumental gall and complete lack of any sense of proportion to criticize American mistakes.

I've had it with Muslim countries who have to be goaded into criticizing their own bloody mistakes (in every sense of the word), including forcing teenaged girls back into fire because they weren't wearing the right fucking dress (oh, gee, didn't know there wasn't an "Emily Post on How to Exit a Burning Building," asswipes)

I've had it with 12th Century countries who think that it's still acceptable to "ethnically cleanse" the countryside in God's Name.

I've had it with medieval bandits who still act as if they are still in the first freaking millennium, who have the unmitigated gall to condemn the United States of America for missing the target of "perfect humane civilization," while they still hold that female genital mutilation, and slaughtering the infidel are culturally correct.

End of rant. (signed) Casey the Jacksonian.

Skirts are up, and so are revenues

Could it be?? Is this true??

'Federal Deficit Likely to Narrow by $100 Billion
Tax Receipts Pare Borrowing

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 4, 2004; Page E01

Smaller-than-expected tax refunds and rising individual tax receipts will pare back federal borrowing significantly for the first half of this year and could reduce the $521 billion deficit projected for the fiscal year by as much as $100 billion, Treasury and congressional budget officials said yesterday. '

(snip)

'G. William Hoagland, a senior economic aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), said he dashed off a memo to GOP leadership predicting the 2004 deficit could be trimmed to $420 billion, a record in dollar terms but considerably lower than the White House's $521 billion projection.'

But still...

'Democratic and Republican budget aides in the House warned yesterday that it was too early to reach conclusions. Spending could still take an unexpected jump because of surging hostilities in Iraq. The improving federal borrowing picture, they said, may just be bringing the administration's $521 billion deficit forecast more into line with the $477 billion deficit predicted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official budget scorekeeper.'

I imagine that Terry McAuliffe is investing a lot of money in Pepto-Bismol right now. Heh.

A Greater Victory

Looks like Michele has hit the big time; she's been linked by The Corner. Her work covering Rall & Wright (maybe they can go on the road as a hate act) has been excellent.

I just have to say: you go, girl! Keep the fires burning.

Yet Another Reason why I don't trust the government

As Jerry Pournelle observed when someone sent him this article.

"As I understand it, the original Social Security Act promised that the Social Security Number would never become a national ID number, nor SS Number be used for identification. So it goes."

But, but, I thought that we could trust the government! Yeah.

This is exactly why I am generally opposed to government intervention into sociey. No matter how well-intentioned a program starts out, it spawns ugly unintended consequences, becomes a political football, or both.

How do you think that poor guy who's Social Security number was hijacked by terrorists feels?

Waffles Away!

Ken Jacobson, over at Esoteric Diatribe had a good (and funny) idea.

Why not google-bomb Kerry with the word waffles the same way some squishy lib'rls did with the miserable failure thing?

A good idea, sez I! I think it would be funny to link Kerry with the word waffles. After all, waffles are square like Kerry, waffles are flat, like Kerry's delivery, and waffles are toasted, just like Kerry will be in November.

Of course, I'm excited, because I like to eat waffles in the morning.

Blueberry.

So I encourage everyone to mention waffles on their website, tell their friends to mention waffles as well, and maybe we'll get waffles up to #1 on Google.

On a (barely) more serious note, if you want to keep the rating from being degraded by the search engine, and your blog 'ware will let you, just post-date the article discussing waffles so that it stays on your main page. This makes it count more.

Or you can do what I did, and put a waffles link on your sidebar.

Happy waffles-ing, everyone!

UPDATE: Ken has told me that we're bombing waffles, not waffle. Whoopsie. All fixed, now!

CNN: fair & balanced?

Yesterday, Dean Esmay linked to a story about ongoing rebellion in Iran.

Michelle over at A Small Victory followed up on that tonight.

It's pretty darn clear that something is going on over there (see my post here about Syria), so you would think that the major services would have reported something about by now, wouldn't you?

Not to worry, CNN is on the job!

