Blue Dog Thoughts

It's Complicated

2011-05-07T14:35:00.001-07:00

Melissa met Irene in June 2006. They began living together in a story relationship marked by physical and verbal abuse by both women. Melissa had problems with mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse.

The two women became domestic partners in February 2008. They separated in May 2008. Melissa got together with Jesus and became pregnant in June 2008. Jesus was supportive of Melissa’s pregnancy. He invited her to live with him. He provided financial support to Melissa and ensured that she received prenatal medical care.

In July Melissa petitioned to dissolve her domestic partnership with Irena. She outlined the abuse and physical violence Irene had allegedly committed against her between April 2007 and May 2008. The family law court issued a TRO.

Then Melissa and Irene got back together. Melissa told Jesus “she did not feel comfortable with him and preferred to live with Irene and that Irene had agreed to care for her and the baby.”

She moved out of Jesus’ home and began living in a car with Irene. Late the two women moved into an apartment. Melissa didn’t tell Jesus where she would be living. She gave him no contact information. She didn’t have a telephone. In October 2008, Melissa and Irene got married during the period when same-sex marriage was legal in California.

The baby was born. A few weeks later, Melissa left Irene, taking the baby. Irene petitioned joint legal and physical custody of the baby. Melissa opposed the petition and got another restraining order.

She also got in touch with Jesus again. He had moved to Oklahoma and gotten a full time job as an assistant produce manager. He was engaged and had another child on the way. Melissa said she needed help with the baby. Jesus began to send money to Melissa. He kept in touch with Melissa through the Internet and encouraged her to visit his family with the baby, which she did.

At this point, Melissa got a new boyfriend. She drove “Jose” the new boyfriend to Irene where Jose attacked Irene with a knife stabbing her in the neck and back and severely injuring her. Melissa was arrested for accessory to attempted murder. The baby got taken into protective custody. At the time of the attack, Melissa was on marijuana and meth. Melissa admitted she and Jose smoked methamphetamines in the car with the baby and routinely used drugs in front of the child.

During the subsequently family law case, the father drove out from Oklahoma to attend every hearing even though he wasn’t getting vacation.

Under these facts, assuming Irene, Melissa, and Jesus each want the child, who gets custody?

It’s complicated. The trial court said the child would remain in California. The Court of Appeal couldn’t decide. One judge thought the decision was relatively easy. The child should be raised by the biological father given his efforts to provide support, his acknowledgment of his paternity, his employment, lack of history of physical violence or drug and alcohol abuse. The other two thought the decision was too complicated to make a decision as between Irene and Jesus (Melissa is in jail) so sent the case back down the lower court to take another crack at it.

By the time they got to the point of making this decision, the child was around three. The baby will be around five when it’s eventually resolved. At that point, if either Irene or Jesus get the child, she'll have to leave from wherever she’s bonded. What a mess. If you're curious, I side with the judge who thought the father should be granted custody after an evaluation of his home.

The appellate decision can be found here.

A Question of Priorities

2011-03-27T06:44:00.000-07:00

A Question of Priorities

This is the kind of justice you see in countries like Russia. “The Department of Justice has made prosecuting financial crimes, including mortgage fraud, a high priority,” said Neil H. MacBride, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, in a statement. What Mr. MacBride does not say is that by "financial crimes," they mean financial crimes by people who don't have the inside track in terms of who they know in government. Thus, while Mr. Mozilo’s company, Countrywide, made billions in profit, some of it on liar loans that he acknowledged at the time were likely to be fraudulent and which did untold damage to the economy, he was required only to pay a small fraction of what he made marketing those loans in fines, without . And he personally was paid hundreds of millions of dollars. Though he agreed last year to a $67.5 million fine to settle fraud charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, it was a small fraction of what he earned. Otherwise, he walked. Thus does the Justice Department display its priorities in the aftermath of the crisis.

•

It’s not just that Mr. Engle is the smallest of small fry that is bothersome about his prosecution. It is also the way the government went about building its case. Although Mr. Engle took out the two stated-income loans, as liar loans are more formally called, in late 2005 and early 2006, it wasn’t until three years later that his troubles began.

As a young man, Mr. Engle had been a serious drug addict, but after he got clean, he became an ultra-marathoner, one of the best in the world. In the fall of 2006, he and two other ultra-marathoners took on an almost unimaginable challenge: they ran across the Sahara Desert, something that had never been done before. The run took 111 days, and was documented in a film financed by Matt Damon, who served as executive producer and narrator. Mr. Engle received $30,000 for his participation.

