I must admit, I had somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to that story.  I have always been resistant to people bringing up accusations of -isms when criticizing the actions of others.  That holds true for racism, sexism, and naziism to name just a few.¹

One comment of Williams’ that really stood out to me was when he said:

WILLIAMS: Well, there was an undercurrent, but in recent days the episode with Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouting out, You lie, as Obama was speaking to the joint session has really exacerbated that anxiety, and it’s led to this notion that there is disrespect, even condescension, in the way that Obama is being treated as compared to any other president of the United States.

I found myself thinking that this isn’t so much a disprespect directed at the President because he is black, but rather a further manifestation of what I believe we have been seeing ever since the “me” generation of the 70s.  Once we were told that WE were important, and that in a relativistic society *I* am the most important person in *my* life, it was only a matter of time until that level of narcissism pervaded every aspect of society.  We have been seeing it for years in talk radio and talking-head television shows when one person just shouts louder and louder, denying the other the basic right to be heard.  Why? Because what you have to say isn’t important because it gets in the way of what *I* want to say.

Rabbi Hirschfield, in his article “Why Joe (and Kanye and Serena) Won’t Apologize” from today’s Washington Post, points out that Wilson’s outburst is a symptom of something greater.

Over the past seven days, we have been treated to obnoxious outbursts by leading figures not only in politics, but in sports and pop culture as well. In addition to the heckle heard round the world issued by Rep. Wilson, there was the verbal attack launched by Serena Williams against a line judge at the U.S. Open, and the boorish behavior displayed by rapper and music producer Kanye West when he grabbed the microphone from award winner Taylor Swift at MTV’s Video Music Awards.

All of these stories are rooted in the same basic fact: speakers who think it’s all about them. And if it isn’t about them, they seem to think it must be about some other individual who is even more important than they are. Apparently though, it’s beyond any of the offenders’ ability to appreciate that civility is about all of us.

So while others were stunned, shocked, or outraged, I was not surprised by Wilson’s outburst, any more than I am surprised at the outbursts of any other public, or private, figure that chooses to elevate themselves over all others.  Look around.   We have been hearing reports of teens killing each other over sneakers. A cheerleader mom taking a “contract” out on her daughter’s rival.  Once we start seeing achieving our happiness as “all important” and achieving our goals in life as the most important aspect, it is little wonder we as a society start to devolve into a society of rudeness, and violence.  It is this propensity to devolve into violence then that has me concurring with Juan Williams when he says:

And it’s also then, I think, led to lots of discussion of whether or not there’s a greater chance of Obama being physically attacked, assaulted. This was heightened, of course, by people who were bringing guns to some of the August and other tea party events, you know, to express opposition to President Obama’s policies.

But let me be clear–I certainly believe there are some people who are opposed to Barrack Obama simply because of the color of his skin.  I cannot personally understand that, but I do know they exist.  But I think this cuts deeper.  It is my opinion that, when confronted with views in opposition to one’s own (either from the left, or the right) people have a tendency to view themselves as correct, and superior.  And once they step across that line, they believe they can justify any words, any action.

Perhaps I need to rethink my resistance to all charges of -isms.  If the Rabbi is right, then we do have a problem, and it is “Narcissism.”

^1. Of course in instances where one wears a white sheet, a swastika, and so forth you will get no argument from me.  I am not blind!

“But if scientific achievements can be judged only after the event and if there is no abstract way of ensuring success beforehand, then there exists no special way of weighting scientific promises either–scientists are not better off than anybody else in these matters, they only know more details.  This means that the public can participate in the discussion without disturbing existing roads to success (there are no such roads).  In cases where the scientists’ work affects the public it even should participate:  first, because it is a concerned party (many scientific decisions affect public life); secondly, because such participation is the best scientific education the public can get–a full democratization of science (which includes the protection of minorities such as scientists) is not in conflict with science.  It is in conflict with a philosophy, often called “Rationalism,” that uses a frozen image of science to terrorize people unfamiliar with its practice.”  (emphasis his)

If you can take a few moments, read through this a few times, and think through what it is saying.

• The role of the public in Science, as many view the “public” as being too poorly educated as to be able to fully grasp science (Some have heatedly called the recent political era the “era of anti-intellectualism”)
• Perhaps think about it in the context of the discussions concerning stem cell research and the “promises” made by scientists concerning the cures that will come.
• Consider the discussions about the origins of man in the context of his point of the “philosophy … called ‘Rationalism’” and what appeals are made to authority on the various sides.

How do you view science and the nature of discovery?

“I had to hold my nose, and vote for Specter.  Now I have to do neither.”

Why vote for him, you say? Well, years ago, when I was sitting on the knee of (well, on the floor, looking up at) my Grandfather, I asked him why we should support the Maryland US Senator Charles “Mac” Mathias, since he was about as liberal as the (then) junior Senator from Maryland, Paul Sarbanes.  He explained that “he may be a monster, but he’s our monster.”  A rather cynical view, but at the time (late 1970s, and the heart of the “Carter Economic Disaster” the likes of which we STILL haven’t seen since) it was clear that if Mathias lost the primary the democrat candidate would most likely win the seat, reducing the numbers of Republicans below the line allowing for a filibuster.  So keeping that number was important, if only for the greater good.

So, I learned the lesson well, and followed the logic.  When necessary, I have voted for a candidate I didn’t like “all that much” because of the greater good.

I most likely would have again.  But now, thanks to Senator Specter’s decision to return to the Democrat Party, I am free once again to vote conscience.

I am now only left with one question:  how will our good friend over at “Pressing the Flesh” respond?  Will he welcome this lost sheep into the Democrat fold after all these years, or will he actively campaign against that former Republican?  I await his post!

Having just made made my estimated tax payment (late, yet again, I know…) was reading through the IRS 1040 ES tax pamphlet, and came across a list of list of expiring tax benefits.  I have (using the power of the Jing Project!) excerpted from that document that list:

Why would I list this?  Well, I find it quite interesting that, as part of the Democrats efforts to eliminate Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” they are letting these evil tax cuts die.  You know the ones..  That credit for encouraging energy efficiency?  Oh, and that pesky credit for research (darn those tax-evading scientists!)¹

Interestingly, despite his obvious leftist leanings, Dean Dad hasn’t commented on the expiration of the tax benefit called “Tuition and fees deduction.”  He also hasn’t commented on the loss of the educator deduction from the AGI.  I wonder why?

So my question for you, dear readers is this:  Why were these tax cuts/benefits evil, and how do they only help the rich?

¹ Interestingly, several of the podcasts I have listened to lately have applauded the Obama election, and talked about the expectation that the floodgates of funding will be swinging wide. Hmm… at the same time that we remove the tax credit for conducting research? Apparently (and I just surmise here) the only “good science” is that which is directly funded by the government.  Ahh, yes, suckling…

The Democrats have, for a very long time, (read, 4 years) been running around claiming that the Bush Administration, and the Republicans, are running a “politics of fear” only able to be re-elected when the American people are “afraid.”  Well it sure looks to me like the Democrats are doing the same thing.  Oh, they aren’t trying to make us afraid of terrorists.  They are making us fear the economy.  Fear a loss of jobs.  Fear each other.  Take, for instance, this comment from Obama’s acceptance speech:

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.

I am sure you see it.  We should be afraid of what may happen to us if we don’t elect Obama.  In fact, the whole first third of his speech (and of every speech) was designed to instill fear into our hearts.

Hey–I am not saying it isn’t a great style.  It works.  It is a formula for speech-writing that has been shown through the ages to be successful.

It is also a speech designed to highlight one party, and their vision of the future, in comparison to another.  I believe we call that “being partisan.”  I don’t think anyone faults Obama and the Democrats for being partisan.  After all, it was a “Democrat Party Convention” after all.  But what is surprising was the criticism put foward by the Obama camp as read in the Mercury News:

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called the speech “well-delivered, but written by George Bush’s speech writer and sounds exactly like the same divisive partisan attacks we’ve heard from George Bush for the last eight years.”

Hmm.  partisan attacks?  Let’s see… what could those be?

Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third.

For over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

The speech goes on and on with these sorts of dichotomies. They (the Republicans) don’t care about, want to hurt you, only want to help their cronies.. but WE (the Democrats) care about you, and are willing to do what it takes to help you.

That, my Fellow Americans. Is partisan divisiveness. Don’t complain that Republicans do that, when you did it the week before.

Take the GE commercials, for instance.  They have laid out clearly, in several commercials, how they are actively engaged in alternative energy projects.  GM touting their lower consumption and hybrid and electric vehicles.  Boeing and their lighter and less fuel consuming aircraft.  The list goes on.

As I see it, they are telling us the things that are already going on. Steps that are being done today, based on research and development conducted for at least the past 8 years (and more likely 20-30 years.)  Clearly, we are seeing today the fruits of labor and investments made in the past decades.

On the other hand, we have Obama’s commercial.  In his commercial (hey, he approved it!) he points out that the hands that do many every day things can also things to put in place alternative energy programs.  Like wind power. Alternative fuel cars.  Solar power. All noble thoughts.  And he is right, our hands can do those things.  In fact, as evidenced by not just the other ads, but our own experience (and the fact that the video used shows locations already doing these things).

So just what will Obama bring to the table? How will he enable our hands? Hmmm?

It seems to me that the Democrats are the ones playing off the fears of the American public.  Not the fear of terrorists, but fear of energy failures.  And they are promising…. um… wait, I had the memo right here…

Oh, yeah. Change.

Now, if we could just hear what that change is, and how it will be different.

I’m still waiting.

One more thing:  the last time this was done, under Carter, the expected revenues just didn’t materialize.  According to the report published in 2006 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “The $80 billion in gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393 billion projected. Due to the deductibility of the WPT against the income tax, cumulative net WPT revenues were about $38 billion, significantly less than the $175 billion projected.”

That got me thinking.  What people are really saying is not that they want to tax “windfall profits” (defined at the Financial Dictionary as “A sudden unexpected profit uncontrolled by the profiting party.”) but rather people are upset that the oil companies are making money by charging the consumer a higher price than they used to. Yup.  It apparently is unfair to charge a price that the market will bear.

Hillary Clinton, on May 1st is quoted as saying “The oil companies have made out like bandits, and there is no basis for them to have these huge profits.”

That said, I started to look around and see what other companies are earning these sort of “obscene” profits, during what has been described by Obama as “a recession, or worse.” So, first, I looked at the percentage profits earned by Exxon the most-oft used target of opportunity by the left.  For that past three years, Exxon has earned between 9 and 10 % profits (computed by dividing their “net income” into “total Revenue”–all data from http://finance.yahoo.com the hotlinks on the company names will take you to those pages)

Exxon
Net Income    Total Revenue    ”% Profit”
2005 36130              370680           9.75%
2006 39500              377635         10.46%
2007 40610              404552         10.04%

So, that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, but perhaps I missed something.  Perhaps that 10% return in unmatched by any other company.  So, I decided to look at another company.  Yes, I had a biased selection.  I chose Apple, Inc, for two reasons.  First, Apple has had strong success making in-roads into several markets (computers, cell-phones, music), and secondly, because it seems Apple tends to be the computer platform of choice by those on the left. 

Well, it turns out Apple has performed comparably to Exxon in the first two years, while beginning to signficantly outperform Exxon in 2007.

Apple
Net Income    Total Revenue    “% Profit”
2005 1335                  13931           9.58%
2006 1989                   19315         10.30%
2007 3496                   24006         14.56%

Now, it was pointed out to me that people don’t need and iPhone, or an iPod, or even a Mac, so that comparison is flawed.  People apparently do need to consume gasoline however (I point to my previous discussion about the gas tax for why many do not need, or even consume, gasoline.)  I conceded this point.  I would, however, argue that computers have become ubiquitous, and no operating system is more prevalent than Microsoft’s Windows. So, it makes sense to look at Microsoft’s profits.

Microsoft
Net Income    Total Revenue    “% Profit”
2005 12254                39788           30.80%
2006 12599                44282           28.45%
2007 14065                51122           27.51%

Amazing.  If Exxon’s 10% profit is evil, I can only imagine what must be thought about Microsoft.

But, in all fairness, this doesn’t tell the most recent story. I can hear your critique now “but the oil prices only started really ramping up last fall, and didn’t really approach $4/gallon until the Spring 2008.”  Good point.  So what happens if we look at the quarterly numbers for these three companies, instead? (there will be some missing data, since not all companies report on the same dates.)

Exxon Apple Microsoft
6/30/2007 10.43%                          22.70%
9/30/2007 9.20%      14.54%         31.17%
12/31/2007 10.00%     16.46%         28.76%
3/31/2008 9.32%     13.91%         30.36%
6/28/2008 14.36%

So, even when Exxon was under attack from Senators Clinton and Obama, their quarterly earnings, though large, were still smaller than either Apple’s or Microsoft’s as a percent profit.  (And remember, if their total revenues were much larger than Apple’s so were there costs.)

The question then is:

Are we upset that oil, as Senator Clinton said ‘have made out like bandits, and … have these huge profits.”  Or are we upset at the price we must pay, and we lash out, without reason, at the oil companies because they are the most visible target?

——————————————————————————

n.b.: While I started this analysis back in May, It turns out the Wall Street Journal has recently undertaken a similar analysis, and arrived at similar conclusions, at least with respect to Exxon’s obscene profits of 10%.  They compared industries:

If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

What a story.  The LA Times has reported that Obama’s political positions are moving more centrist, looking more and more like John McCain every day.

The picture on the LA Times is even designed to evoke a sense of “sameness.” (see below) [EDITOR NOTE:  The LA Times has apparently removed the photograph showing Obama and McCain in similar active poses, although the story is still online.  No comment as to why.]

I understand that politicians often have to be politicians (you know, change their positions with the wind to stroke their egos through elections).

My question is simply this:

Can McCain now claim that he has held the centrist position the whole time, and that Obama is pandering?

In an appearance in the battleground state of Nevada yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama mocked Sen. John McCain’s energy policies, particularly his call for more nuclear plants. The AP reports that Obama said in Las Vegas “that he would not take nuclear power ‘off the table’ as a possible energy option, but blasted John McCain’s proposal to build dozens of new reactors in the U.S.” Obama “said he supports increased research into nuclear waste storage and recycling, but could not endorse construction of new reactors until those concerns are resolved.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that an underlying theme of Obama’s attacks on McCain were the status of the federal government’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility, which is opposed by Obama and most of Nevada’s leaders, but backed by McCain.

In addition, Obama’s attacks McCain’s proposal to offer a $300M prize for battery development

“to improve battery technology for full commercial development of plug-in hybrid and fully electric automobiles” to leapfrog currently available batteries and would have to build “more than one” advanced battery at 30 percent of current costs.

(In fact, in that same article Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, is quoted as saying “We don’t need a game show,” which, while making a great sound bite, seems to ignore the tremendous innovation currently seen through the use of prizes even at government expense, such as the X-Prize.  See here, here, here, and here.)

In several other stories we see the McCain has proposed immediate, near, mid and long term solutions.  Generally speaking, what Obama is calling gimmicks, we call a strategy.  He is working to alleviate (or at least reduce) the immediate pain at the pump, while seeking to ameliorate the overall energy situation through investing, and rewarding, innovation.

Obama’s plan?  Well, he really doesn’t seem to have a targeted one.  He supports a second round of stimulus tax rebates.  He also supports taxing “big oil” for making their record profits (which, by the way, are a far lower percentage of revenue than the much beloved Apple Inc.  If you don’t trust me, just challenge me.  I did the math…)  He also has called for higher fuel efficiency standards to double fuel economy by 2027!  (is that a near term solution?) And he supports alternative sources, such as solar, wind, and biofuels.

So does this add up to a coherent strategic plan that addresses the immediate needs, as well as the mid- to long-term needs?  What does Obama himself have to say about this:

Obama admitted that his own plan will not immediately affect gas prices but said his proposal for a second stimulus package will offer overall financial relief. “I wish I could wave a magic wand and make gas prices go down, but I can’t,” he said. “What I can do – and what I will do – is push for a second stimulus package that will send out another round of rebate checks to the American people.”

So, what is Obama’s plan for today?  He and McCain seem to agree on the long-term.  And the need for change.  But Senator Obama, do we really have 10 to 20 years to wait?