"Iranians celebrate fire festival
Tuesday, March 16, 2004 Posted: 6:37 PM EST (2337 GMT)

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iranians danced in the street, threw firecrackers and jumped over bonfires Tuesday night as authorities openly tolerated an ancient fire festival for the first time in 25 years."

Oh, I see! It's just a New Year's Eve celebration, not a rebellion against a vicious theocracy. I feel much better, now.

It's a good thing that CNN is there to provide us with 24/7, honest, and unbiased reporting.

Just like they did in Iraq...

UPDATE (March 19): the UK's Telegraph is now reporting on the rioting in Syria.

Fire Burning Bright, or Beware the Ides of March

I generally manage to keep up on this stuff, but Dean caught me on the hop with this one.

Or, you can go directly to the source he links to here:

"03/13/2004: Rebellion in Northern Iran
Project FREE IRAN has several pictures similar to this of an ongoing rebellion in Northern Iran in a place called Fereydunkenar, which I would imagine few of us have ever heard of. Street battles have occurred and, according to the site, several protestors killed by "security forces." Project FREE IRAN is worth bookmarking because this struggle is certain to continue and our media have little access, even if they wanted it. (hat tip: Larry)"

But that's not all! Just a few hours ago I found this link over at The Corner on NRO:
SYRIAN RIOTING

"Public buildings still burned Sunday in the northern Syrian city of Qameshli following riots in which at least 14 Kurds were reported killed in clashes with security forces, an AFP reporter saw. Syrian authorities swiftly cracked down on the unrest over the weekend, branding it an attempt to destabilise the country as Washington prepares to impose economic sanctions on Damascus."

"At this moment, Qamishli and four other Western Kurdish cities are under siege by the Syrian military. Tanks and helicopters surround the cities. Syrian soldiers and Arab militias on patrol shoot indiscriminately into the streets. Communication with the outside world has been cut off. Mobile phone contacts report over 50 people killed and hundreds injured by this callous act."

"US forces now in Syria (emphasis added: Casey)

"Analysis: this highlights some key points that will be discussed later. First, the signs of concrete American involvement have come to light. American personnel and helicopters landing in northern Syria, no matter who they are or why, is big news. Assad's dispatch of his brother (Defense Minister) to speak with Kurdish leaders is also a major turning point; signs that the Syrian military can't control the situation? Or simply fear international backlash by making any critical moves?"

Things are heating up over there! And (as Dean pointed out) as of 3/15, 10:45 p.m. Eastern time, CNN still doesn't have a clue on their website.

UPDATE (March 19): the UK's Telegraph is now reporting on the rioting in Syria.

Shoulder to shoulder

Generally, Ara and I have disagreed just a tad on the '04 elections. :)

But I'm with him 100% on this:

"...the Spanish people overthrew the incumbent ruling party in reaction to this terror attack.

Bottom line? If, God forbid, the same thing happened here three days before the election, regardless of who was ahead or behind, I would hope that the people of the US would not lose their resolve. If we do, the terrorists win. "

Amen.

I want to take a moment to point out (and many liberal/Democrats may find this hard to believe) that quite a few conservative/Republicans oppose Kerry not just because he's a Democrat, but that they think he'll revert to a "talk about it, don't do anything" policy like the one that gave us a bombed-out asperin factory in Sudan and "Blackhawk Down" in Somalia, but not much else.

Before anyone pops a rivet, I'll admit that things are different, now. Even Slick Willie might have pursued a more "warhawk"-like foreign policy after 9/11, and many intelligent commentators believe that Gore would have at least executed something similar to Bush's Afghanistan operation.

But, many observers hear what Kerry is saying, and interpret it to mean that he really will return to policy that views terrorism more as a police-enforcement matter, than a military one. In other words: have a lot of conferences, publish press releases, but don't spend any blood or treasure defending our society.

If Kerry is elected, I hope he doesn't follow that path. And if he does choose the path of courage and righteousness, I'll be behind him 100% as well. As Churchill once said: "God willing, we can do no other."

Or cite another Churchill quote, especially the first line:

In War: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will

I fought the law...