The film, “Running the Sahara,” was released in the fall of 2008. Eventually, it caught the attention of Robert W. Nordlander, a special agent for the Internal Revenue Service. As Mr. Nordlander later told the grand jury, “Being the special agent that I am, I was wondering, how does a guy train for this because most people have to work from nine to five and it’s very difficult to train for this part-time.” (He also told the grand jurors that sometimes, when he sees somebody driving a Ferrari, he’ll check to see if they make enough money to afford it. When I called Mr. Nordlander and others at the I.R.S. to ask whether this was an appropriate way to choose subjects for criminal tax investigations, my questions were met with a stone wall of silence.)

If You Surfed Porn for Eight Hours a Day at Your Job, Think Anyone Would Notice? If Not, Do We Really Need Anyone in Your Position?

2010-04-25T15:05:00.000-07:00

One of the latest stories hitting the 'net involves high level SEC employees who spent hours surfing pornographic websites on government-issued computers. At least one senior level exec paid in the $200,000 range apparently spent up to eight hours a day looking at and downloading pornography. When he ran out of hard drive space, he would burn the files to CDs or DVDs that he kept in boxes around his office. This is just one example, there are dozens and I'm sure anyone who spends more time surfing Google News than they should is familiar with the story.

Now, I get this is an abuse of government resources. It's ethically twisted. But it also makes me ask a question. Could you spend eight hours a day for any period of time looking at porn on your computer without someone noticing a drop in your production (whatever it is you do at your job)? Could you do this without someone going, "My word Jim, what happened to your sales stats? Your widget production? Your report stats?"

You couldn't. Because in your job--almost assuredly--you produce something, make something, compile something, take care of clients ... you're there for a purpose of some sort. If these people at the SEC could spend this much time trolling porn sites without anyone noticing or caring, we really need to be asking our government the question, "Do we need to be devoting taxpayer dollars to these people at all?" The implication seems to be that if they weren't looking at porn (fiddling while Nero burned), then they might have been catching the Goldman Sachs and Bernie Madoffs earlier.

But maybe, what they actually do day in and day out is so damn unimportant that no one notices that they're surfing porn sites, because they're production isn't that much different from when they just sit around on their asses day in and day out. Maybe, the answer is we're taking such an enormous bite out of the economy in taxes and pouring so much money into various bureaucracies and divisions and departments that they don't have the time or inclination to actually supervise what the various people they're hiring do.

In which case, the real shock isn't that this clown our government hired is surfing T&A during his work hours, the shock is that we've put anyone in that position at all. Oh yeah, one other thing, if you take government money to surf porn on government computers eight hours a day, isn't that fraud? And shouldn't that be a crime? So how come we don't know this horn dog's name? How come he gets to slink off quietly away instead of being arrested? How come no one is trying to recover some of what was stolen from the American people by these clowns? I suspect the answer might be, a lot of people in government service aren't doing much of anything anyway, so there was no big loss when he spent his time downloading porn. It's just he chose an unacceptable way to spin his wheels while waiting for his government funded day to end.

Matt Welch of Reason Magazine made my point much more articulately when he said,

If it's hard to imagine how highly paid regulators could be spending their time on Skankwire.com during what was arguably history's biggest wave of securities-related fraud, it's harder still for those of us in the productive economy to fathom how a worker could spend "up to eight hours a day looking at and downloading pornography" without anyone really noticing.

I don't know about you, but porno-surfing enough to get "blocked more than 16,000 times in a month from visiting websites classified as 'Sex' or 'Pornography'" would place a measurable hit on my production targets, and probably lead to something a bit more severe than a 14-day suspension.

It's the new world economy: join the elite, get a job in government, surf porn.

Kudos to Al Franken

2009-10-19T10:58:00.000-07:00

I am biased against Al Franken, but I totally support his amendment to stop U.S. contractors from hiring contractors that make their employees agree in advance not to sue if they're raped by co-workers. Jon Stewart tells it best.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Rape-Nuts

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Ron Paul Interview

The Huffington Post explains it reasonably well also.

The Annoying Smart Guy

2009-10-12T23:26:00.000-07:00

Frankly,

I haven't had much brilliant to say lately. So I've posted a few things that other people have said, things that made me smile and nod. One of these guys is named Jay Smooth, a founder of New York's longest running hip hop radio show. You can find his site here at ill doctrine. This guy, Jay Smooth, is brilliant.