So, readers, I ask this.  If you were putting together a comprehensive strategy, what would be your:

• immediate term solution for lowering the price at the pumps today
• near/mid term solution for keeping costs down
• long term solution for weaning Americans off a dependence not just on foreign oil, but oil.

Two small problems: first, there wasn’t any “polygamy” per se going on; and second, there wasn’t any abuse going on.

Have you lost your freakin’ mind?! Think about it.

“Polygamy” as defined by the law requires at least “Bigamy” which requires “marriage.” “Marriages” didn’t take place. Not even “Civil Ceremonies.” By the definition used by the DPS/CPS in Texas, “polygamy” is running rampant in every urban center in the USA today. That is, women having multiple children by multiple fathers. Think about it.

Abuse. O.K., after the state seizes the children and waterboards them for a few weeks, what accusations do we have? Zip. Zero. Zilch. Remember the history of “false abuse syndrome” where children are talked into lying about abuse by “professional social workers?” First showed up in the 1980s after a couple of very embarrassing cases (large $ settlements by state governments needed to cover up the mistakes). Yeah, it’s a “documented syndrome” and the victims of such cruelty have to deal with the false/implanted memories well into adulthood.

Underage girls having babies! Again- zip, zero, zilch. The CPS recently had to backtrack on the two (!) cases of “underage motherhood” they claimed to have found. One of the “teenage girls” was 20 and the other was 18. Oops. O.K., take a random slice of 400+ urban USA citizens: what is the rate of “underage motherhood;” even “underage mothers of children with adult fathers?” Anyone got the numbers on NYC, Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago? LA? O.K., what about the abuse heaped on the young males in the compound? Aside from the abuse perpetrated by the DPS/CPS, there have been no credible reports of any actual abuse taking place- and, most tellingly, no indictments.

Think about it some more: if the state had ANYTHING credible by now, you would have seen it splashed across every major media outlet in the world.

I pray the wheels of justice finally begin grinding away at this shameful situation.

Oh By The Way: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

[acres of useless land converted into multi-million dollar prime real estate with quarried stone buildings, riding trails, etc. Paranoid? Hey, sometimes they really are out to get you- especially if you dress funny, talk funny, and disrupt the local economy of small-town bible belt America. Good background information on the relationship between the "cult" [sic] and the local town folk in a recent Texas Monthly article. Chilling. And *nobody* in authority inhte Stae of Texas is willing to tlak about *any* aspect of this situation; from the Governor on down to the local Sherriff.]

For instance, one blogger, in response to the various news stories, asks “ Surely I’m not the only one who sees the irony in this.”

Again, the regular reader of this blog may remember, I wrote at the time of the relief operations following Katrina, about the barriers that hindered the relief effort. While many chose to cast FEMA and specifically, President Bush, as evil characters, they have unfortunately confused politics with reality–and unfortunately this actually hinders real progress.

First, let me state that there were some political barriers to getting relief into the city of New Orleans. Alas, the politicians that hindered the operations were the Mayor of the city, and the Governor of New Orleans. I will leave it to my brother to add the specifics. Of course these were rather insignificant barriers, compared to some of the others.

The most important barrier to providing relief operations was the storm itself. People seem to forget that our usual “quick response” forces (the Air Force) couldn’t get into the airport for a few days because the runway was still under water. I hope it comes as no surprise that you can’t land cargo planes in water. Additionally, the storm blocked and destroyed the major roads used to move into the city. So even if resupply could have made it to the airport, there was no way to move it from the ramp, to downtown. Trucks from outside the area couldn’t move in either until the roads were cleared. Finally, ports were also damaged, so ships could not quickly move in. Once the physical barriers were removed, there were other problems.

Not all barriers to success were physical. There were problems with FEMA, and other disaster response organizations. Bureaucracy does at times get in the way. There were points of confusion centered around command and control. The local authorities did not want to relinquish their control, despite the fact that the operation was regional not local.

So, to get to the point of this post, we need to learn the important lessons from Katrina. The lesson is not that President Bush was a bad President, or that he willfully chose to withhold relief (as the comparison to the Myanmar tragedy would imply.) The true lessons are in how to plan for, and execute, relief operations. If we don’t learn those lessons then we will never leave the realm of political name-calling–condemning thousands more Americans when the next tragedy strikes.

Alternate Title: Confused About Race in 2008 America

A recent imbroglio on another blog got me thinking. Not about intellectual fascism (which set the whole thing off), but about the ObamaNation defending Reverend Wright by saying “Jerry Falwell is Just As Bad.” And then deleting rational discourse to the contrary from their blogs, but I digress. [Why would one start a blog, create a controversial thread, and then clap ones hands over ones ears shouting "LALALALALA?" Weird.]

Then Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting piece in the WSJ Weekend Edition about it (The Reverend Wright controversy. Not intellectual fascism in the blogoshpere.). She basically said she was puzzled by why anyone would even be concerned.

So here we have two competing ideas:

- Reverend Wright is Wrong (for using the pulpit to preach arguably racist/separatist/paranoid ideas; the “Black Liberation Theology” in his words).
- Reverend Wright is Right (or at least we shouldn’t get upset about his using his position to preach the arguably racist/separatist/paranoid stuff).

Of course, if a white preacher were preaching a “White Liberation Theology” (No, wait- we do! And they are rightfully shunned, ostracized, investigated by the IRS, infiltrated by the FBI, etc. etc.).

Hmmm.

O.K., let’s start over. If a pastor were to claim from the pulpit that the Jews were responsible for all the ills of the world, that the USA blew up the WTC on 9-11 in order to launch an aggressive imperialistic war for oil, that supporting Israel against the PLO/Hamas was terrorism (No, wait- we do! They’re called madrassas and . . . )

Oh never mind.

What fascinated me about the Wrong Reverend Wright was his unabashed recognition/premise that “Black People Are Inherently Different From White People” (on much more than just skin pigmentation). That, and the enthusiastic support his victimology philosophy gets from his (predominantly middle class/wealthy) parishioners (more appropriately, “followers”).

If Stephan & Abigail Thernstrom, Thomas Sowell, Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray were to ever even *notice* that some black/white differences in America were heritable as well as cultural . . .

the other steve

(A charismatic separatist religious leader espousing a theology of victimization and hate to a small, isolated group of enthusiastic supporters who are convinced to turn over large amounts of their lives and livelihoods to “the cause” *can’t* ever be a Good Thing . . . can it?)

I was reading the blog over at “Imperfect Mommy” where I read, and at first accepted without questioning her comment “I read yesterday that suspending the gas tax would save the average American $30 over the course of the summer. $30.” Of course, then I felt rather guilty for not questioning the number. Not because I don’t trust her, but because it just seemed a bit “off.” At first I just figured “well, with almost 5 drivers in the family we are certainly not ‘average’” but then I realized–no one is.

My first thoughts, as a good researcher where:

• Who did the research that determined $30 per average American?
• How did the structure the demographic of the analysis?
• Did they consider that a significant percentage of “Americans” don’t drive? (And I don’t mean just those too young to drive.)
• What percent of the population lives in cities and doesn’t drive? Doesn’t even have a license?
• How many people would it take to have an every man woman and child each get “$30″?

So let’s look at some numbers.

• If the tax is $0.18 per gallon (for gasoline), then a $30 savings is the equivalent of purchasing 166.67 gallons of gas. In a typical 20 gal tank, that equates to 8.3 fill-ups. I know many people that fill up their tank at least once per week. The summer is 12 weeks long. If “most” people fill up only 12 times, that savings is really $45.
• According to the Washington Post, the revenue the government will lose will be $10 Billion dollars. That’s a hefty sum! If you divide 10 billion by 30, we can determine just how many Americans will be receiving this benefit. The answer? 333,333,333.3. Yup. 333 MILLION Americans each will save $30.
• According to the US Census Bureau, there are only 255,103,151 people in America.
• According to Senator Obama 78,230,182 more people will save $30 than are actually in the US. That’s right apparently we have 78 MILLION more people in the country than we think!

Now, these “quick and dirty” numbers are just that. I haven’t figured in the greater savings that the trucking industry would see, since they have a higher per gallon tax and a higher consumption rate. I also haven’t factored in the interplay between changes in gas prices, and changes in consumption. While it is argued that demand for gasoline is inelastic (that is, does not change much with changes in prices) there is some elasticity if people cancel longer driving vacations in the summer.¹

While the caveats I noted above could lessen the benefits of the tax “holiday” there are other issues to consider that would increase the impact for those that actually drive. To get to the $30 per average American, you have to ignore that most households are made up of more than 1 American (thus increasing the household savings), and that many Americans don’t drive, and most likely don’t even own a car. It would be interesting to figure how many people in large cities such as New York City rarely, if ever, drive.

The bottom line is this: The savings for people who actually drive in the summer is most likely larger, and potentially by a significant amount. Don’t just “repeat what you hear.”

Think about it.

Question it.

Challenge it!

¹ Interestingly, the demand for diesel fuel should be even more “inelastic” relative to fuel prices since that demand is driven more by demand for products delivered by truck. That demand is impacted perhaps only inasmuch as higher fuel prices leave less disposable income. A more “derived” demand elasticity.

The Ad: Narrator: Who has what it takes to really bring change? To finally take on the special interests — not take their money. Who made the right judgment about opposing the war and had the courage and character to speak honestly about it. And who in times of challenge will unite us — not use fear and calculation to divide us.

Special interests are evil. They are to be reviled. They are to be stopped. And politicians certainly shouldn’t take their money. I would suspect if asked, politicians would say they certainly would not welcome endorsements from special interests. But what, exactly, are special interests?

According to one source from Princeton, special interests are “an individual or group who are concerned with some particular part of the economy and who try to influence legislators or bureaucrats to act in their favor.” Webster’s similarly defines it as “a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests.”

With so many politicians pushing for the removal of special interests, we are left asking “Who are special interests?”

Obviously “Big Oil” qualifies. So does the “Military Industrial Complex.” Evil, well orchestrated special interests. But how about another list? The next list is a group of “special interests” fitting the definitions above. They all have a specific agenda they are putting forward, seeking to influence political outcomes. Yet, the favor of this collection seems to be curried by the politicans (some more than others depending on your political leanings.)

• World Wildlife Fund
• The Sierra Club
• United Auto Workers
• National Education Association
• AARP
• Air Force Association
• Military Officers Association of America

Obviously the list could go on and on. The reality is the “special interests” that Obama, and Clinton(s) speak about are those that oppose their own views. Those special interest groups must be stopped. Must be silenced. Must be controlled.

Apparently the view is that “The groups with which I agree cannot possibly be “special interest” groups. Special Interest groups are evil.” Yes, I am putting words in people’s mouths, but ask yourself this: if legislation was passed to remove ALL influence of any group from the halls of national, state, and local legislators, would you feel represented?

So a couple questions for you then:

1. Should “special interests” be stopped?
2. Should “select” special interests (SI’s) be stopped?
3. If select SI’s, how do we determine which ones are “good” and which are “evil”?
4. Can we do #3 without making it a “left/right” political battle?

Finally, I leave you with this thought. “Special Interests” are the cause of the failure of the system. Corrupt politicians who accept bribes, and promises and campaign money are the problem. Sure we can try to stop organizations from officially giving money. But as we have seen with the various analyses of the Obama and Clinton donators the money will still come in from individuals all supporting a candidate with views they support. In fact, Clinton(s) recently acknowledged (as reported by CBS) the fine line between these

“There has been a lot of back and forth about oil companies in this campaign, and I’ve got to admit that when I first saw that ad that my opponent ran saying that he didn’t take money from oil companies, I thought nobody takes money from oil companies. It’s been illegal for a hundred years,” Clinton said, pointing out that federal candidates aren’t allowed to take corporate donations.

“Well the fact is he didn’t take money from oil companies, but you can, and we do, take money from people who work for oil companies, they’re Americans, they can contribute, so we both do that,” Clinton admitted.

Let’s all remember that special interests are really simply communities of people with specific interests. Odds are quite good that, whether we realize it or not, we either are members of, or at least support the goals of, a few special interest groups ourselves.

Don’t give in to the rhetoric. Don’t believe the spin.

Teddy Roosevelt – To the Man in the Arena

It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly…who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

Great biographies by Edmund Morris: The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt and Theodore Rex

In Paris, Monday, dozens of protesters jostled with police so persistently that officials were forced several times to make an unprecedented decision to extinguish the flame and halt the procession.

According to CNN, protesters “pierced the thick security bubble surrounding the torchbearers, at times getting their hands on the torch itself.”  Of course, CNN makes no mention of what impact this had on the torchbearer.

Here’s my confusion. In an effort to protest mistreatment of Tibetans by the Chinese government, protesters are reported to have attacked “the torch.” Note to words from the Guardian, “it was buffeted.” Only later in the article do they mention that the torch’s handlers, the runners, had to be protected “behind a phalanx of police and Chinese security guards provided by Beijing.”

Generally, the discussion, and the protests, seem to forget that the “torch” was carried by people. These people, while at times Chinese, were simply carrying a torch that has been a time-honored Olympic symbol since Adolph Hitler’s Germany started the tradition in 1936.

Is it right to protest the mistreatment of Tibetans at the hands of the oppressive communist Chinese government, by attacking runners simply wanting to be part of a 72 year old tradition?

I find out today, quite by accident (someone with the Army found my blog, searching for Randi Rhodes photos) that Randi Rhodes has been “Kicked off Air America for Foul Mouthed Tirade.”

Gee–what a surprise.
I am going to break another one of my rules, and include the report by Jim Roberts here. I only ask that you honor his warning, before going to watch the video.

By Jim Roberts
Apr 3, 2008

It’s not easy being a shock jock, especially in the political arena. Randi Rhodes who last made news last October when she took a nasty spill outside of a bar and it was later blamed on a vast right wing conspiracy by another host on the Air America network has been kicked off the airwaves for ripping into Hillary Clinton and with some sort of a foul mouthed tirade.

Randi Rhodes Kicked off Air America for Foul Mouthed Tirade

She also ripped on Geraldine Ferraro as well dubbing her as “David Duke in Drag”. Rhodes went on the tirade and it was captured on video and she calls everyone that disagrees with her or supports Hillary Clinton a “Whore”. many are comparing her to Jeremiah Wright and are calling it another hate filled rant by yet another Obama supporter.

***

She really ripped into Clinton dropping the F bomb and other nasty comments all the while lashing a little quasi-praise on former New York governor Eliot Spitzer for dropping big bucks on call girls. She even drags Angelina Jolie into the mix as well. It was a sad effort, and another embarrassment for Barack Obama.

The video is here and it contains vulgar language so be warned. Perhaps we can get Randi Rhodes and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright a joint podium and allow them to praise Obama. It is unclear how long she will be suspended for, but the Air America network did release a statement saying she is off the air and has been suspended.

After reading all this, I at times wonder if I should add a category tag for “crack pots.”

So apparently, not a few Americans were counting on housing prices to become even more overvalued than they already are.   You know, those “Flip That House” people who buy undervalued properties, hold and/or fix them up, and then resell them for much more than they were really worth.  Or the (here in Dallas, TX) $60k/year maintenance man who purchased a $375,000 home with the full expectation that he would be able to convert his “interest only” loan (for the first five years) into a conventional mortgage by refinancing based on the increase in value . . . oops  (his home is now priced at $290,000 with no offers).

So back to our Robin Hood guy.  He has a web-based service that ” . . . walks you through the steps of how to manage your foreclosure to your advantage!”  Uh-oh.  The premise is that you can stop making your mortgage payments and continue to live in your [sic] home for 9 months to a year (based on the laws in your state).

And nobody gets hurt!  It’s a Win-Win!

As the great philosopher Homer (Simpson) would say: ” . . . Wai-ai-ai-ai-ait A Minute!”

 The rationale is this:  since the market is depressed, the mortgage company wouldn’t be able to sell the home anyway, and by squatting on the property you are actually doing the lien holder a favor; by keeping the property occupied and maintained, you are preserving the inherent value in the home!  Suh-weet!

A rose by any other name . . .

That said, enjoy the following clip from YouTube and Saturday Night Live.

It has been High-Larious watching the Surprise, Shock, and Outrage! at the Scurrilous Left-Wing Dominated MSM (TM) for daring to issue a negative (albeit only from a certain viewpoint?) “smear” story about candidate McKooky.