Y'know, it used to be so simple when I was a kid. If someone pushed you, you pushed back. If they took a swing at you, you had the right to fight back.

The new, modern solution is "Zero tolerance." NO fighting. Like mom use to say "I don't care who started it, you're both in trouble!" Ok, fine. So when someone (oh, say) verbally and physically bullies a girl, she reports the thugs to the school, and justice prevails, no?

Um, no. At least not here in Butler County, right down the road from where I live. Alicia Kinsey did the Right Thing: complained about harassment by four other girls. A foot in the back of the neck, in fact.

Talawanda Middle School Counselor Sandy Greenberg brought three of the four girls to her office and left them alone to write down what happened. All three claimed that Ms. Kinsey threatened one of them with a knife the day before, even though they couldn't get their story straight. The girls couldn't agree whether Alicia threatened to stab or kill the other girl. The fourth girl was questioned separately later that day. She named the wrong girl as the target of the threat. Later one of the original three recanted; she wasn't even on the bus that day.

So far the case sounds pretty far-fetched and thin against Ms. Kinsey, no? Again, no.

Greenberg reported all this to Vice Principal Chris Rhoton, who talked to Alicia the following day. The result: he had Alicia questioned by a police officer, charged with criminal menacing, then expelled.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

Get the full story at Zero Intelligence, a website dedicated to "Fighting School Board Tyranny/Inanity." It's a great place.

Mo' Money, Mo' Money!

Ara over at E Pluribus Unum sez (if I understand him) that the big money always wins in elections.

In fact, he even did a little thought experiment:

Imagine that we're running for the Senate from Iowa. Imagine that Dick Morris is your senior campaign consultant if you like. [shiver]

Now, imagine that you are standing in a room where there are two stacks of money on two tables. One table holds a stack of money totaling $2.5 million. The other table holds a stack of money totaling $5 million. You are free to choose whichever pile on one condition: your opponent will get the stack you leave behind.

So, which one do you choose?

I'd say that's not the point. To quote Sun-Tzu: "A lion will attack an ant with all of his power." In other words, it's human nature to take the $5 million, no matter whether it affects the election or not.

But that's not the real point. The real point is that Howard "I have a Scream" Dean spent upwards of $60 million up until the Iowa caucus (with Iowa getting a lions' share), but Kerry still beat him like a red-headed stepchild in K-Mart in every state.

Now, what was that about big money again? Heh.

Q.O.A.E. Speaks, the blogosphere listens!

Rosemary Esmay (AKA Queen of all Evil) has Laid Down the Law:
"I have had it with the hurling of criminal accusations at the President of the United States. Or anyone else for that matter.

Being AWOL, a rapist, a deserter, a murderer are crimes. From now on, this is a conspiracy free zone."

Amen, Your Majesty!

Please note that Rose is not excepting Democratic/liberals with this: anyone coming up with the latest version of the "Vince Foster conspiracy" will get short shrift as well.

This is as it should be. I strongly lean towards Bush these days, but we -as citizens- should handle our obligation to select representatives in a responsible manner.

Even if Bush looks like Curious George, and Kerry is Botoxulon.

(By the way, Rose, have I told you lately how damned sexy you look, when you get mad? Heh)

What is it about politicians, anyway?

Any party that reigns unchallenged for a long period of time tends to become corrupt. Acton once said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Analog editor John Campbell once said that he would change that to "unchallenged power corrupts absolutely." I think that this is largely true.

Recall that for at least a generation after the Civil War, the GOP reigned supreme over the United States, damn near literally. A single act sufficed, generally, to quell any possible Democrat upstart: waving the bloody shirt; a phrase introduced at this time by actually waving a bloody, torn shirt supposedly taken off of the body of a man flogged by unreconstructed Rebels in the South.

Point being that Republicans could taint any Democrat with the slur of "traitor" until the Spanish-American War, wherein the old hostilities finally ended.

This granted the Republican Party nearly unchallenged power for a good generation. This tends to explain the degree of corruption found in Republican politics of the time.

The Democrats, stymied by the perennial charge of treason, and lacking a great leader, found little to lead with until the emergence of the Populist movement just before the turn of the century.