Anyway, this latest video I'm posting is a year old, so it's old news and it's about an economic crisis that peaked a while back. I just liked his common sense take on it,

Glen Beck Interviews Pen Jillette

2009-10-11T21:59:00.000-07:00

TurboTax (Intuit) Gets ReadyReturn on its Investment in the California GOP

2009-10-11T13:24:00.000-07:00

The idea of the California State Franchise Tax Board helping tax payers in on at least one level laughable. But its come up with a popular program that's surprisingly efficient, helps tax payers, and increases tax compliance. On its face, this program known as ReadyReturn, is a win-win for everyone.

Under this program, the California State Franchise Tax Board prepares your California tax return for you based on information it has from previous filings. It's not for everyone, but it does work for many. You check out this prepared return, if it looks right, sign in and either pay or collect. You're done.

In short, ReadyReturn doesn't raise taxes. It merely simplifies the tax return process. So why is the California GOP so vigorously protesting this program? It turns out that has a vested interest in the tax preparation process remaining complicated.

As Tony Strickland so righteously said in support of his and the Republican party's push to dismantle the ReadyReturn program, "I've always thought it was wrong to use taxpayer dollars to compete with private enterprise." I imagine, it's especially wrong when the program in question (which has simplified the filing of tax returns and resulted in increased tax compliance, an important consideration for California at this time in its economic history) means people are less dependent on purchasing TurboTax's tax preparation program.

Oh and if you're curious as to why the fact that this program impacts on TurboTax makes it especially relevant to Tony Strickland, then you might want to play a quick game of connect the dots. It seems that in 2006, TurboTax spent $1 million trying to elect Tony Strickland as state controller. He lost that race but is now a California Republican Senator. In all, TurboTax has judiciously spent hundreds of thousands on California races and lobbying in Sacramento.

Got to love the Grand Old Party, standing up for your right to endure complicated tax returns; the Republican Party, always fighting for the little guy. Alternatively, a Los Angeles Times editorial called it a GOP shill game.

For another and better written take on this issue, consider reading TurboTax Tries to Kill California's ReadyReturn or Intuit Aims to Kill Californians.

SNL Obama Skit

2009-10-10T21:07:00.001-07:00

Roman Polanski

2009-10-03T08:04:00.000-07:00

I'm one hundred percent on board with bringing Roman Polanski to justice. Some decent material has been written on this case and a lot of utter garbage. One of the more factual pieces came from an experienced prosecutor and familiar face, Marcia Clark.

She explains why the idea that Roman Polanski was done in by an unscrupulous judge is a myth. It's a helpful piece, not merely because it's well-written, but because it's factually specific and cites the actual transcripts where appropriate. If you have any doubt that Roman Polanski knew the young woman he raped was thirteen, the court transcripts of his plea agreement should put those to rest. You have to give Kudos to the smoking gun for providing us material like this.

According to news articles published a the time, the terrible railroading he faced was serving another 48 days in Chino for a total of 90 days and then being deported, e.g., the Spokane Daily Chronicle, February 10, 1978. Interestingly, despite all of Polanski's claims about how this judge had it in for him, we know that the judge agreed to be recused from the case and allow another judge (jointly chosen by the parties to handle the actual sentencing. See Eugene Register-Guard, February 22, 1978. In other words, if he felt that Judge Rittendband was biased, he had the opportunity to have a different judge sentence him.

He will likely spend more time jailed in Switzerland for the extradition process than he would ever have served as a result of his plea bargain agreement, which stemmed from his drugging and raping a thirteen year old. Personally, as long as he is sitting in a swiss jail, I hope he can delay extradition for years before returning to the United States.

And I hope California imposes an appropriate sentence on him when he finally appears before for his long delayed day in court.

On a closing note, I thought this You Tube video said it all so much better than I could,

Health Care

2009-09-21T16:04:00.001-07:00

Bill Maher writes,

You can't complain about health care reform if you're not willing to reform your own health. Unlike most liberals, I'm glad all those teabaggers marched on Washington last week. Because judging from the photos, it's the first exercise they've gotten in years.

In that same Huffington Post piece, he adds,

And since Americans can only be prodded into doing something with money, we need to tax crappy foods that make us sick like we do with cigarettes, and alcohol....