Surprise?  Get a clue.

Shock?  You ain’t seen nothing yet (pinata in a bat factory).

Outrage?  Take a chill pill and get over it.  Don’t be mad at the pain you feel after poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick.  As ”Dr. Laura” reminds women complaining about their abusive/unloving/ne’er do well husbands:  “YOU PICKED HIM!”

 I am getting a lot of amusement out of watching the ObamaNation though.  He just did a SRO rally in Dallas yesterday.  He got 3+ minutes of wild cheering and applause (with appropriate level of shrieking and swooning) just for BLOWING HIS NOSE!  I’m not kidding- his biggest cheer line was when he literally “hocked a loogie.”  Fabulous.  We are living in 1931 Germany.

 the other steve 

Maybe it’s because- in part at least- we have morphed from the Newsgroups being a “Public Forum for Discussion” into Blogs becoming “My Private [unlicensed] Broadcasting Company.”

With ownership comes, well, ownership. 

Case in point:  So there’s this blog on the internet, topic not important to the point at hand, and a dialogue gets going, point-counterpoint style.  Apparently the arguments on one side of the issue start falling apart, and more posters started coming around to the alternative point of view.  It got re-e-e-e-eal quiet from that side.  [I guess they were hunting wabbits]

[wait for it]

Surprise! Someone took their ball and went home!  The Blog “owner” shut down comments for the specific thread- of course, after posting a snarky “it’s my medium” blast of pique.

It isn’t about “dialogue” anymore; it’s about “broadcasting one point of view!”

So

Care to guess which side of the political spectrum was engaged in (polite, reasoned) dialogue . . . and which side decided that tolerance with respect to another’s ideas had gone just about as far as it was going to go, mister!?

Well, o.k., silly question . . . we all know which side of the (artificially defined by the two-headed single political party in the US today) political spectrum is tolerant/intolerant of opposing viewpoints . . .

But putting that aside

Internet: Two way communication; or just another transmission medium for digitized vomit?

Hello?

Scorch aka the other steve

I am unable to listen to my favorite drive-time AM talk radio anymore. I know you’re all crying for me. It seems like my (heretofore arguably semi-rational) talkbots are downloading their RNC talking points again, and the message is “John McCain is the Republican Candidate, Everebody Get In Goosestep err Lockstep err I mean Line!”

Now I don’t have a dog in this fight at all. As a card-carrying Civil Libertarian, I only get mildly interested in RepubliCrat (DemmiCan?) follies when our interests overlap (social issues for D’s, economic for R’s generally).

However- the argument from the bullies on the right now seems to be “We Need To Support McCain Because Otherwise We Will Get Hillary.” In various forms- the message is if you don’t support McCain, you are supporting ClintAma. BarIllary? What-ev.

Now a few years back (when I was doing my cypherin’ on coal shovels by candlelight) I took a class in rhetoric. I vaguely remember something about the logical fallacy called “The False Dilemma.” Sound familiar?

The underlying, unspoken assumption of the Bullies on the Right is that McCain would actually stand a ghost of a chance against Hillary Nation. Or the OpraBamicans. So therefore, all good soldiers of conservatism must abandon their principles, hold their noses, and line up behind McCain in order to not “throw their votes away and put HillAma in office.”

So- here we all are on September 5th, 2008. The “Dream Ticket” of McCain-Whoever has now taken up the battle standard and marches off into the meat grinder . . . then what? Will McMaverick enjoy the benefit of the free ride he has been getting so far once he goes up against a “true” progressive? Keating 5, Keating 5, hmmm . . . voting record, voting record, hmmm . . . old white guy, old white guy, hmmm . . . war pig, war pig, hmmm . . . do you think the MSM will let McCain’s and Hillary’s stench factor cancel each other out, and focus on “The Issues?” Not likely.

McCain is a pinata in a Louisville Slugger factory, he just doesn’t know it yet.

The “national polls” showing McCain competitive against Barillary in a head to head matchup (taken today) are a phantom. Give the MSM a couple of months to proctologize over John McCain and it will be a BLOWOUT.

You heard it here first.

So for my on again/off again friends on “The Right:” you can die with your swords in your hand or your [male genitalia] in your hand . . . choose wisely!*

Scorch

*apologies to my USMC friends for stealing part of their culture to make this point

With this video, I am tempted to change my mind! enjoy!

I obviously asked what the legal basis was for that decision, since having already read through the appropriate legal documents (Title 15) I had not read anything in the law that would preclude it.  I was told it was “in the state code.”

“Oh? Could you give me a reference?”

“Hold on, sir.  Yes–go to our website and search for ‘Title 15.’”

“Thanks–could you tell me what paragraph in Title 15? I have already read through it and didn’t see anything that would preclude it.”

“Sir, we are not a legal research library.”

I started to argue, again saying I had already read through the title, and if she was going to give an answer she should be able to support it, but I gave up.  They won.

Honestly, I was not too pleased, since I was given the “it’s on the website” answer.  What really frustrated me the most though was that I was given a <B>definitive</B> answer (or is it declarative?) but they could not provide any support for their answer.

Should we push for legislation that would require government officials (especially those working answer lines, like the DMV and the IRS) to be able to support their answers?  If their answers will actually impact our behavior, our lifestyles, and perhaps our income taxes, shouldn’t we be given the source information, if requested?

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Prof

Nope.

According to the IRS Publication 523, “Loss on sale.  If the amount realized is less than the adjusted basis, the difference is a loss. A loss on the sale of your main home cannot be deducted.”

The Federal Government has given help over the past few years allowing an exemption for gains on the sale of the main home/residence.  This was intended to help ease the tax burden as the values of homes skyrocketed, and allow for the  keeping of that equity on which so many had come to rely.

Unfortunately, the same “benefit” does not extend to a tax break when we have a “loss” on a home.  Obviously, when all the housing property values were increasing we were not as concerned about the possible tax implications of a loss.  In fact, I suspect few people realized that we could not claim a loss on our homes on our income taxes.

I propose the following legislative action:

• Introduce legislation allowing for the deduction off the income taxes of a “loss” on the sale of a main home.
• Make it “emergency legislation” enacted for this tax year, and only temporary, to carry through the next two to four years of the depressed housing market.

The way I see it, this approach is consistent with the logic of not taxing the gain.  If we as a nation seek to minimize the tax impact of home ownership, and in fact encourage home ownership, then it makes sense to not tax the gain on the sale of your private, main home.  It would also then follow that one should receive a “break” on taxes if that home ownership resulted in a loss on the sale.   Removing concerns such as the concern for a profit, or a loss, frees up buyers and sellers allowing them to make decisions to sell a home without an expectation of severe negative impacts at a later date.

There are far more economic benefits to my modest proposal.  For instance, it allows someone who had to take a loss (most likely forced by pending foreclosure, or a move) to more easily move into another home.

I would encourage you to submit your own positive impacts as comments here, and if you support this idea, please write to YOUR congressperson.  You can find them at this link.

So why do I bring this up today? What takes me back to this well one more time? Well, having visited him today, I was surprised to see what seemed like real reporting. (Hey, he has a journalism degree–it could happen!) I saw no citations, no links, and it wasn’t simply a cut and paste job. He wrote a rather lengthy piece about a new battlefield robot, Binky.

The remote-controlled, plush mechanical champion, called “Binky”, is soft on the exterior, but contains a titanium-alloy endoskeletal frame, making it tough enough for the battlefield.

It was an interesting piece. And it turns out, a fabricated piece. Oh not completely out of whole cloth mind you. It’s based on a real story from the New Scientist Magazine website. In that story they write about a robot that honestly will rescue fallen soldiers. And it does have a cutsie name–it’s called BEAR.

A remote-controlled robot that will rescue injured or abducted soldiers, without putting the lives of their comrades at risk, is being developed for the US army. The 1.8-metre-tall Battlefield Extraction-Assist Robot (Bear) will be able to travel over bumpy terrain and squeeze through doorways while carrying an injured soldier in its arms.

That’s alright. I realize it was his attempt at humor. And perhaps even in some way satire. I would have liked him to have given something of a hat tip to the Magazine though. The closest he came was referring to “News Scientist” when he wrote:

Binky, an acronym for Battleready Industrial Neo-Kevlar Yeoman, is part of the Pentagon’s next-generation “Mechanical Myrmidons”, destined for Afghanistan and Iraq, according to News Scientist.

I am beginning to feel the fool. All this time I was thinking this “New Patriot” was writing serious pieces expressing honest opinions about politics, the war in Iraq, and President Bush. Apparently I misunderstood. He is really writing fanciful stories about what the news could have said, but didn’t. That does explain why it seemed to me he was misquoting sources. He wasn’t. He was writing comedy. True satire. Making stuff up! (UNC must be SO proud of him! His skills at fabricating news are about ready for Prime Time. You hear that, New York Times? Stephen Colbert?)

So, let’s go over the stories that he recently covered that apparently he “didn’t quite mean.”

• The war in Iraq is lost. Apparently not. If my “new” understanding of his writings are correct, this is meant to show how we are really “winning.”
• Neo-cons want to limit freedoms. Now see, he really didn’t mean that. By actually writing what he did, he is trying to point out that conservatives don’t censor. Hey, if they did, could he actually write that stuff?
• Problems with firing the Attorneys? Naw, he was writing satire again, pointing out how this is so like what the Clintons did with their firings. Remember those?

So, in the words of America’s great President, Ronald Reagan, “There you go again…”

First, I want to recommend that you go read about the $30,000 toothbrush. Okay, so the toothbrush itself didn’t cost that much, but failing to fulfill a simple promise (you know the one “if you forgot a basic toiletry item we will bring one right up to you!”) resulted in a very expensive negative consequence.¹ There you will also find my comments on what a company should do to turn this whole thing around.

Second, I wanted to point out that you can see what I am finding interesting by looking for my tags at http://del.icio.us. If you don’t want to go there on your own, just click on the del.icio.us information on the bottom right of this blog.

Third, I would encourage many of you to not only write to me, but please, let’s start some conversations here! I appreciate the emails (Thanks, Ryan!) but much of what you guys write would be interesting to all. So Mike, Ryan, and the rest of you–engage!  Also, if you like the podcasts, and want to contribute or be a “guest contributor” let me know.  I can set up a telephone “interview!”

Finally, some tidbits of interest:

• iPhone release date June 29th. Any of you getting one?
• HTC Announces their new “touch phone”
• Hugo Chavez, Poster Child of the Anti-War left,^2. is facing uprisings and chastisement for shutting down the free press. And the US Liberals say BUSH is against Free Speech?  What TV or radio stations has he shut down?  Or better yet–do you know of any blogs the Bush White House has shutdown?
• In case you missed it, Fred Thompson is moving towards running for President.  So far he is my guy and apparently many others.  Hey, he OWNED Michael Moore. You gotta love THAT (and hat tip to John C. Dvorak, of http://dvorak.org/blog.)

Well, there you have em.  A few tidbits.  Let me know what you think!

The Professor

^1. An interesting aside: Just a few weeks ago, I stopped at a hotel because I was just too tired to continue. I didn’t have a toothbrush. I called. I was told to come down to the desk to pick it up. So, in my case I would have gotten the free toothbrush, but it wasn’t as convenient as the promise on the card. At least the Hampton Inn hotel is honest. Their card says “Come down to the desk to pick up…”

^2. And going back to that reference from the left, Fleshy then wrote “the reputation and influence of the United States has been reduced to nothing more than that of a common street bully.” Hmmm… Isn’t a Bully someone who forces you to do something you don’t want to do? Sounds more like Chavez than Bush.

My decision, as you could guess, was based on the largely pragmatic issue of $3/gal gasoline. I enjoy my 2003 Hyundai Santa Fe but the fuel efficiency just isn’t there. I looked at the monthly cost of gasoline at 19 mpg, and decided that I could do better.

I decided that I wanted a Honda hybrid. I own a Honda Pilot that we love, and I have a couple friends who have owned Honda hybrids and they love them for all the reasons a person loves a Honda. Reliability. Design. “Feel.” So there I was, I wanted a Honda. In fact, I had arrived at the clear decision to get an Accord hybrid. I liked the style of the car, it was a spacious sedan, and at 38 mpg, it would be half the fuel cost of my existing Santa Fe. On top of all that, I could get it with Navigation and XM Radio built in! So off I went, dutifully to the local Honda dealer, to inquire about the Accord.

I met my new salesman friend Aldo on the lot, and I quickly told him I wanted a hybrid. He commented that it made sense to want 50 mpg rather than 19. 50?! What was he talking about? The best the Accord could get was 38, I thought. He told me the Civic is rated at about 50 mpg, and that he had a used on one the lot that actually had Navigation and XM factory installed! (And I didn’t think you could even GET a Civic with those features!) I was reluctant. After all it is a smaller car. So I test drove a new one, and the used one. Handled nicely. Actually spacious inside. I had recently rented a Dodge Caliber and thought that car was comfortable, and the Civic was even more so. Of course, I appreciate that the engine itself is (apparently) a cleaner burning engine than one would get with a traditional engine getting 50 mpg. I think it has something to do with the 2 sparkplugs for each cylinder, and the use of the electic motor to augment that gas engine when more power is required.

It was a matter of checking the numbers at that point, building spreadsheets, and calling my bank. The numbers were clear. With my high mileage driving patterns and costs of gasoline around $2.75/gallon, the money saved in gasoline cost avoidance would actually pay off 2/3 of the car each month. Not too shabby. The table below shows the cost savings up to 5o mpg, assuming gas prices ranging from $2/gallon up to $3.20 a gallon. I started with the baseline of 18 mpg (my current car) and this table is the difference between the fuel cost at 18 mpg and the lower costs with a higher fuel efficiency. As you can see, at $2.75 a gallon, even if I only get 42 mpg (I am told a solid estimate for city and highway mileage–and the average mpg for the used car I just bought!) there is a cost avoidance of $218.25 month (I based this on a low estimate of 2500 miles driven each month. Yes, a low estimate, given my driving history.)

The numbers were clear. By the next morning I was on the door at the dealer negotiating for my first “certified Used Car” from a dealer. I haven’t driven it much, but so far I enjoy the vehicle. It handles nicely, and has sufficient pep when I need to get up to speed quickly or avoid those crazy drivers who fail to heed the Car Talk brothers’ advice, and end up ‘driving like my brother.’

So there you have it. I am now an environmentally conscious conservative consumer, focused on saving money, while saving the environment one tankful at a time.

Obviously, Congress needs to play politics. It’s what they do. But they need to stop playing politics with the lives, and the livelihood of the Men and Women who (the case of servicemembers) are putting their lives at risk to defend our freedoms. I encourage all of you to let your representatives know that you support our troops! Tell Congress that it’s their turn to “step up” and behave responsibly.

In MY mind it’s not too bizarre that a “fictional band” is “reuniting” to fight a fictional problem.

All kidding aside, I am not a “disbeliever” in climate change. I do remain unconvinced that mankind is responsible for it. More to follow later, when I put together a podcast highlight how the “fake” 90% probability figure was created for the IPCC report.

I am not sure if this approach actually lends credibility to the argument that climate change is a man-made. When you read the story, the band continues to spoof on any number of subjects. Quoting:

In the new film, Reiner, reprising his role, takes credit for coining the term “global warming.” The band members discuss their long history of charity work, such as campaigns to help ferrets — by raising money to feed them Caesar salad — and to help people with high insteps.

As I see this, they are comparing Climate Change to ferrets, Caesar salad and high insteps. Hmmm. Perhaps Reiner is also not “a believer.”

More importantly for the point of this discussion, I also generally dislike the relatively recent (read, in the past 7 years) trend to referring to states by color, as if that color somehow “means” something. It’s an interesting use of “code words” by a group (liberals) that generally have eschewed such things.

What is it about calling blue states “liberal states” and red states “conservative states” that is so distasteful? Which represents more accurately the views of the state? “Blue” or “Liberal/Progressive”?

I couldn’t help but chuckle when I saw these two news stories, as the top two stories on the “I, Ramble” site.

Now, the placement of the ads is not controlled by the owner of the blog or website, so this is purely coincidental–at least at how it happens to display on the blog.