That movement gave them the first impetus to an appeal to populism that has lasted through the 20th century.

Wilson managed to touch many Americans with his idealism, but he ultimately failed as a political leader. It fell to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to bring the populist message into the mainstream of Democratic thought, and his skills allowed the Democrats to regain their supremacy for the first time in over 70 years.

FDR melded together a �party of underdogs,� as it were; all those who weren�t part of the dominant party were attracted to the opposition. By 1932, this included the great majority of Americans, especially after the Crash of �29�

(an aside: This explains the hoary old myth that the GOP is the party of rich people. The GOP didn�t kowtow to rich men; rather men became so because they joined the Republican Party. This �again- illustrates the principle that any group or organization will become corrupt in the absence of any major external challenge.)

Let us return to FDR. His first two terms were marked by a return of optimism and hope to American political life (one of my favorite quotes of the time comes from Will Rogers: �Even if he burnt down the White House, we can say �At least he got a fire started!�� ). The Republicans of the time, in the face of a resurgent Democratic Party, could only regurgitate the ossified slogans of their predecessors. They could offer no new vision to challenge Roosevelt�s work.

(another aside: FDR has to have been one of the most vilified men to ever hold the Presidency, bar one. I would say that, in order, the five worst would be
1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Washington
4. Bush Jr.
5. Clinton

One may wish to swap FDR & Washington.)

What really infuriated Republicans was that FDR broke the unofficial, but hitherto sacred precedent of Washington�s �Two term limit.� Worse yet, he did so to the tune of humiliating majorities in both houses for two elections.

When you add to this his brilliant leadership in World War Two, the GOP looked, well, like a bunch of selfish contrarians. They were up against a smart politician with a healthy vision who played it smart in a major war. I imagine they were tempted to cry in frustration more than once�

The Truman administrations can be considered as an extension of the Roosevelt organization, with the additional issues of �who lost what to the Communists,� and the ancient problem of unchallenged corruption. By this time (1952) the Democratic Party had reigned unchallenged for twenty years. Eisenhower was elected for 2 major reasons: he led the Allies to victory in Europe, and he symbolized a return to a less corrupt polis.

I believe it is significant that Eisenhower was the only real challenge to Democratic Party primacy until the 1968 election, and even Nixon�s election was a reaction to the Democrat�s poor handling of the Vietnam War.

It wasn�t until the 1972 election (AKA the �Great Ass-Whup of �72�) that the GOP scored a major victory over the Democratic Party, as I count the election of 1968 as a negative reaction to the party in power, as opposed to a positive reaction to the party in opposition.

So, really, the Democrats enjoyed nearly unchallenged power from 1932 until 1972; 40 years. This beats the Republican Party domination of 1865-1895 (30 years).

I shall pass on the next few years (Ford was unelected, and Carter quickly dis-elected), and later administrations, except to note that Reagan marked the renaissance of the Republican Party.

My conclusions are:
First: any party in a position of unchallenged power tends to ossify and become corrupt. This happens in other areas as well: American auto manufacturers in the 1970s, for example

Second: when challenged, the dominant party has trouble developing a new meme to suit new circumstances, including a crumbling power base and loss of dominance.

Third: the now-eclipsed party clings to outmoded memes because they have no new ideas: they look back to past greatness and �good times.�

Finally: any renaissance of the now-eclipsed party must come from an outsider (vis: FDR and/or Reagan) as the insiders still cling to past glory.

It should be quite apparent that I consider the Democratic Party to be the current �now-eclipsed� party.

Most of the Democratic Party leaders look back to the halcyon times of the 1960s, when the counter-culture and rebellion were not only stylish, but sexy as well. Rock songs feted their actions, while news organizations hung upon every word.

This was the time of Watergate, and the Washington Post; when the Fourth Estate could bring down Presidents.

Modern leaders, alas, confuse popularity and accolades with leadership and vision. They fail to see that rebellion, per se, is not a virtue, and must be viewed in context.