In short, health care reform isn't just about providing insurance to every man, woman, and child in America, it's about reforming the way Americans live. If you don't live a certain way, if you don't make your health a priority, then you should lose the right to complain or vote on the issue. If you're fat and overweight, government should have the right to step in and fix you.

Its akin to the arguments we heard when government mandated helmet wearing when riding a motorcycle. Now let's be honest, you're pretty stupid if you get on a motorcycle and fly down the road at 70 miles an hour without a helmet. But it does raise the question of when does personal responsibility end and the government's right to dictate how we live our lives begin.

As the government said then,

Unhelmeted motorcycle riders are more likely to be uninsured riders and the cost of inpatient care for brain injuries sustained by motorcyclists is more than twice the cost of receiving inpatient care for other motorcycle-related injuries.

In short, if government insures you, it has a right to dictate how you conduct yourself when engaging in an activity that might impact its liability for your actions. So though Bill Maher is a comedian, he points to a real fact of life.

If government pays, then they get to dictate how we behave. If you drink too much beer, if you swallow two liters of soda a day, if you smoke, if you don't walk, if you don't hit the gym several times a week, then you're literally sticking it to the government and your fellow taxpayers. Thus, our government will need to reform us through legislation and social pressures.

Am I wrong?

Troy Davis Gets His Day

2009-08-19T20:45:00.000-07:00

I've spoken about Troy Davis in the past. Is he innocent? I simply don't know. But I've long felt sufficient evidence exists that our justice system deserves a chance to take a second look at his innocence.

Now, the Supreme Court has ordered a federal judge in Georgia to examine that evidence and make a determination as to whether the new testimony and any other evidence 'clearly establishes' his innocence.

He's still in jail. The public is not put at any additional risk by this decision. But a Court will now determine whether this man put on the death row back in 1991 deserves to be there. We may never know what happened on that terrible day in 1989 when Mark Allen MacPhil was shot and killed outside a Burger King.

If this federal judge determines the new evidence, the witnesses who have recanted there testimony, shows that Troy Davis is clearly innocent, nothing would be served by executing him. It is no doubt incredibly stressful for the victim's families to have to endure these questions twenty years after they lost Mr. MacPhill. But it is also true that we have too many instances where the wrong man has sat in jail, even on death row, for too many years due to false convictions.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court made the right call.

Spitzer to Resign

2008-03-12T07:41:00.001-07:00

The latest word I've read is that the governor of New York will resign in a few hours. If so, the best thing to come out of this Greek tragedy may be that David Paterson steps into the governor's chair of New York. He sounds like an amazing man. I'll be interested in seeing what kind of governor he makes.

I really have nothing to say about Spitzer other than he needs to resign. And he brought a lot of pain to his wife and daughters.

Blue Dog

McCain/Powell for 2008

2008-03-03T06:47:00.000-08:00

Colin Powell would not be the conservative pick for Vice President. The conservative pundits will tell you, McCain needs to pick a conservative for his vice presidential candidate to shore up his base. But to me, if Colin Powell would consent to be on the ticket, you have a combination that might beat Barack Obama in 2008.

For another view, McCain-Powell by Matt Cooper.

And Cliff Their's view at the American Thinker.

Clinton v. Obama

2008-02-11T14:27:00.000-08:00

In the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I favor Obama, because I see him as the less cynical choice. I have faith in his integrity. I do think Hillary Clinton is the more moderate candidate (even the conservative candidate.

I found this video illuminating in terms of the choice between Clinton and Obama.

Obama is the right choice is you plan to vote for a Democrat.

It's Good to Be Wrong

2008-02-07T08:05:00.000-08:00

Last September, I felt Giuliani versus Clinton was a lock. At least, no one pays me for my predictions. As I was in the anyone but Giuliani camp, it wasn't an inspiring feelings.

So the thought of McCain versus Obama (a possibility) is like a tonic. It's been years since I got a chance to vote for anyone inspiring. And belonging to that central, middle of the road group, I'll be honest, now that Edwards has dropped, I could live with any of the front runners as president.

Mitt Romney being my least favorite leading candidate, McCain being my favorite.

The ticked I'd love to see would be McCain/Lieberman (yes, go ahead an laugh, it'll never happen).