Regular readers will remember that I have had “issues” with the lack of care exercised by my fellow bloggers on the left when it comes to reporting the facts. In the past, I have challenged the blogging from “A Liberal Dose” when the author mis-represented the facts as reported in the stories he cited. What first drew my attention to that blog was his gross mis-representation of desertions as a “flood” following the start of the Iraq war.

Now, I find that another of my favorite liberal friends not only perpetuates the mis-representation that the Bush tax cuts only helped the richest Americans, but uses a nearly 2 1/2 year old news story to support the claim. I wrote at the time that the democrats had failed to actually read the report before launching their scathing media attack. If you visit my blog entry, you will find my analysis not of the news stories that failed to actually get the story straight, but rather my analysis of the actual CBO report. One key point:

Now, that being said, you would think that the total change in share of the tax burden, or as the CBO report puts it, the total share of the “Individual Income Tax LIabilities” would decrease by a greater rate. But we see that is not the case. According to their report, those people in the top 20% of earners (highest quintile) actually show an increase in the share of the liability for most years, and there are only three years (2006-2008) when the tax share decreases at all for those in the top 1%. On the other hand, those in the bottom 60% of earners show a decrease in the total share of income tax burden every year. EVERY year.

The bottom line when one looks at the tax report is that everyone that pays income taxes received the benefits of the tax cuts. If you paid taxes, at the end of the day, you paid less after the Bush tax cuts than before.

Over at Pressing the Flesh “fleshy” writes:

Three things are clear, however: most Americans didn’t receive any real form of tax relief from Bush’s cherished tax cuts to begin with – those cuts only rewarded those with the highest incomes.

Hopefully you, dear students, have now learned that the assertion is false. The cuts rewarded everyone.

As always, I recommend you refer to the original source documents. Don’t trust the media, and don’t trust ax-grinding bloggers. Not even me.

Until next time…

“Now let’s compare that to what the Democrats actually have planned. In 2004 they wanted “timely and deliberate dispensation of the work of the Congress” and argued that “Bills should be developed following full hearings, open subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate referrals to other committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level.” Now let’s compare that to the what my friends at Downsize DC are calling the “legislative orgy” planned for the first 100 hours of the new session.Not a single bill they will consider has gone through a committee or subcommittee hearing.

Not a single minute of testimony has been heard by the relevant subcommittees and committees on whether there is a need for them, what the possible positive and negative results are, and so forth. The Democratic rationalization for this is that some of the bills were proposed in the last session and had plenty of discussion then. But those committees no longer exist, nor do many of the members on them. There are 52 new members of the House, most of them Democrats.

The notion of a Congress ramming through a whole bunch of legislation in a short period of time should be a concern to us all. Remember, that’s exactly what happened at the end of the last session of Congress, which is how we ended up with the online gambling bill slipped in to a port reform bill and passed without a vote. It’s how we end up with lots of bad legislation that no one has bothered to read, and it’s how we end up with hidden provisions in them that are dangerous.”

This blog goes on to point out that when Gingrich sought to push through significant legislation in the first 100 days of their control of the House, the Democrats argued that it was not enough time to adequately consider the legislation. Pot? Kettle? similar color?
Of course, the most simple defense of this tactic is “The Republicans did it, so we will too” playing out in the school-yard called Congress. But as my friend the “Flesh Presser” pointed out during the discussion about Foley, this approach is similar to that of a three year old.¹ And, as he pointed out, inappropriate.

I recommend every reader go check out both the blogs I referenced Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and also Fleshy’s pressing the flesh blog. Alas, you won’t see any more comments from me on fleshy’s blog. Apparently a sauce good for the gander is less tasty when it is your own goose being cooked.
The Professor
¹ It is important to point out that his assertion, directed at me, was because he failed to “get my point” which was not a defense of Foley, but rather a scathing rebuke of how the Democrats had handled a similar issue in 1983.

Given this definition, it seems somehow “right” that a non-word wins as Word of the Year. It’s got that “gut feel” to it that says it should win. Heck, that it must win. Forget that it isn’t a word, or that it is (according to the same Wiki definition) simply a recasting in Colbert fashion, a concept Orwell described in his creation of the word “bellyfeel.”

Ahh, well.

In his posting today, November 16th, he writes:

Looks like the feline’s slipped the confines. Now we find out orders for the Abu Ghraib lightstick anal rapes and secret overseas prisons came from none other than…

yup, chimpboy hisself.

Okay–anyone else suspicious? Well, as usual I was, so went and read the story cited from the Washington Post. In that story we find that there are two documents that authorized interrogation. One was signed by the President and the other issued from the Justice Department.

To quote from the article:

The ACLU describes the first as a “directive” signed by Bush governing CIA interrogation methods or allowing the agency to set up detention facilities outside the United States. McPherson describes it as a “memorandum.” In September, Bush confirmed the existence of secret CIA prisons and transferred 14 remaining terrorism suspects from them to Guantanamo Bay.

The second document is an August 2002 legal memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to the CIA general counsel. The ACLU describes it as “specifying interrogation methods that the CIA may use against top al-Qaeda members.” (This document is separate from another widely publicized Justice memo, also issued in August 2002, that narrowed the definition of torture. The Justice Department has since rescinded the latter.)

So I ask you–do you see anything in there that confirms that the President authorized specifically those forms of torture listed in the posting at “A Liberal Dose?” (Remember, he wrote “lightstick anal rapes“) I read through the article quite carefully, and the article makes it quite clear that the only thing confirmed is the existence of the memos. Not the contents. So while we can conclude that perhaps these alleged abuses occured (but even that is yet to be conclusively shown) there remains no evidence that these actions were part of the methods approved by the President.

Alas, these sorts of conclusion jumping activities are going to be more commonplace with Mr Conyers now on the warpath. Perhaps one could argue those on the right have jumped to conclusions without sufficient facts, but it seems to me that emulating that against which you have railed is far from responsible.

Journalists, I thought, were supposed to report facts. Alas, the gentleman at A Liberal Dose doesn’t seem to agree.

I had to respond, since some of them are funny (but he actually believes them to be true) and some just factually, and historically, wrong.

My reply is listed below.

Let me cut to the bottom line here: One should not cast one party as being “corrupt” when your house is made of very brittle glass.

================

Fleshy wrote:

” Sorry you found the list skewed and inflammatory. I’d be… well… I’d be amused more than anything else… to listen to you try to defend or refute any of the issues on that list? Go ahead… defend Foley, Haggard, Rumsfeld, DeLay, Abramoff, Taft, Frist, Burns, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Gibbons… need I go on?”

Actually, I wouldn’t need to refute most of them. Just publish a list of names on the Dem side that are just as guilty. It’s interesting. Apparently Democrats are able to either imagine themselves pristine, or else excuse their own failing because they never claimed to be anything otherwise.

But honestly, if you think a vote for a Republican is a vote of “hate (of) the military” then I would ask how many years of service you put in… And why you would think that John Kerry is somehow now to be seen as a Republican.

But if you wish… here we go:

1. ACLU–rarely seen as a conservative organization, has been opposed to any and all censorship over the years. As you may recall, stories about whether these sorts of things should be publicly available have been around for many many years (read, at least 30) and typically it’s the ACLU that defends a person’s right to speak, even in publishing these sorts of things (There was a funny episode from Barney Miller in the 70s with this very issue.)

2. “Stay the course” Hmmm… and the alternative is? I believe I DO support Bush’s view that we can’t just pull out and leave Iraq to implode. And I believe we need a to get out when the goals are met, and not when a date/time is met.

3. So, you think the President KNEW the pastor was doing this at the time? Now THAT would be quite a story! Are you suggesting that conservatives need to actually conduct an in-depth check into the sex lives of all their advisors? Hmmmm… Is that what the Democrats do?

4. Cover our ass with a Child Predator? (are you sure this doesn’t fit more with item 3?) Hmmm… last time I checked, FOLEY was gone, and Studds stayed in for another 13 years. Remember, Studds actually had SEX with a minor, and was left in office, while Foley only exchanged emails and IMs. (THE POINT: Dems are just as guilty…)

5. Hate the military? Give me a f’ing break. Talk to a military member or 500 before going to THIS one…

6. “Say literally anything“–like this list? Again, lying isn’t uniquely Republican. And distorting the facts with witty (or not so witty) sound bites seems to be your favorite style…

7. Beat up a questioner? For example, arresting a protester who voices an opposing view to the President at a rally? Oh wait–that was Clinton’s Secret Service that did that…

8. “Laws are for Other people” hmmm… Isn’t that the logic that got that senator from NJ elected when Torricelli had to withdraw? I commented on this on my blog back in 2004–pointing out that the Dems actually argued that some things are TOO IMPORTANT for rules… I wrote: “If you remember the US elections in 2002, the Democratic Candidate for the US Senate seat for New Jersey withdrew from the race inside the window allowed by law to find a replacement candidate. Simple enough. In fact, one would think more simple a decision than sporting rules–just abide by the law. But that was too obvious a solution. Somewhere in our convoluted world, we decided that the “law” was too constricting. The Democrats went to court, not to challenge an illegal action by their opponent, but rather to seek justification for their desire to break the law.”

In fact, this particular point of yours seems to be one that is more readly “owned” by the Dems than the Republicans, but if you would prefer, I would call this one a draw…

9. Pay their mistresses to be quiet? Hmmm… is this a Kennedy reference? Gary Hart? (Remember the good ship “Monkey Business?”) Again–not uniquely Republican, but if you insist…

10. And since in this one, you actually ended it with “in your life” perhaps I should appeal to age… and remind you all of Jim Wright… Tip O’Neill, Ted Kennedy… John Glenn and the Keating 5… I think the Dems in the 70s and 80s are quite corrupt… and hypocrital… (and given the large number of viable Democrats running on largely Conservative platforms, like Ford Jr… one has to wonder if there is a new style of Hypocrisy on the horizon!)

I did find it interesting that your list of names supporting your points are mostly gone or outgoing Republicans. They misbehave–they are gone. My list of examples includes people that are left to remain in office, despite transgression after transgression.

Perhaps I can sum this up best by saying When Republicans are bad, they are gone… when Democrats are bad, they are re-elected. Perhaps it’s just because we expected more from Republicans, and never deluded ourselves about the ethics or morality of the Democrats.

That said, let’s get my predictions out of the way.

Dems barely take the house with a shift of 15 seats. This will be touted as a mandate for change, but it should be remembered that in 1994 Clinton lost 54 seats in the house. This election won’t even come close to that.

I suspect that the Senate with remain in Republican hands, with a 51 to 49 split. I am encouraged by news from TN, MD and Ohio, but am afraid it may be all over for Santorum here in PA.

I hate to say it, but be sure to go check out the post election gloating over at PressingtheFlesh. I am curious though, if the Republicans pull this out, will he lose graciously, or will fleshy lead the charge that somehow the Republicans “stole” an election? (And if you listen to the podcast, keep in mind that my daughter, bless her heart, is a Republican…)

The Professor

First, let me say that apparently the Democrats weren’t too impressed either, because this plan doesn’t seem to have received much press-time. One would think that, if it was actually their plan for moving our nation forward, they would be advertising it a tad more.

In this podcast, I tackle the Democrats “plan for progress” which I find weak in it’s “planni-ness” (to steal from Colbert). It actually says that “We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our
citizens and our allies.” Why do I single this one out here? Because it is the penultimate example of it not being a “plan” but rather rhetoric. Tell me… what steps follow the “truth telling” that will lead to a stable government in Iraq? What then will we do to bring the troops home, while ensuring that the US is no longer a target for terrorists? Will the radical islamists hear our “truth” and suddenly, in classis SNL style, say “Oh… never mind…” (Thanks Gilda–rest in peace!)

The bottom line conclusion that I reach is that it is all about the bottom line. When you read through what they have in their plan, they want to do many vague things, while at the same time “reducing the deficit.” Last time I checked, you can only increase spending, and decrease debt, by increasing revenue. And for the government, increasing revenue means raising your taxes, and raising them by more than they increase the spending.

Conclusion? Hang on to your wallets, you’re in for a bumpy ride.

Give a listen, and let me know what you think. Comment here, and perhaps we can even get some sort of debate going on. And be sure to give a read to ol’ Fleshy at the pressingtheflesh blog. It was his suggestion “Every time that someone states that Democrats “don’t have a plan,” mention these six points.” that had me actually checking out what sort of plan the Dems could come up with.

Let me make a couple things clear right up front. Foley did a “wrong thing.” I am in no way making an excuse for his behavior, or saying we should accept what he did. I am in my podcast simply pointing out that, when given the chance to take action against two congressman that had even more egregious behavior, a Democratically controlled Congress only slapped their wrists.

Anyway, listen to the podcast, and feel free to subscribe!

The Prof

While I believe that, if there is such a thing as absolute moral values, and those are based on scripture, then it is clear that homosexual activity is morally wrong. I also believe, however, that in these cases it would be wrong to actually legislate against them (and somewhat problematic–I know I don’t want to be involved on the stake out in these cases!)

I have come, over time, to nominally support the notion of gay marriage. I have been for too long a victim of the “marriage penalty” when it comes to tax structures. While I have seen two incomes, stacked one on the other, resulting in higher and higher taxation, I have seen homosexual couples enjoy the freedom to claim two sets of income. Now admittedly I have been able to have benefits for my spouse, and my children, that have often been denied to homosexual couples. But once those couples started to receive the benefits of the union, without the taxation of the union, my view began to shift.

It seems to me that the Boston Globe is taking the correct approach on this issue. Benefits, and taxation, should apply only to married couples. In this case, if you are married, then you can receive benefits–and you must pay taxes.

As a fiscal conservative I believe this is the most prudent action–let’s welcome all married couples into the “marriage penalty” world that is the federal tax structure. Perhaps the deficit will be decreased.

So there you have it. I approve of Gay (and Lesbian) Marriage, simply because it hasn’t been fair to heterosexuals to not allow it.

Okay, so I had to. After so many blogs where I talk about integrity in one’s writing, how could I not address the accusation that Ann Coulter is a plagiarist. I found it interesting when I first heard about it, and intriguing when I read the posting at the Language Log (you all DO still go there, right?)

What most intrigues me though is the sense that the Left felt it somehow necessary to go after Coulter. Apparently the self induced blindness of the Bashists is not limited to the Administration. Bashists must nuw blame conservatives for such things as plagiarism. And, as is so often the case when the Bashists write before thinking, they are brought low by the facts.

There is a good analysis of the articles in question at RedState (tip of hat to Language Log). I have to agree–when the content in question turns out to be quotes, one can’t help but think the Bashists have either no sense of reason left, of they simply hope that the vast majority of people will never actually go check their claims.

“I had my doubts,” he said. “But I felt like the president is our leader, and he won’t betray our trust, and he would know what he was talking about, and let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.”

And apparently, he also made it clear that there existed conditions upon which he would or would not engage in combat.

In January, Watada told his commanders that he believed that the war was unlawful, and therefore, so were his deployment orders. He did not, however, consider himself a conscientious objector, since he was willing to fight in wars that were justified, legal and in defense of the nation.

These do not appear to me to be statements from a man who, at the time of commissioning, accepted his office “without mental reservation.”
4. Actions have consequences. I can understand, and even admire, someone who stands up for what they believe and are willing to pay the cost. Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood the repercussions of his actions. Our founding fathers understood the possible repercussions of their actions. “Give me liberty, or give me death” was not a jingoistic attempt at PR by Patrick Henry, it was a recognition of the demise that awaited him upon failure. A courageous man accepts the consequences.
5. Military Officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts Martial. The Lt, and his lawyer, seem to think that his remarks about the President are a First Amendment issue, and that the Lt was exercising his right to free speech, when he spoke out against the Commander in Chief. In fact, the lawyer is quoted as saying “‘What’s going to happen is there’s going to be a major First Amendment litigation, which I think they’re really crazy to invite,’ Seitz said.” Alas, this shows that the counsel sought by the Lt is unfamiliar with the military justice system. There are protections established for the military, but the nature of military service requires a different way of understanding and acting with regards to the US Constitution. In fact according to Findlaw.com the Supreme Court has recognized that “while constitutional guarantees apply, ‘the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections.’1455.” Perhaps the Lt should hire a military lawyer?
The US Army has done the right thing. They have refused to let one Lieutenant interpret national and international law, and told him that he cannot sit as judge and jury over the actions of this government. To do that would overstep his bounds as an officer in the US Military.