The modern Democratic Party harks back to old days of glory, when Buffalo Springfield could sing �must be a thousand people / in the streets,� and everyone knew that the government was after, well, everyone. Considering Nixon�s paranoia, this was not too far off the mark.

The problem is that Nixon�s dead, and Vietnam�s over. African-Americans have made great strides economic as well as political leadership, and even the gay-lesbian community has advanced their agenda to the point where gay/lesbian marriage is now considered a mainstream political issue, instead of something that only freaks and perverts worry about.

The problem is that the Democratic Party �as a party- has run out of traditional issues.

I do not claim that America no longer has any social issues, any more than I would claim that (as some have said) that history ended with the fall of Communism and the Soviet Union.

I will also say that, in this context, it becomes understandable why Democratic Party stalwarts fall back on hyperbole and ad hominem attacks on the Bush administration: they have no relevant arguments to put forward as an alternative.

I conclude that the Democratic Party members, and all American citizens, need new memes, and new social paradigms to discuss modern challenges in a relevant way.

Otherwise we face the possibility that the GOP will be able to reign unchallenged for yet another generation, to the detriment of our country. Note that this is not an attack on the Republican Party; merely an observation that both parties are subject to the corruption of unchallenged power.

Who will be the next William Jennings Bryant, and (more important) who will be the next FDR, or Reagan?

Even the Syrians are starting to get it

Now this is interesting; over half a million Syrians have signed a petition that is scheduled to be presented to Syrian authorities on March 8.

"Some 600,000 citizens, including intellectuals, lawyers and human rights activists, have already signed the document, the Committees for the Defense of Democratic Liberties and Human Rights in Syria said.

The group said it hoped for a million signatures by March. Syria has a population of around 18 million. "

But this has nothing to do with the Iraq invasion. Not a bit.

Purely coincidence, I'm sure.

Heh.

ONLY NIXON CAN GO TO CHINA

And only Ariel Sharon can evacuate Jewish Setttements in Gaza.

Apparently Prime Minster Sharon is serious about removing the settlements, even if his timeline isn't very specific at the moment.

Before the critics start flailing away, I would like to point out that even this much shows terrific courage on Sharon's part.: 'A Gaza settler spokesman called Sharon's comments "miserable" and vowed that the nationalist camp would work "to cut short Sharon's term as prime minister through legal means."' (from the Reuters article)

Everyone knows that the Israel/Palestine problem is nearly impossible to solve; the problem is that both sides have something they don't want to give up. The coservative Israelis want to keep the settlements; the Pals want to keep killing Jews.

The good thing for Israel is that giving up the settlements -as long as they keep building the Security Wall- is to their long-term benefit. Even if the Pals don't give up their murderous agenda, all Israel has to do is shoot every SOB that tries to cross the wall. The sections they have up have already dramatically reduced the number of terrorist attacks, as well as casualties.

Once the wall is done, they can hand Gaza and the West Bank over to the Palestine Authority, and let the newly-minted citizens of that country support themselves.

They want freedom? Then give it to them, good and hard.

On the Northern Front

The United States, in cooperation with coalition forces, announced that the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) is now considered a terrorist organization, along with any affiliated organizations.

If you haven't heard of them, the PKK is a Kurdish separatist group that has fought with Turkish forces in the past, as well as being responsible for attacks in Turkey.

I'm sure the Turks feel better, now.

Bush seeks out new strategies

Is the president rethinking his campaign strategies? Perhaps:

ScrappleFace: Bush Turns to Clinton for Election Advice

So, maybe Dean isn't so far back after all

I've been busy all day (and I mean busy, from 5:30am on), so I totally zoned out about the New Hampshire primary.

I just checked out CNN, and -big surprise- Kerry came out on top with 39% of the vote. Dean was #2 at 26%, with Clark and Edwards at a misirable 12% each.

Now, here's the wierd thing; according to CNN, Dean is in the lead on the number of delegates.

Apparently the good doctor has been picking up the odd unpledged delegate here and there, so he's still on top of Kerry* 113 to 94 right now.

This is almost as much fun as Fantasy Football!

*Yes, that is a scary mental picture for me, too.