The Good Life, Politics, and Hillary Clinton

2007-10-15T14:15:00.000-07:00

My wife, a die hard Republican, recently got the opportunity to listen to Hillary Clinton yammering about something or other. I say yammering, but the reality is, she's a decent speaker. She isn't Ronald Reagon or Bill Clinton, but frankly, no speaker of that caliber is running this election. Barack Obama might get there some day. He's got a lot of charisma and he is a solid speaker. But he's not there yet.

Anyway, my wife confessed to me, she was surprised at how rational and articulate Senator Clinton sounded. This is a huge admission for my wife. Mind you, I don't see her ever voting for Hillary, but it shows the kind of inroads our former first lady has made in some people's minds. If it comes down to Giuliani versus Clinton, I won't vote for the man. I can't stand him .

It's not even ideology at this point. I don't see much difference between Giuliani and Clinton and I think those who do are fooling themselves. Fred Thompson hasn't impressed me, but I do like the man. John McCain would get my vote over Hillary Clinton, but all these people are compromise candidates.

The Democrats won't nominate a Kucinich and the Republicans are not going to throw up a true conservative like Newt Gingrich. I know Newt is not running, but I tend to believe that is because the people in power have told him that he would not have their backing.

Anyway, politics is a particularly dismal subject in the news these days. But on the home front, I and my family are blessed and enjoying life. I got wiped out financially a few years back. And while the sting of that lingers, I've pretty much recovered.

I sat at the table and watched my family, son on the one chair, wife and daughter giggling and playing on the couch. And I just had to grin, because I am so blessed in life when it comes to my wife and children. Sorry about not posting, but I've been busy with various work committments. And I'm heading out on a mission trip with my son on Friday.

We'll be working with the homeless and the children of the homeless in Los Angeles. It'll be an eye opener for my son. My children live a very sheltered life.

A lot of other things going on in my life, but overall, life is very good right now. It's a pretty amazing county we live in, where a guy can wipe and recover in six short years. And so as grumbly as I get from time to time about the state of the country, we do enjoy a lot of opportunity and blessings.

I still don't think George W. Bush has done a good job as president. I still think the Iraq war has been badly managed. I still think the revised FISA Act is a nightmare. And yes, the Democratic leadership still reminds me of the Keystone cops.

Yours,

Blue Dog

Conservative or Liberal: A Short Quiz

2007-09-26T07:43:00.001-07:00

If you troll the Internet, you no doubt stumble over a myriad of quizzes that purport to tell where you are politically. Earlier, I referenced one such quiz, Politichoice.com. It remains my favorite for learning how your positions track with the current crop of candidates.

The Political Compass web site has another interesting quiz. It lays out a multi-dimensional grid intended to show where historical figures like Ghandi, Hitler, Mandela, or Stalin fall politically. It also shows how surprisingly close current figures (e.g., George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton) are politically. But first, you must answer their quiz. If enough people reveal their scores, I'll disclose my own numbers.

But today, I unveil my own crude, guaranteed unreliable Democrat/Republican sorter. I lay out two Constitutional Amendments. You tell me which one your preferred party prefers to ignore and I'll let you know whether you are a Democrat or a Republican:

The Second Amendment - Right to Bear Arms (Ratified December 15, 1791): A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure (Ratified December 15, 1791): The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you feel comfy striking the second amendment (ala D.C.-style gun control, then you might be a Democrat. On the other hand, if you can live with the idea of a warrantless search (ala New & Improved FISA), then you might be a Republican.

Pretty Promises and Tricky Titles

2007-09-21T13:01:00.001-07:00

Ideally, we judge politicians not by what they say, but by what they do. Likewise, we judge laws not by cleverly crafted titles, but by the actual clauses and effects (e.g., the Clean Skies Act, the Healthy Forest, The Protect America Act, No Child Left Behind). Finally, this holds true for political parties. We best judge them by past performance, not pretty promises.

Thus, we may ask when we look to the past, "Have we selected politicians whose policies provide a broad prosperity for all Americans?" In the 1970s, the average US CEO earned about 39 times the average employee’s salary—a good living, but not enough for mansions, $100 million dollar salaries, and private NASA runways for their aircraft. In the 1980s, however, we learned of the trickle down theory of economics. And times changed.