I have sat on this one for a while. Another left-leaning blog that I frequent, “Pressing the Flesh”, has had several postings singing the praises of Al Gore’s latest theatrical success. One of the implicit arguments seeming to be that as the movie rakes in the dollars, the revenues are seen as votes of support for Gore, and his agenda. Of course, this has two effects. First, it ignores the fact that movie goers typically like a horror flick, and second that by arguing that box office sales equates to support, it keeps people like me away.

All this aside, we could have lengthy discussions about global warming and the impact of mankind on such an event. The debate is stifled though, by statements from media sources such as Earth and Sky radio show, where they state “The result is a warming climate -which no reputable scientist disputes anymore.” By making such a statement. (In all fairness, they backed off of on their website by saying “You’re right. We should not have said “no reputable scientist disagrees.” That is an incorrect statement and too strong a statement. We apologize. We should have said that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is real and caused by humans.” )

Here’s the problem, however. There are vast numbers of scientists, most with bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, and some with PhDs, that have come out supporting the notion that science has shown that mankind has caused global warming. But then there are those senior scientists, the chaired, full professors at major universities, that are essentially pulling on the reins. They aren’t saying that there isn’t climate change, and they aren’t saying that it might be a warming trend. They are saying that to make a causal conclusion (and thus infer we can “stop” the change) is imprudent.

For instance, Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. I think we can all agree that MIT is a reputable science and engineering university, and that being a full professor in Atmospheric Science qualifies one to speak on the topic of climate change. In fact, being a Chaired Professor shows that the university believes him to have demonstrated expert knowledge in the area.

This being said, consider the opinion piece he has written for the Wall Street Journal. In this piece he tackles the assertion from Al Gore that “the debate in the scientific community is over.” Professor Lindzen points out that the debate is far from over. He lists the various bits of data that are mis-represented, mis-understood, or ignored by the “non-scientists” as they seek to achieve policy. What is most striking about this opinion article is that the Professor strikes a tone of balance, and reason. Perhaps this is the tone that should be brought back into the discussion?

Let’s reward scientists for good science, and not seek out those whose findings are the most scary, shocking, or sensational.

The Professor.

Loyal readers will recall back in 2004 I critiqued the Congressional Bashists for their mis-reading of the CBO report concerning the distribution of the tax cuts. It is nice to see that another blog (far better equipped as actual economists) have tackled this one, as well.

Today seemed like as good a day as any to write about something that has been slowly gnawing, nay, chewing at me, for a while. It seems appropriate today, on the 5th of July, the day following another successful return to flight for the Shuttle program.

Many (whom I now call “bashists”–those whose rage against President Bush is so great they see no good in his actions, bashing all that he says or does; a response to calling supporters “apologists” but I digress…) Many have called for a timeline for the removal of US forces from Iraq. Most of Congress have seen the error in such an action, although the Bush detractors have taken it upon themselves to continually argue that there “is no plan.” The notion that there is no plan is humorous, since not only has there been a plan, the general outline of the plan has been around since our war against Saddam began. I am sure you, kind reader, recall that the President talked about rebuilding Iraq, re-establishing a government with free and open elections, and ensuring that the new government would be strong enough to survive. That has been the plan all along.

That leads me to this conclusion: We should stop debating the red herring of “time lines” and start discussing “event lines.” It seems clear to me that we will withdraw our troops upon satisfactory completion of certain events. We can develop estimates of when those events will occur, and those estimates may be rooted in optimism, pessimism or realism, but they remain estimates. It seems to me that in many areas of life we live on “event lines” rather than time-lines.

• College. One graduates from college upon successfully completing the requirements for the degree.
  
• High School. Again, when the requirements are completed (although some seem to argue that holding kids to standards is somehow demeaning.)
  
• Marriage. When one finds a mate (although the sitcom “Friends” had their gang with “Back ups” in case they reach the timeline before the event-line.)

Even more time-critical events have an “event line” associated with them. Most noteable is the Shuttle launch. Yes, the shuttle has a “countdown” and they have the “launch windows” but those timelines are event constrained. There exists a long sequence of events that must occur before a Space Shuttle (Space Transportation System) can be launched. When those events are not reached, but can be overcome quickly, NASA puts a “Hold” on the countdown. If it seems to NASA that they cannot satisfy the event requirement, they then “scrub” the mission and reschedule the launch. The satisfactory completion of the mission is more important than meeting an arbitrary timeline. Of course, when meeting a timeline becomes more important than meeting the “event line” we see catastrophic results.

So let’s learn our lessons from the hard-earned lessons from NASA. We cannot simply set a “date certain” for the withdrawal of troops in something as complex as the situation in Iraq. Pick on this administration all you want (Rage on, you Bashists) but it is prudent to trust your military leaders on the ground. It is wise to see that a sequence of events has occurred. It is foolishiness to say pick a date, and point to that as success.

Faulty survey data takes many forms. Sometimes the questions are loaded, as with a survey about online gambling I wrote about in April. Other surveys have very low response rates, like a poll about the value of mothers’ work; or pollsters don’t disclose all of their questions nor results, raising fears they’ve cherry-picked those responses that reflect best on the polls’ sponsors. Also, many polls you may read about have been conducted online, usually among a panel of volunteers lured by online ads — considered a less-representative sample by most pollsters than respondents who are found by random-digit telephone dialing.

and:

Polls with pitfalls shouldn’t be discarded automatically. But often they are accepted automatically by the press and rendered indistinguishable from polls conducted by more standard means.

So there you have it. More criticisms of bad polling, bad data, and blind acceptance. And from a reputable source, to boot!
The Prof
1. And most recently in a fit of “hyper-’bowl’-e” misrepresenting students’ putting marijuana in muffins as “spiking a punch bowl,” two very different things, to be sure!

Imagine my joy when I saw that one of my favorites blogs, the Language Log, decided to tackle another mis-reported survey. Of course, this one is particularly juicy since the log-ers are chastising the press for getting it wrong in reporting about how stupid the American people are. Perhaps the best point made is after listing the question asking people essentially to name the freedoms of the first amendment. In critiquing the analysis they write: “If you’re hip to the rhetoric of survey spin, you’ll guess at this point that the survey asked people to enumerate first-amendment rights by free recall.”
Yup, they could stop there, but they don’t! They then go on to mention how challenging that sort of question is. Asking someone to list off something very specific without any hints is quite difficult. Remember essay questions in school? The dreaded “What are 3 of the freedoms identified in the First Amendment, and explain the circumstances that caused their specific addition to the Bill of Rights?” (Actually, when you think about it, this particular essay question is replete with hints!)

Cheers for the Language Log!
Now, for what for me was truly ironic. Many of you remember the gracious treatment I received from the (apparent) owner of the A Liberal Dose blog (go back if you wish and read his witty comments, if your foul language detector is appropriately in place!) Well, not only is the author of that blog a great distorter of facts (or perhaps, just a tremendous prevaricator) he is a great distorter of images. To see what I am writing about, just go see the posting for Memorial Day weekend. As they say, context is everything. In this instance, we are provided a caption, and a picture of the President smiling. Of course, we are to quickly conclude the President may well have expressed deep remorse but by his smile, he must not have “meant it.” Hmmmm… Was the picture taken at the same time as the statement? (or even within seconds, or a minute?) Was the picture taken before the speech began? Who was the President looking at while smiling? (In the interest of fairness, this is the same sort of gross mis-representation that Rush Limbaugh did with the video of President Clinton laughing when leaving following the funeral of his former Secretary of Transportation. Of course, in THAT case the clip showed Clinton crying, laughing and then crying again, in the span of 10 seconds…)
As you can see, the picture doesn’t actually convey anything other than a man who can, at times, be quite “warm” most likely to a person in the crowd. It is mis-representations like this that lead one to conclude that “A Liberal Dose” is a person with an agenda, and perhaps not much else.
But that’s alright.
To steal from an old “Greyhound Busline” commercial “Just relax, and leave the thinking to us!”
The Prof

One of the on-going battles from the left is the sense that Americans are outraged at the government’s apparent monitoring of our lives. The self-absorbed left somehow believes that the US government is actually so interested in the mundane aspects of our daily lives that they listen to us, and track information about us, and our “normal” conversations. The left seems to think that most Americans would rise up against such government monitoring, even though the monitoring is done in the interest of national security, and thus, the safety of our populace.
Well, I for one wouldn’t want to extrapolate too far, or draw too many generalizable conclusions about these views from just one election, but I do find the situation in Philadelphia interesting. Today, Tuesday, 16 May 2006, Pennsylvania (my once and future home) held their primary elections. While there were many outcomes that may take the headlines, including the ouster of several incumbents, the silent yet critical news story may be about the referendum. Yes, THE referendum. The Associated Press ran a story (found at mcall.com) that said:

As police warn of a rising tide of gun violence, voters this week will get a chance to weigh in on whether Philadelphia should become the next big city to add public surveillance cameras to its crime-fighting arsenal.

A referendum on the ballot in Tuesday’s primary will ask voters whether they think the city’s charter should be amended to allow officials to use video surveillance to ”fight crime and violence” in a way that ”protects civil liberties and legitimate privacy interests.”

As of this moment, reports are that the city, a city (like so many other cities around the nation) dominated by the left and the Democrats, has voted overwhelmingly to allow video surveillance.
The outcome, as listed at Phlly.com, at this time, is:
Referendum – Video Surveillance – Ballot Issue
Philadelphia, 1543 of 1681 Precincts Reporting – 91.79%

Name Votes Pct Yes 62,518 79.12   No 16,498 20.88

Note, this is with nearly 92% of the votes counted. Assuming every remaining vote goes against the ballot, those rougly 8,000 votes wouldn’t be enough to stop it.
Yes, Philiadelphia has voted to allow their government to monitor their activities, and record them, to provide a sense of security. They are sacrificing security over privacy and personal rights.
Actually, I would be more opposed to this, than even the NSA listening. Partly because of my libertarian leanings, but also because a local law enforcement officer is more likely to have personal connections with the individuals monitored, and thus the potential is far greater for personal malfeasance.
Yup. The left likes to whine and complain about the Republicans and the Right. They like to scream about individual rights, but put their own lives at risk and they give up those rights faster than Kennedy grabs a whisky bottle.

Interestingly though, they must not really believe it, because the left is looking forward to the next elections. Apparently they don’t even believe their own rhetoric. For some reason, they hold two contradictory views. The first view is that elections are not fair, and the outcomes are “pre-determined.” The other view? That we can change things by getting out the vote, and voting for change.
Hmmm… are they simply stupid? While that would be a satisfying conclusion, I am not convinced of that. For a long time now I have held the view that accusations and charges are more reflective of the attitudes and behaviors of the people making them than the subject of the accusations. People see the world through their own lenses, and do not easily see alternative explanations. Or to put it another way “Bush must have lied–how else could you explain what is happening?!”

So here is MY theory (admittedly filtered through my lens–I understand I too am captive to my own paradigm). Keep the news story out there that Democracy is threatened. Let people know that our nation has been “stolen” as have elections. Convince people that they have to take action NOW to take back our government–and you can do that by getting out and voting for liberals. So, create fear, carefully drawing lines connecting unrelated information in a compelling story that implies connections, and get people to react to it.
Yup, that’s my theory, and I am sticking to it. Liberals are trying to “steal” elections the old fashioned way. Lying and scaring the electorate. Popularizing crazy conspiracy theories. Making people feel fear, rage, and hopelessness. And then, getting people to vote for them based on irrational fear.

I could be wrong. But it makes for a good story, and seems as plausible as any other.

I must say, I find this “episode” of the Language Log uniquely satisfying. Partially because I too have fallen prey to the odd grammatical error, now and again. But mostly because it serves as a humbling reminder that we all fail, and thus, as we point out each other’s failings, we all contribute.

but perhaps I read too much into this.

The last sentence though, remains priceless. Sure, pick on the word “decider.” Anyone want to guess what the other “obvious” error is?

Okay, so now we are told that virtually everything that travels over the US communication network gets shunted to the NSA. Now, I am a bit concerned about this, as I am sure most Americans are, and I want to get your opinions about this. How do you feel about the NSA sorting through billions and billions of emails and texts a day? Do you feel it is a blatant violation of your rights, or do you believe that they can’t be doing too much with the data, or they would have to hire every person in the nation to evaluate it?

I can hear now the cries that this is another example of the Bush Administration’s blatant disregard for personal freedoms. Hey, it *might* be true, but there have been concerns about the NSA’s listening techniques long before this Bush Administration. Does no one remember the book “Puzzle Palace?”

Anyway–let me (and the other readers) know what you think about this topic!

“Among the troops, a flood of desertions (thanks in no small part to the efforts of GI Rights Online) is indicative of the growing unpopularity of the occupation — fully 72% of American troops in Iraq support ending it this year.”

Here we go. “flood of desertions” this blogger claims. This particular blog reminds me of some of the worst writings I have seen in class. Students will do anything to get a point across in their papers, and will cite things that don’t actually argue what the student portrays it to be arguing. Unfortunately, I have actually seen articles submitted by academics for peer reviewed journals, where the authors misrepresent the argument put forward in a cited work.

This is a classic point in case. According to this blog, one would think that we are losing soldiers, sailors, airman and marines at a phenomenal rate–perhaps even greater than ever before. Wow! I was surprised enough to go check his source. Much to my surprise I saw in the graphic the heading “Desertions drop.” Hhmmmmm flood? The article goes on to point out that desertions have continued to drop since 9/11/01, and in fact “Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.”

Two points strike me here. First, the numbers are not only lower than they were in 2001, but they are also lower than they were in 2000–while that “other guy” was still in the White House! Second, most desertions happen stateside, are early in an enlistment, and more often than not are based on personal issues (failure to adapt to the military lifestyle, personal issues back home) than they are a protesting of a war the nation was engaged in at the time of the enlistment!

In the same blog entry, further down, the blogger makes the rather simple mistake of referring to election fraud in the 2004 election, when the article again and again states it was the 2002 election. Why is this a big deal, and not just a simple error? Because we are all told by the left how corrupt the ’04 election was, but not the ’02 one.

So here we are. This blogger has become so blinded by his political ideology that either he can no longer read things carefully, or he chooses to distort the sources.

I had actually commented on his blog, providing a correction, but it seems that, while he shows that comments are allowed, but moderated, he actually doesn’t put comments up for view. Hmmmm… I must admit, because of the errors on this one page, and how easy it is for someone to quickly check the facts by actually reading the sources cited, I found myself wondering if this blogger is actually a conservative make a veiled attempt at making liberals look stupid. Hey, it’s either that, or…

So students, learn a valuable lesson. Before you cite something, read it. Make sure that the document you cite actually buttresses the argument you are using it to make, or at least that you represent their argument accurately.

The Prof

An excerpt:

LiveScience.com – The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil: “The idea that petroleum is formed from dead organic matter is known as the ‘biogenic theory’ of petroleum formation and was first proposed by a Russian scientist almost 250 years ago.

In the 1950′s, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth.

This so-called ‘abiogenic’ petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.”

So here we have competing ideas–a diversity in ideas that now can be put forward, challenged, and tested. Which is the conservative one, and which the liberal? Well, while one might actually be able to be labeled conservative (the older theory having the upper hand) neither theory is inherently “political.”

So let’s encourage diversity, let’s embrace diversity. But let’s do it as appropriate for our disciplines. Let’s follow accepted, rigorous methodologies, and let’s all work to expand our minds, and contribute to the body of knowledge, rather than close doors, close minds, and protect our limited views of the world.

The Prof

The phrase “tipping point” has been around for a while, but was certainly made more popular with the release of the book by the same name. I wonder if this author was intending a reference to the book.

I am intrigued that this issue of dependence on foreign oil has reached this point. What does this mean? The article points out that the “political complexion of that issue is about to change considerably…” If the complexion changes significantly (relating to dependence), are we now going to see a shift in opinions? which ideas will shift? Here’s a few that could prove interesting:

1. More interest in hybrid vehicles. This doesn’t actually shift our dependence, but it does lessen the amount consumed. Perhaps the “American mind” will see this as the same thing.

2. Exploring alternative energy sources, such as wind. This seemed to be gaining traction, and then the animal right’s groups got involved. Yup–being green was a good idea, until the windmills started taking out the birds!

3. Allow for more drilling in Alaska. Perhaps the easiest solution–and it doesn’t have to result in the destruction of the desolate wilderness. This is one of those issues that is so easily couched in the faulty “either/or” logic–”either” we protect the wilderness and don’t drill, “or” we destroy nature. Technology and social conscience have come a long way since the early days of drilling. I have faith that “win-win” solutions truly are achievable.

4. Elect new leaders. This of course won’t actually DO anything–and we will complain about these folks soon enough, but it makes “most Americans” feel good about themselves.

So–We have reached a tipping point. The question is, which direction we will tip. Thoughts, anyone?

Okay, so I had to blog on this. Apparently Republicans are just happier people! As are church-goers, and suburbanites.

I am not sure if I am happy or not right now, since I should be writing a research proposal for funding, but I certainly thought this was worth sharing!

I commend this article to you, and actually, the series that this author is doing. He lays out just how wrong the exit polls were, and possible explanations as to why.

Perhaps, for me, the most interesting reason for the innaccuracy in the polling is that Hamas voters intentionally refused to answer polling questions, to protect the sanctity of the elections. Not just worried that Fatah would get concerned, and come out to vote in greater numbers–worried that Fatah would burn ballot boxes. That intrigues me, since so many are convinced that exit polls are right, and actually, apparently believe “more right” than actual counts of votes (remember 2000, and 2004?) I am still amazed at that. Imagine, if you have coins in a jar, and I guess how many (even if I apply some methodology for estimating–counting the number visible… times how many one could fit in the diameter, or some such) and you count out, one by one, how many–which count would you hold as more accurate?

Now, the academic in me finds something else interesting in this article. Dr Said, one of the pollsters, critiques his decision to change his methodology, when it appeared that he was getting the “wrong answer.” Alas, researchers often fall prey to expecting an answer, and questioning their results when they don’t get that answer. In this case, Dr Said even questions whether his subconscious got in the way.

Imagine if US pollsters actually admitted that their results could, perhaps, have been biased by their own subconscious desires to see on candidate elected over another. Hmmmm….

I also found a discussion about bias in academia to be interesting as well. It seems that academics do not believe that there is a liberal bias in academia. Now, one could comment about fish not perceiving water, pigs and mud, etc (the implication being, you do not notice that which surrounds you as being somehow “different.”) I, though, was struck by the similarity between the liberal argument, and the conservatives they argue about.

So, without any further ado, here is my comment and the others, regarding stereotyping by liberals.

Kimmitt:

Do you not notice the stereotyping and bias you yourself introduce? By writing “the conservative movement as a whole has a very strong “know-nothing” component which is inimical to the very concept of education.” you judge a whole group based on a pre-conception (and I doubt you can show research to support your view–besides anecdote.) Given this, you dismiss as “the exception” the few conservatives who point out they are in favor of critical thinking.

This really does sound as offensive to me as “well, you may be a smart woman, but most women…” or perhaps some other stereotype.

It is perhaps in our desire to descriminate, (sic) and stereotype, based on differences, that conservatives and liberals, pin-heads and enlightened, find their true common ground.

This is why my preference for “diversity” in education is not race or gender, or even age based–it’s *idea* based. I want to encourage a diverse idea base, so that ideas can be freely exchanged, and debate encouraged, without stereotyping and dismissing from any group.

Just a thought.

It’s not much of a surprise that people are wondering about the delay in the news, and finding a conspiracy in every line. I first heard the “breaking news” on the radio while driving back from the lake house on Sunday with my daughter. We actually laughed first, at how the “breaking news” was breaking about every 30 seconds–and the story was inevitably told each time to first lead you to believe Cheney was the one shot.

After that, we heard that the “breaking news” was 24 hours old, and yet the news station continued with the frequent updates. Go figure.

I was actually pleased that it was such a slow news day.

Now, on to the bit at hand-the delay in reporting the story. Sure–the Cheney office, and the White House, didn’t immediately hold a press conference. Does that surprise anyone? When one does something that is somewhat embarrassing, do you usually rush out and tell everyone? I would think not. “Hey, you won’t believe the really stupid thing *I* did today!” (okay, so SOMETIMES we tell the story–but usually not if it involves shooting someone!) It would be different if they had told a different story, or if they had at first denied it, or employed any number of other obfuscation techniques.

They didn’t. They just said “yup.”

Well, it appears that, at least in his first step, he got off on the left foot. I suppose he won’t ALWAYS be a lap dog for the conservatives. But then again, I don’t remember a justice whoever did everything that was expected of them, fufilling some sort of litmus test, except, perhaps, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But then again, it isn’t a litmus test if it is from the left, now is it?

Later, class.

But then, I realized, I have some unfinished business. I had engaged in a brief discussion about gays in the military at the Lobby. It’s not really a fight–certainly not one about dogma, or philosophy. Honestly, I think the main author, Let, just is perhaps not as familiar with the military as one needs to be to make some statements.

But I have engaged. Please, dear readers, especially those with a military background–go read the discussion and, if you feel like contributing, do so.

I am sure the hosts at the Lobby welcome thoughtful people from all backgrounds, and would never do anything to discourage participation. And, while, as the lead author points out, opinions are like… (I am assuming she included her’s in that rather broad generalization) I know she welcomes factual discussions.

The Prof

UPDATE: Sorry, the “Lobby” died.  It’s too bad, honestly.

Now, while I haven’t been able to keep up with Randi Rhodes–even though I have succumbed, and added her podcast to my subscriptions–I still try to make time to go through the blog from the left–the lobby.

I do like their new look. I think it’s quite stylish. I do think though that the post about Alito, and then the post about New Orleans, go a bit beyond the pale. It’s alright to disagree with the decisions, but the vitriol–well, it’s a bit much.

For instance, Let (the main blogger) writes “Alito is a walking constitutional amendment and we all know it. We might as well have put the Religious Right and the head of every corporation up on that court.” Interesting, except David Broder, in his commentary last week, essentially argued that the problem with Alito is not his willingness to rewrite the constitution, but his rather literalist reading of it. In fact, it is the “left” justices that have most often been cited as “writing” law rather than interpreting it. Remember the “right to privacy”? Which amendment is that one? Hmmm?

And let’s tackle the New Orleans blog entry. “Anyone remember Dubya saying this? ‘”“I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.’ Prior to Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans, Homeland Security reportedly knew what was to come, despite claims to the contrary and now there are documents to prove it.” (check out the link to the MSNBC site–go to “the lobby” to get the link–and read this blog. Seriously, it is worth it!) I have to agree that the President’s statement that no one anticipated it was perhaps hyperbole. But I suspect it was more likely a combination of a failure to brief the President by his staff, and an overwhelming sense of so many that it would never really happen.

I have family from New Orleans, so I as much as anyone know the feelings leading up to the hurricane. My family, being conservative, always expects the worst. However, I have been told that often the sense of the population has been one of complacency. It’s not hard to believe that, if the general population didn’t think it could really happen, that perhaps that view was shared by the local leadership in Louisiana. Just perhaps…

The Lobby(ists) go on to write “Not only that, but anyone tracking the story has probably read that the Dept of Homeland Security went through an exercise where a mock Hurricane Pam created all types of catastrophic damage. The results of the exercise were eerily similar to the reality Katrina left in Louisiana, Missourri, and Mississippi and this was way back in 2004.” Interesting. Should we spend billions of dollars after the DHS or DOD have a “doomsday scenario” exercise? I believe they have also done these for earthquakes, terror attacks, and various other natural and man-made catastrophes. What if the decision had been made to spend the money on the levies but we had actually lost San Francisco to another earthquake–would they have applauded our willingness to be prepared–or continued to attack, this time criticizing the inability to “get it right?”

So what is my point? What is the “golden thread of knowledge” to all this? Let’s be critical of the right things. Let’s get the stories “right” before we attack from the left.

I, however, realize that may leave my faithful reader out of the opportunity for such pleasure since such sparring occurs on other’s blogs. Towards that end I would like to provide this link:
LET’s Blog–the Lobby.

Now, I am only providing the link to the most recent exchanges, in the hopes that you, my favorite reader, will find it interesting, and perhaps even get a laugh. Most likely, at my expense, but that too is alright.

Feel free to join in the discussion on that blog, or even here!

See you after break!

Perhaps it is time for me to blog on the NSA. My favorite lunatic, Randi Rhodes, has already contributed many ways, via broad conspiracy theories, for the government to abuse the average citizen with this information. She has said the government will use this to keep you from getting a job (“yup–they didn’t hire me. Musta been that darned wiretapping!”) to refusing a loan (“I am sure it couldn’t be the debt, and lack of income–the government is meddling in my finances again!”)

This story provides some interesting tidbits. For instance, while the title talks about eavesdropping, the story states that the major action they are taking is identifying calling/information patterns. This is often done without actually listening/reading anything. “Government and industry officials with knowledge of the program told the newspaper the NSA sought to analyze communications patterns to gather clues from details like who is calling whom, how long a phone call lasts and what time of day it is made, as well as the origins and destinations of phone calls and e-mail messages.”

Let’s be honest–we have known the NSA is a large eavesdropping organization ever since the book Puzzle Palace was published. That book ignited several firestorms when it was first published, as well, from people concerned about individual privacy, to those concerned about a government exercising total tyranny. Perhaps the NSA has already been used for all these, we shall never know.

Many years ago, the debate around the NSA actually included a discussion about whether the NSA would provide the action agencies (CIA, DIA, FBI) with any information they gathered, since to do so would reveal the capability of their sources. I believe we should be happy that they have at least been willing to use the information.

The question I have concerning the use of the NSA without warrant is this: If the intelligence gathered is used to identify, and stop, terrorist actions, and doesn’t go beyond that, what is wrong with that? I realize the information could be “mis-used” but that is true of any government agency that collects any information. How much information do you think the Social Security Administration already has on you? Thankfully, the history of the NSA has been one of not using or sharing information, even when useful.

I do not necessarily like anyone eavesdropping on my conversations. Those who know me have heard me argue for more, not less, protection of privacy. In this case, however, the NSA’s commitment to secrecy makes me feel more comfortable that they are actually watching the bad guys–and most likely couldn’t care less about the rest of us!

So, students–worry that your professor may catch you plagiarizing, but don’t worry that the NSA will try to stop you from getting that dream job. What is most likely going to get in the way there is yourself.

Okay, time for me to rant about Randi… LOL. I recommend you go watch this video show from CSPAN where Randi is interviewed on Q&A. within the first10 minutes of the show, they play a clip where she had “fought” with Janet Parshall. Randi thinks it is a “big thing” that President Bush suspended the “Davis-Bacon Act of 1931.” In fact, Randi brings this up as an example of Bush “lying.” Now, I am not sure of the connection between the suspension of the Act, and lying, but I am sure of one thing–this was not without precedent. As the quote below from the “CRS Report for Congress” regarding the suspension points out, the Act has been suspended several times. Admittedly, most suspensions were by Republicans, but only the suspension by Roosevelt was identified as “administrative convenience.”

The act has been suspended explicitly on four separate occasions. (a) In 1934,
President Franklin Roosevelt suspended the act in what appears to have been for
administrative convenience associated with New Deal legislation. It was restored to
full strength in less than 30 days with few people, seemingly, aware of the
suspension. (b) In 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended the act as part of a
campaign intended to quell inflationary pressures that affected the construction
industry. In just over four weeks, the act was reinstated, the President moving on to
different approaches to the problem. (c) In 1992, in the wake of Hurricanes Andrew
and Iniki, President George H. W. Bush suspended the act in order to render
reconstruction and clean-up in Florida and the Gulf Coast and in Hawaii more
efficient. The impact of the suspension is unclear for the act was suspended on
October 14, 1992, just days prior to the 1992 election. President William Clinton
restored the Act on March 6, 1993. And, (d) on September 8, 2005, President George
W. Bush suspended the act in order to render more efficient reconstruction and cleanup
of Florida and the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The act may also
have been suspended during World War II as part of the generalized emergency.

Amazing news, don’t you think?

Dick Cheney, the oft maligned Vice President, has once again gone to Iraq, showing support not only for the troops, but for democracy. What could be wrong with that? Hmmm….

Let me be the first to predict that the indefatigable Randi Rhodes will attack Dick Cheney. In fact, I suspect, but cannot prove, that in the Monday show she will rant and rail against the Veep, with much hot air, little substance, and broad conspiratorially minded accusations. Oh wait, that’s cheating on my part–that’s what she does on all her shows.

You don’t believe me? Go listen yourself…The Randi Rhodes Show.

Okay, let me toss a little ad hominem her way. I find her show entertaining, because she is so soooo… crazy. I find a small problem with her show, however. She used to have on her Bio at her site that she had been “voted” the most outstanding woman in the US Air Force in 1979. There are a few interesting tidbits here. That info is no longer listed. Perhaps because the Air Force doesn’t actually have such an award, I am told. I am not accusing her of lying, just mis-representation. I suspect she received that award not from the Air Force, but from another agency or perhaps a magazine, such as Good Housekeeping. You can still find this information on some places, if you Google “Randi Rhodes” and “Outstanding Air Force.” One such link can be found here. (update: this link is also no longer available)

You know, I will continue this later. In the mean time, I actually want to recommend her show to you. If you are an educated individual, you will find it to be several hours of hilarity. If you are not, or choose to believe anything, you might find it… ummmm… enlightening? Either way, it will amaze you.

The professor.

This is perhaps the first of many “corrections” to her errors. I find the show humorous, in that she is so wrong, so often, but depressing, since she rarely will listen to a contradicting, or correcting, view.

It’s often not “as simple” as what makes up lithium. Sometimes she supports the fiction that the military is doing nothing to provide support for families of reservists and guard members who are deployed. THAT is insidious, because most people think that she “must” know, since she served as an (enlisted) member of the US Air Force during the “dark” Carter years.

Go figure.

Do your homework. Check her out. http://therandirhodesshow.com

Spin… Spin… Spin…

Man, am I getting dizzy.

Bush is handed a defeat? Let me see if I have this right. In New Jersey, a state known for going for the Democrat candidate (and violating the rules if necessary to see that they do–refer back to my blog entry re: when are rules no longer important…) the state once again voted for a democrat, replacing the democrat governor with a *gasp* democrat governor. And that is a defeat for Bush?

Moving to Virginia, a Democrat governor cannot run for re-election to a consecutive term, so his Lt Governor runs–and wins! Shocking, I say. Hmmm… something tells me, if you are a Democrat, replacing a Democrat, and essentially an “incumbent,” that the race should be won “easily.” It was, instead, a “close race.”

I have no doubt that in the national elections of 2006 the Republicans will lose some seats in the House, and perhaps even a Senate seat or two. They might even lose a governorship (say… in California, where it seems less of an election shaping up, and more of a “best actor” award between Beatty and Schwarzenegger). That is an expected outcome in an off year for a sitting President. Clinton lost seats for his party in both 1994 and 1998. That’s not really news.

Here would be “the shocking headline” if it were to happen (although I doubt the media would print it!) “BUSH SHOWS TAIL–GAINS SEATS CEMENTING CONTROL” (yes, I mean coattails)

Interesting. Is it any wonder that a Democrat’s response to the failure of a bureaucracy, and the determination of the human spirit, would be to say we want “more government?”

I believe if any lesson should be learned from the “perceived” inability of the bureaucracy to respond, it’s that bureaucracies are not designed for rapid response to unplanned crises. After a number of years, FEMA has become quite adept at responding to “traditional” hurricanes. Note there isn’t much complaining about their response around Mobile, and Gulfport. They have much practice responding here. It’s the Hurricane with FLOODING that has them stymied.

Of course, as I have mentioned here previously, much of the slowness to respond has it’s heart in the challenges of logistics rather than the willingness of the heart. Since then, the slow response of FEMA (as documented personally by my brother, and others) can be attributed to the slow, methodical, paper-pushing nature of bureaucracy. It’s the nature of an accountable government to work to ensure that they remain accountable. In fact, if you check your history books, you will note it’s more often than not the Democrats that have pushed for this sort of accountability. Whenever one requires a “full accounting” of the expenditure of government funds, we not only slow the process down, but increase to overall costs along with the overhead.

So what is Kerry’s response? That somehow, because the American People are able, and willing, to stand up, and stand in the gap, that we desire “more government?” Hmmm… I think he didn’t get it in the election, and I remain convinced he doesn’t get it now.

We don’t want more government. It is no longer “of the people, by the people” and it seems less and less that it is “for the people.” This is not because the individual people in the government aren’t wanting to do more, or are callous. They are hamstrung by the bureaucracy of government.

Freeing people to care for people is the best way to deal with most situations, especially in crises.

I am proud to be an American, who helps Americans.

Welcome back to class. I realize we have taken a rather long break for the semester, but it’s time one again to put our thinking caps on, and start analyzing the news.

So what has me jumping back into the fray? Perhaps it is the obvious lunacy of the US Court system. As the article cited above notes, the court has declared that a sticker must be removed from textbooks, as it in some way violates the (and I quote) “Ban on the separation of church and state.” Let’s forget, just for a moment, that the way the article is written makes it appear that the separation is banned. Let’s even forget for the moment that there is no actual ban in the constitution. (If you don’t believe me–go find the “separation” clause–it’s not there.) Let’s look at the sticker.

The sticker, according to the article, reads: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

So let me see–where are the issues that favor religion? What words here even HINT at the notion that one should/must believe in God (especially God in a particular way) such that one would see it as an encroachment on the separation of church and state?

Wait–it’s not there! The words as written actually encourage being open-minded, and having a critical mind. Typically those are things that we encourage in people, especially in education. We want you to be open to new ideas. We want to challenge–to question the status quo. How many times have you heard how scientific revolutions came about through paradigm shifts, driven by someone challenging the accepted concepts? In fact, isn’t that exactly what Darwin himself did?

I suspect there is something deeper, something more sinister here. Apparently the judge believes that motivation should be considered when determining if religion has played too great a role, and if your beliefs, motivated through some means of faith, drive your actions, then it cannot be allowed.

Seriously, consider this. The words just remind us that we are to remain scientific–we are to remain critical. The fact that a school board did this based on their religious convictions is enough to declare it an infringement, or breach if you will, of the barrier.

Let me leave you with this question: If Jimmy Carter’s humanitarian actions while President were grounded in his understanding of the calling he received from Christ–to care for the needy, clothe the naked, and feed the hungry–if that was driven by his religious convictions, should they have been stopped?

Are we to only allow actions motivated purely from self-thought?

Well, I am back. And I am disappointed. No, it’s not the usual disappointment on a Sunday afternoon, where my college team has let me down yet again. This is more serious.

The link above shows a touching testimonial about a woman who’s brother died while serving his (and her!) Country. At the time he died, he was looking for weapons of mass destruction. Weapons that they point out Bush was “confident” existed. Now let me point out, they are weapons that Kerry, and Clinton(s), and Kennedy, and many others also thought existed. But while I am saddened to hear of the specific loss, I am more disappointed in something else.

They missed the point.

Perhaps in an effort to make her brother more “human” to the web browser, and perhaps to make it so that people would want to contribute to their cause, they show her brother with a young Iraqi child–wearing her brother’s helmet. Her brother “got it” better than she did, and perhaps better than most others do.

The war, while certainly an effort to stop the development and spread of WMDs, was bigger than that. It was about freeing an oppressed people. It was about showing people in the region that their is more to life than “existing” and that one doesn’t have to “take” the abuse heaped on them in the name of religion by zealots who distort any religion for their own power. It was about freedom, and yes, democracy.

A college freshman was telling me just the other day about a story she heard, where hundreds of camcorders were given to Iraqi’s with just one direction–go record whatever you wish. No direction for political agenda, or taping military actions, or anything else. And what did they find? People happy with Americans, and a young child who adores the American soldier, and how well they treat him. What did this young child want to be when he grows up? An American. AN AMERICAN.

Her brother saw the opportunity to change a young child’s life, and he made that difference. Let’s rejoice in freedom for women, and children, everywhere. Let’s not just write them off, otherwise we prove to the world the very thing the left says we shouldn’t–we would be selfish, self-absorbed Americans, unwilling to do anything for others if it means we are less comfortable.

The US Military understands that mission, and is prepared to meet it. America, shouldn’t you as well?

Anyone have that in the pool?

In all seriousness–I was surprised that, after hearing a video segment on Fox News where they played excerpts of all the debates that Kerry had been in (all the way back to his initial Senate debates) his wording hasn’t really changed. “I know what it means to… (fill in the blank) because I was there…”

And so it goes.

I think there are two problems here, really.

The first one is, there is a significant amount of “editorializing” going on in the headline writing, and the writing of the article.

Why do I say that? Because they are “spinning” the story to be negative, and then adding a counter segment about Kerry to provide “balance.”

The other issue is that, what is being reported as “twisting his words” is not, really. Well, no more than the writer of the article was doing. Bush, and Kerry, were interpretting what the other said, getting at what they believe the meanings of their opponents words were. That is not the same as quoting.

Of course, writers do that all the time in these stories, telling us what was said, and what it “Means.” Perhaps this is just professional jealousy, on the part of reporters? They feel only they can “interpret” for us?

Neither side lied. At least not in THIS story.

ADDENDUM: One of the students has pointed out that, according to the community newsletter found at: http://www.chevychasesection3.com/pdf/may2003.pdf, the author of the article in question has ties (marital) to the Clinton Administration.

“Jen and Roger Ballentine … Jennifer, using her work-world name of Jennifer Loven, is a White House reporter for the Associated Press and Roger is president of Green Strategies, Inc., a consulting firm he started two years ago after serving as chairman of President Clinton’s White House Climate Change Task Force. ”

So, she is a White House reporter, which would explain why she writes at great length about what Bush has said, and has ties to the left, which might explain the “twist” she puts on the “twist.”

Recommendation: Read Goldberg’s book Bias. I recommended it before, and I do so again.

An adroit observer on Yahoo noted that, had it not been for the rather inept way the letters were (apparently) forged, we might have never known them to be false.

Interesting. The observer continued: ” Would these documents have been considered authentic had their been no blunders in word processing or in terminology (interestingly enough, they still have not been proven false, merely unconfirmable)?”

This begs the question, as we travel the highways and the byways of the internet, and this new “(dis)information age.” Are we now seeing the beginnings of what sci-fi has predicted for so long? Are we entering an era when Truth can no longer be shown through documentation?

If anyone remembers the episode from Star Trek TOS (The “original show”) where a crewmember attempts to get even with Capt Kirk, the most interesting aspect of the show in my mind has always been the idea that someone can falsify a visual record, in this case, a video recording, to portray something that never happened. With the digital age, and the computer animations we have seen ever since Forest Gump, we may be entering an age of true situational relativism and truth.

Wittgenstein opened the debate when he first proposed the “problem of induction.” That, simply put, says that we can never actually prove anything to be true by induction since we cannot possibly perceive “all instances” of anything. The classic example is the statement “All swans are white.” Until you have viewed all swans, this statement cannot be proven true, and in fact, until you have seen all sides of all swans, you cannot know that all swans are “all white.”

The next step goes even further. You cannot accept that which you yourself have not perceived, so unless it is you that has perceived the swans, you cannot make any statements of knowledge, or truth, whatsoever.

Professor Karl Popper answered this with his concept of “falsifiability”–a concept familiar to anyone who has taken a (properly taught) statistics course. Harken back to your intro to stats, and remember if you will, you can never “prove” the hypothesis. You can disprove, or fail to disprove. That is Popper’s legacy (in a tiny, tiny nutshell.)

Perhaps we are entering a new era. An era where the media, the bastions, nay the defenders of truth, cannot be trusted. In this instance they cannot be trusted to check their facts. Then again, is that actually what happened?

Where you there? Can you “know” what happened?

Homework: Determine for yourself if “truth” is a certainty. Please–share your views. We all grow through these thought exercises.

to paraphrase (and butcher) Sir Walter Scott, Oh what a tangled web we weave, When America we seek to deceive!

The stories are flying around. Documents prove Bush lied! Documents are a forgery! Documents are real, and no evidence is needed! Reputations wouldn’t be risked for this! All this, and for what?

You see, I am amused by what appears to be a sudden fascination with the possibility that documents might possibly have been forged. (Yes, I used the passive voice here–because CBS doesn’t have the originals, and won’t disclose how they received these documents!) It appears that now people are working quite hard to build a rather circumstantial case about how it is “possible” that an Air National Guard unit might possibly have had a very expensive typewriter and that a man known to not type would have taken the time to learn an expensive machine to type these memos.

Does anyone else remember the Niger Yellow Cake stories? Apparently this is another instance of “crows coming home to roost.” Several years ago, as President Bush was making his case to remove Saddam from power, he included 18 words in the State of the Union speech that indicated that Niger had sold, or tried to sell, uranium to Iraq. The documents that were presented to support this, documents viewed and believed by British as well as US intelligence officials, were later held up as forgeries. Various charges were levied against the Bush administration. He obviously “knew” these accusations were false, and he lied. Or perhaps, his intelligence agencies were so incompetent that they failed to identify as a forgery what was obvious.

The parallels here are perhaps interesting, and we could simply leave it at that. Except for one rather important point–the Bush administration accepted that the documents might well have been a forgery. They didn’t need that evidence to build their case, and they were willing to “let it go.”

So the question is out there for all to ponder: Why won’t CBS let it go? Certainly they have no “personal” stake in this, do they? It’s not like people won’t understand that, in the language of Nixon’s Watergate and the Clinton’s Travelgate, “Mistakes were made.” Is there some other reason why CBS and Dan Rather must cling tenaciously to what is becoming obvious to all was a bungled, perhaps even juvenile attempt, at a forgery?

Homework for the day: Read Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News by Bernard Goldberg, and learn why Dan Rather must grasp to this story, as his reputation continues to slip from him.

Write your own review of the book, and post it here! Let’s get others reading!

I stumbled across this Op-Ed piece on Yahoo, and could not help but use this as the opportunity to sound-off about perhaps the most distressing turn of events in the past twenty years.

The left, specifically, the “vocal left,” have become the most hate-filled, pre-judging, and bigoted group of people in America today, while at the same time continuing to repeat the tired, old accusations of the “right” being the party of hatred. The “tipping point” for me was while listening to Janeane Garofalo on Wednesday night during the Republican Convention, when she first apologized to the world, saying that the Republicans don’t represent America, and then she made it clear that she was tired of being portrayed as a homosexual hating, racist, war-monger (loose paraphrase–forgive me, I was driving.) I could only assume, given the context, that she was saying that the RNC was coming across that way, and could give the impression that “all of America” is like the Republicans.

Heck, I found myself for once in agreement with Janeane Garofalo. I am tired of being classified as a racist, homophobe, and warmonger. For a moment there, I thought Janeane had herself realized that the attacks from the left were unjustified. Alas, I finally realized that she was just taking another tact for attack.

I have seen increasingly in conversation a trend on the left to condemn in hate speech all things conservative. My daughter called home from her first day in college, upset not just that she was one of only a few conservatives (perhaps one of 2) in her Dorm, but that the others were mean to her when they found out that she was. I advised her, in my most fatherly tone, dripping with irony, that she should take a moment to reflect, and then ask “isn’t ‘tolerance’ supposed to be your value?”

Another woman, in a discussion I was having, pointed out what she considered to be “facts” that support her conclusion that the Republican Party is the party of the KKK. Her reasoning? The Republicans have taken the South in nearly every election since Reagan in 1980. Case closed. Yup–if you are a Southerner, you are a racist. In fact, when I challenged this view she stated that “it’s what I believe, and you can’t change that.” She then followed it up with the statement that things are now changing though, as northerners are moving south, taking on the more technical jobs.

Bigoted.* Prejudging. Discriminatory. And yes, I am talking about the liberals.

Let’s set up a few facts here. One of the charges made, and made consistently by Air America personalities including Janeane, as well as other “good meaning, hate-spewing” liberals, is that all, yes all, good social change has been brought about by liberals and Democrats. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.” It just ain’t so!

If we start with the “Father” of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, we see a man who in dedicating a cemetery affirmed the beliefs of our founding fathers, noting that they were “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” He demonstrated this in his “Emancipation Proclamation” freeing the slaves. He also demonstrated this in his desire to bring the South back into the fold, through a period of reconstruction that he saw as “healing.” Alas, he was cut down before he could see that vision to fruition.

In fact, Lincoln’s vision of reconstruction never took place, and his Vice President, then President, found himself the first President to be impeached, (followed over 100 years later by President Clinton) simply because he sought a kinder, gentler, reconstruction, welcoming rather than punishing the South. Who impeached him? The Radical Republicans–yes, “radical” because they wanted to see equality in the South move even faster.

The Republican party continued to be progressive. While the Democrats fought to maintain their control over government, the Republicans sought to expand the political franchise, pushing for the suffrage of women (right to vote). While I am linking to an obvious partisan site, let me point out that I first learned of the role of the Republican Party while listening to a lecture from a Women’s Studies class at a major university. The point was hit home to me, since knowing the group as well as I do, the facts had to be incontrovertible for the Republicans to get “any” credit.

The Civil Rights movements of the 50s and 60s are the keystone to the Democrat/Liberal claim to moral high ground. Interesting, in that it isn’t their hill! President Eisenhower (R) worked “quietly” for civil rights during his tenure throughout the 1950s. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957, although as noted it was watered down by “lack of support among the Democrats.” In fact, the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, while pushed through, and credited to, the Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, would not have passed had it not been for the overwhelming support of the Republican Party. Interestingly, John F. Kennedy, then Senator “had opposed Eisenhower’s 1957 Act to keep in with the Democrats hierarchy as he had plans to run for president as well as Johnson. ” The Republicans voted in a far larger majority than the Democrats, leading Johnson to praise the Republicans. Interestingly, Senator Al Gore Sr apparently voted against the Civil Rights Act.

The history of the Republican Party has always been one of inclusion–often inclusion won not only through sweat, but through blood.

Let the liberals continue being “Mean spirited.” Let the liberals continue to push bigotry and hatred. But please, do not let them continue to lie.

HOMEWORK: Thanks for completing your previous homwork. Your assignment this time? Check the links I included in this post, and then post a comment on the most interesting fact that you learned, while reading through these histories. In fact, if you don’t believe something I say, or dispute a fact, I encourage you to to find another source, and share that. This is about learning, and Truth, not pedantics.

from Dictionary.com: Bigoted is “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

This story from CBS is an Interesting commentary.

What surprises me more than anything else though, is that it is another example of politicians fleeing from thoughtful analysis for fear that the American populace will condemn them for holding a view that seems contrary.

Outsourcing has been portrayed lately as another example of a Bush Administration seeking the well being of corporations, to the detriment of the “working class families.” In fact, the Kerry campaign is pointing out quite consistently that we have a large number of jobs that have “moved” overseas. The fact is, most business professors will tell you that the globalization of the economy, and the “outsourcing” as it is so popularly described, has helped fuel the economic growth seen throughout the 90s. Yes, the 90s–that era of Clinton growth so touted by Democrats.

It is the ability to find, and leverage, comparative advantage, I commend http://internationalecon.com/v1.0/ch40/40c000.html as a good discussion of comparative advantage.

It is unfortunate that we find ourselves once again seeking to protect jobs that have become uncompetitive rather than encourage people to be re-educated, or at a minimum retrained, to do jobs in which we ourselves have a competitive advantage. Of course, educating America is a herculean effort, and given that those charged with that very task, educating America, have consistently allied themselves with a particular party, and a particular agenda, it is a task we won’t see tackled any time soon.

This is the problem with much of the discussion from the politicians. Because things seem, as that academic link says, to be counterintuitive, or worse, to be without heart, we distance ourselves from it, no matter how truthful.

Homework for today is quite simple: Read the link, and answer this thought question: How would you educate America on those issues that seem on the face counterintuitive, but if accepted would greatly improve our lot as a nation? Submit your thoughts, as a comment on this blog!

I was making my way through the various news stories on Yahoo, and reading the various postings that the Yahoo-fans post as comments to stories. In my ramblings, I came across the linked comment from a user that stated:

“BTW….REAL Texans CAN’T STAND BUSH!”

Amazingly, we seem to again define ourselves as a “real” something, by adherence to a strict dogma.

So, being a “Real Texan” is not a function of citizenship? Then I suppose being a “real American” means something more than being a “citizen of the USA?”

I thought it was the liberals that were angry that the republicans supposedly accused them of not being “real” Americans because they didn’t support the President in everything. At what point can we at least agree that being a “real” something has to do with the attributes that make one “that thing?”

For instance, in many discussions I have had with people from various (nominally) Christian denominations, I am told that an adherence to the teachings of Jesus, in general terms, are important (but not necessary) but that any belief that he is “Christ” (Messiah, Chosen One, God) are not necessary, and in fact, only cause harm. This has led me to conclude that people with these views are not “Real Christians” but rather are “Real -ians.” When one chooses to remove Christ from His Church, then one should have the decency to remove Christ from the name, wouldn’t you think? And yet, these same people get a certain sense of “righteous indignation” when you question whether they actually are “Christians” or just “-ians.”

For me, membership in something, and thus being a “Real” anything, is a function of meeting the requirements of that group. If you choose to deny the teachings of your Church, then you should no longer be able to describe yourself as a member of that Church. If you do not accept the divinity of Christ, and the concept of a Sacrificial atonement, then you are not a Christian–simple enough. If you do, but you cannot accept the authority of the Pope over the Church, and believe that you have the right to decide what is right and wrong for you separate from the authority of the Church, then perhaps you are not a “Real Catholic.”

It really comes down to another shift in societal thinking. I wrote previously about the common urge to dispel with rules when they become inconvenient. If the situation seems important enough, let’s just set that rule of law aside, for now. We can always enforce it later, right?

Apparently this thinking extends to our inate desire to belong to a group, but an unwillingness to accept the responsibilities that go along with membership. Even worse, it has been twisted to allow us to not only redefine the definition of membership in a way that distorts the meaning of the organization, but then we use this new, twisted meaning, to attempt to exclude others. In an attempt to be inclusive, we become exclusive, seeking to denegrate those who are “different.”

Amazing isn’t it. Tolerance, and acceptance, have been twisted by those who espouse it to allow intolerance and exclusion.

Perhaps nothing really has changed after all. It still is about the selfish qualities of human nature.

Ever wonder why school levies always seem to fail, and yet school taxes always seem to go up, and never go down? It’s simple– the levies keep coming back, and coming back, until they pass. It is interesting, the levies lose, and lose, and lose, but then, due to low turn out, or bad weather, or just a weird turn of events, the levy passes, often by a number of votes that can be counted on one hand. And that settles it.

I first noticed this rather odd turn of events in St Louis, where they were trying to pass a referendum to allow riverboat gambling. The referendum failed during every election for over two years, and at every defeat those supporting the referendum vowed to bring it back again. Once the levy passed, they proudly declared “this has been settled once and for all.”

So, what makes it “once and for all” when one side wins, and not another? I think it is because those that are pushing for these issues are quick to try to shut down further debate. In fact, they often use draconian tactics to make their point.

One of my favorite responses from a school district, when their levy failed, was to not only take away busing, but then add insult to injury by coming out and announcing that if any children are injured by having to walk to school, that the fault would lay with the taxpayers who were “too cheap” to pass a levy. Yup–rather than find waste in their budget (and there was a large administrative staff that could have been cut) they went for the jugular, playing roullette with the lives of children for the sake of money.

Another school district said they would have to eliminate the advanced placement and honors classes. When pressed, they said they wouldn’t fired any teachers. Why not? Because they still had full classroom loads of students. So, this was another effort to lower the education of students, simply to “blackmail” the community into paying higher taxes.

So what would my solution be, for school districts? Let me say, my suggestions are focused not on how to defeat, or repeal, the levies, but rather on how school districts could do better without them. These suggestions at times may require a rethinking of what “public education” means, but that isn’t an insurmountable obstacle.

First, make students buy their own textbooks. College students have to do it, so why not public school students? I hear the screams now “but what about poor families that cannot afford the books?” Simple: we help them. If you are below a certain income level, then you get “free” books. If you aren’t, then you can also economize by purchasing used books, and then selling them back, just like the college model. The books in public schools now are often used for several years in a row. Requiring the purchase of the books would perhaps result in students taking better care of the books, since parents will have a direct financial stake in the care of the books.

Second, continue to require students to pay to play. Participating in sporting events and teams at taxpayers expense shouldn’t be viewed as a “right” of students. They should be required to take physical education classes, and that should be community funded, but anything beyond that should be seen as “above and beyond.”

Third, permits for parking (at local High Schools) should be purchased. This would perhaps reduce congestion (price it high enough so many would choose not to drive) and also help subsidize the busing system.

Fourth, identify any additional “above and beyond” programs, and charge fees that are appropriate for sustaining the program. If it is an event with spectators, then charge an appropriate fee for that program, and have that money go directly to support that program. Any money generated by a program should be used directly, and not subsidized a “lesser interest” program.

One quick aside on this point: If taxpayers subsidize a program, such as the football team, they should be allowed to attend for free. They already paid for it–they should get to see it!

One of these days, I want to see people insist that a referendum that passed be brought back just one more time. after 4 defeats, to finally win and declare final victory seems “odd.” How about “best two out of three.” Think we could convince people to go for that?

Don’t forget, the midterm exam is coming. Leave your homework in a pile on the desk on your way out, and make sure your name is on your work.

Wow!! Here I was preparing to write a blog about how both sides can present “true” facts (yes, I realize the humor in that…) and still hold opposing views.

It turns out that the Democrats chose to distort the facts anyway. Why would they do that? Because the facts from the CBO report show that everyone–yes everyone benefited from the tax cuts. In fact, refer to my previous discussion about why the tax cuts were a good idea to help recover from the slowing economy that Clinton passed on to Bush.

So, let’s start with the distortions. According to the Democrats, as reported in the Yahoo/Reuters news story, The CBO report shows that “the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent.” While this is most likely “accurate reporting” (that is, the Democrats did say this) it’s not actually to be found in the data of the CBO report. In fact, if you look at Table 3 of the report (use the link above, and read this for yourself) you will find that the share of “Total Tax Liabilities” for the top 1% of the population hits 21.2% by 2010, when the tax laws sunset (that is, revert back to the higher tax rates of 2000.)

So first, the Democrats actually understate the tax burden by 1 full percentage point. Not “even” a rounding error mistake. But what’s worse, they are arguing that it is “not fair” in some measure that 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Read that again, slowly. 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Let that sink in. That’s apparently too low, according to the Democrats.

Wow.

As if that isn’t enough, Table 4 actually is more “telling” since it presents the differences in tax Rates and liabilities. Yes, the tax rates for the top 1% dropped by a greater percentage. Could that be due to the fact that we are taxing them at a much higher rate to begin with? Remember, the more money you earn after you hit the highest tax rate, the greater percentage of your income you pay at that rate. If today, you happen to earn one dollar over the line, pushing you into the highest tax bracket, you will pay that rate–but only on one dollar. On the other hand, if you earn 1 million dollars over the line, you pay that higher rate for that total amount. So the total effective tax rate for a person one dollar over the line is far lower (given that the vast weight of the rate is the lower tax rates) than the rate for the person one million over who, for all practical purposes, earned all their income at the higher rate.

Now, that being said, you would think that the total change in share of the tax burden, or as the CBO report puts it, the total share of the “Individual Income Tax LIabilities” would decrease by a greater rate. But we see that is not the case. According to their report, those people in the top 20% of earners (highest quintile) actually show an increase in the share of the liability for most years, and there are only three years (2006-2008) when the tax share decreases at all for those in the top 1%. On the other hand, those in the bottom 60% of earners show a decrease in the total share of income tax burden every year. EVERY year.

Please, Democrats, let’s be intellectually honest here. Present the facts. The facts being simply this–The tax cuts put more money back in everyones’ hands, and at the same time did maintain the progressive tax structure that you believe is so important.

The other fact is even more insidious. Most people won’t go read the report, and the CBO won’t engage in political debates, so they won’t correct you.

But I will. And hopefully so will others.

Your homework today? Find truth. Seek truth. Live Truth.

Have you ever wondered if the political bickering could ever stop long enough to just “be reasonable?”

I have been hearing for weeks now criticism of the Department of Homeland Security’s consideration of plans for postponing the elections for a few days in the event of a terrorist attack. The charges are usually made that this is another effort by the Bush Administration to steal an election, and that it is an effort to subvert the democratic process. Scary and heady stuff, if true. (And yes, I heard the most scathing criticisms come from the Air America gang–Al Franken, Janeane Garafalo, and that “Morning Sedition” bunch, but there was also a hue and cry from members of Congress–people we expect to be reasonable, to reason, to be “deliberative.”)

A couple interesting tid-bits from history. Let’s start with recent history. It wasn’t that long ago, actually about 4 or 5 years ago, there was concern that we would end up with a national crisis that would require the suspension of the constitutional process, so that another President could remain in office. I, for one, always get nervous when discussions about setting aside the Constitution occur, and I had my issues with that particular President, but I did not in any way expect him, or any other President, to do such a thing.

Now, something a bit “longer” out.  If you all will recall, we are Constitutionally required to have the election on the first Tuesday of November.  The “electoral college” then?  The electoral college members meet in each State on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December” (see: Electoral College Information). Why is there such a long delay? The inauguration is then set for later in the following January. Simply because when we first started as a nation, the vast physical distances were also vast distances in time. People did not get the “exit polling results” from around the nation tipping the electorate off to the outcome of the election before polls had even closed in the western part of the nation. Each person (then, white male) would vote their conscience, without any insight into the voting practices of the other members of the voting population, and would not find out the final outcome for months. There was no angst, no nashing of teeth, no complaint that they failed to have instant gratification.

This brings us back to today. What was the proposal that generated so much anger, and venom, towards President Bush and the Department of Homeland Security? The proposal was to, if necessary, delay the election for a few days to ensure a fair election following a terrorist attack. The election would still be held with more than enough time for the electoral college to meet, and most certainly wouldn’t interfere with the Inauguration held a short 2 1/2 months following the election.

Is the plan so unreasonable? Let’s think about this for just a minute. Who is most likely to benefit from an election held under the cloud of a recent terror strike? I would posit the Republican candidates would regardless of incumbency. Why would I say this? Assuming conventional wisdom from the 2000 election is still true (and there is some question about this, for Florida this fall) then the vast majority of absentee ballots are cast by conservative military members, and cast for conservative candidates–most likely the Republican candidate. If a terror strike was within a day or two of the elections, people would perhaps be afraid to go to the polls–who wants to go gather in large groups? Large groups are terror targets! This would then have the effect of reducing voter turn out, and place far greater emphasis on the absentee ballots.

Let’s be reasonable. Let’s all work together, as Patriots, seeking the good of the nation, to ensure that all citizens are given the opportunity to vote. Let the citizens choose to vote without fear. Let the citizens have a few extra days to go to the polls if necessary. If you vote Absentee, we give you quite a long time to make your decision–it just has to be received before election day.

Think of it as “absentee voting” on the flip side, and for those that choose to actually appear at the polls.

Oh, and your homework assignment? Read up on the electoral college, and the history of our Federal election process. Did you know that the Senate used to not be elected by popular vote? Check it out!

My Brother points out the problem that Churches are facing with the new “Hate Speech” laws that are hitting the books. I of course, found it quite interesting that the Canadian law allows for “religious Hatespeech.” Go figure–they liberal elements of society are willing to protect the Church, but not willing to accept that perhaps they are pushing the definition of “hate” a bit too far.

I have for many years been opposed to “enhanced” punishment for hate crimes. Why? Am I an insensitive, unfeeling person? No–actually quite the reverse. I think if an action against another person is bad enough to be labeled a crime, then the punishment should be equally severe, regardless of race, or gender, or any other bias. Who cares why you beat someone up? Who cares why you killed someone? You did it, and you should receive the severest of punishments.

Perhaps this is my personal bias, having been on the receiving end of a bully’s pummelling more than once. It sure would aggravate me that “100 pound weakling” is not a protected class, unless I happened to also be a homosexual.

That being said, one would think I would want equal treatment of people who spew hate through words. Actually, I do–I want them to be treated just as anyone else, who spews any type of speech, hate speech, or loving speech. I don’t buy into the liberal view that sticks, stones, AND words hurt me.

This nation was built on, among other things, the notion that the free exchange of ideas is to the benefit of all. The First Amendment protects all political speech, which unfortunately for some at times is painful. In the article my brother cites, is the following:

“Soren Andersson, president of a Swedish federation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, said religious freedom is never a reason to offend people.”

Are we to make it illegal to use words that, as we see above “offend people?” Who is to determine where this line is drawn? Certainly today’s political discourse in the US should qualify as offending many. The “Left” has regularly announced the affront they feel whenever Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity speak. I for one have chosen listening to Janeane Garafolo as my personal Cardio-vascular exercise regimen. President Bush has been virulently attacked by Move-On dot org for many months now. These are “offensive” words to some, and in fact I would say many–but it is this discourse that makes America great!

Should we now cave in to those who wish to make it illegal to speak your mind? To share ideas, no matter how offensive?

How soon is it, until defending the offensive is in itself “indefensible?”

Place your homework on the desk, face down.

I have given much thought to the economic news. Today the latest job figures were released, and while unemployment had gone down significantly, there is still some consternation over the fact that “only” about 30,000 jobs were created. I personally find that to be good news, and continues to put the lie to the argument that this is a presidency reminiscent of Herbert Hoover.

First, let’s set a few historical facts right. While the “Great Depression” officially started under Hoover, the economic stage was in large measure set by the actions taken by Coolidge, and by the actions of the international community around the US prior to the Hoover administration. So, to paint the Hoover administration as the “bad guy” here, would do a disservice to Hoover. In fact, this is a point I have often pondered during this campaign–why are the Democrats so quick to compare Bush to Hoover, and not Coolidge? It certainly couldn’t be that they don’t remember their civics classes, could it? I am left with few choices–either they failed to learn their history lessons in school, and are speaking from ignorance, or else they are perhaps choosing to distort history for some other purpose. Distort history? Naw…

Moving on, today Kerry also talked more about his proposed tax cuts for the middle class, and tax cut repeal (tax hike) for those earning over 200K. This is yet another salvo leashed against Bush’s tax cuts as being irresponsible during a time of economic downturn. Let me set a few things straight here.

First, it has been an accepted Macro Economic principle that, in time of recession/downturn, the government should increase spending, and perhaps go into a deficit, to moderate the negative effects of the downturn. More pointedly, if the government pumps money into the economy through government expenditures, it helps buoy the economy, and softens the blow. Typically this has been down through increased government programs, either through the various alphabet soup programs of FDR, or various subsidy/welfare expenditures of the Great Society and beyond. The problem with this approach is that it generates a ravenous consumer of resources that usually does not go away after the economy recovers. Rarely do we see government programs end (although I will give the New Deal credit–most of those programs are now gone!) These programs have spent money on government priorities, which are not usually the same prorities that the consumers would choose, resulting in a misallocation of resources. In addition, these new government demands would compete for resources in the then heating up economy and, given the tension of supply and demand, causes an increase in inflation spurred by the limited supply and competing demands.

So what did Bush do? Bush put the money directly back into the hands of the taxpayers, while not reducing government spending (and because of the war, having to increase spending moderately.) This has resulted in deficit spending, and significant deficit spending. This though is a fiscal policy espoused by the Democrats for nearly 70 years. The difference is, the money isn’t filtered through government programs! So why is this important, and in my mind, a stroke of genius? First, there are no new programs that will continue to compete for resources after the economy begins it’s recovery, which of course means that the pressures that result in inflation will be held at bay (notice, we are not too worried about inflation yet, and most concerns are minimal in the near to mid term.) Additionally, by putting the money directly into the hands of the people, the consumers use the money on those items that they most need, and are most likely to continue to purchase once the recovery takes hold. This essentially “primes the pump” ensuring that the economy is prepared for the coming boon, and is not malpositioned by meeting the needs of the government, rather than the needs of the people.

Okay, this is enough for now. The bottom line is this: the economy is recovering, and is entering a sustained recovery, because the money has been placed in the hands of the people who best know how to spend it–the Taxpayers. Give it up for George–he performed a stroke of genius, and made it seem so easy!

Class dismissed.