Now, the average US CEO earns 1,000 times an average employee’s salary—and the living is quite good. Paul Klugman’s chart illustrates the share of the richest ten percent of the American population in terms of total income:

The Gilded Age is reminiscent of the excesses we read about in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s books. Middle class America harks back to the 1950s. The mid 1980s would be the “Bonfire of the Vanities,” “Greed is Good,” era. And now we enter a Second Gilded Age that takes us beyond "Greed is Good" to an age where $1 billion no longer cuts it when it comes to cracking into the Forbes richest 400.

When elections roll around, we hear arguments concerning which is the more fiscally conservative party:

Admittedly, in this new century, some tell us that deficit spending no longer matters. Like the ancient Romans, we have conquered debt and may spend freely as we will. Thus, the party in power for the last six years has spent and spent and spent again.

But this has exposed America to foreign influences over its economy. Thus, we hear China rumbling about its “nuclear option” of dollar sales (where it hints that it may liquidate its holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions). If China exercised this option (and it can), it would be bad (quite ugly). This does not involve solely China. Saudi Arabia holds $800 billion in securities. Traditionally, China and Saudi Arabia have pegged their currencies to the US dollar. But this is breaking down. Moreover, Saudi Arabia has broken the tether that has kept its interest rates pegged to US rates.

We see the dollar losing value when compared to currencies such as the Euro and Canadian dollar. Overall, foreign countries now hold $14 trillion of US assets or more than 100% of the US gross domestic product. These fiscal policies raise significantly the danger of the US economy falling into recession ... at the least.

Another popular topic is talk of small government versus big government. But what actually happens to federal spending when we select our politicians?

Perhaps, we should stop kidding ourselves about small government. Our focus might be better served by focusing on who will best provide us with honest, effective, and efficient government.

The commercials tell us that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. But when it comes to politics, past actions may be our best indicator of future performance. But we also have other indicators we can examine.

You do not get much harder headed than an old-style Republican CEO. Curiously, we read that "[d]ozens of corporate executives who backed President George W. Bush for re-election in 2004, including some of his top fund-raisers, are now helping Democrats running for president."

According to Sig Rogich (President of Rogich Communications Group, raised $200,000 plus for Bush in 2004), "Conservatives have two hard-core beliefs ... lower taxes and lower spending.'' He then added, under Bush, federal spending is "the highest in the history of the nation."

Likewise, Mack of Morgan Stanley (another former big Republican donor) is backing the Democratic Party this run. "When it comes to supporting a political candidate, I have always looked beyond party labels to the person I felt was best for the job and most able to lead the country forward.' He then added, "I personally believe that person is Hillary Clinton.''

Democrats Ponder How Best to Cave Into President Bush's Latest Demand for Expanded Spy Powers

2007-09-19T16:35:00.000-07:00

President Bush Wants Recent FISA Amendment Expanded

Wednesday, President Bush invoked national security when he urged Congress to expand yet again his spy powers and make permanent the recent FISA amendment. Almost immediately, a dispute erupted among Democrats over how best to address the President's demand. The DLC urged caving strategically into Bush as a gesture of good faith. But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi advocated a firm posturing period ... before caving into the President.

After MoveOn.org published a New York Times ad mocking a randomly chosen Staff Sergeant stationed at Lackland AFB, a consensus developed in support of the Harry Reid Plan. A brilliantly conceived political maneuver, it attached a rider (granting President Bush the demanded FISA expansion) to a hastily cobbled together bill providing the administration with an additional previously requested $50 billion in Iraq funding.

Conservative talk show hosts and the Republican leadership castigated the Democratic Party for actually forcing President Bush to request the exanded spy powers as opposed to anticipaing in advance an obvious national security need. Mainstream media soon circled its wagons behind the Harry Reid Plan. Dan Rather paused in the midst of his $70 million lawsuit against CBS to describe the HRP as an agressive, hard-hitting example of statesmanship.

George Lakoff, non-partisan, yet progressive, linguistic framing guru, crafted a crunchy little opinion piece for the Huffington Post. In it, he called the Democratic plan "a brilliant means of revealing via its framing, an essential, but previously hidden truth: the Bush Administration owns the Democrats these days." Marcos Moulitsas Zuniga of the Daily Kos scratched his head and called the Democrats morons for again givng Bush exactly what he asked for despite having a majority in both the Senate and the House.

"Don't Tase Me, Bro!"

2007-09-18T08:34:00.000-07:00

(Andrew Meyer Asks Questions)

(After the Arrest)

Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Years ago, John Kerry vaulted into the national consciousness as an anti-war protester. So pardon me if I find it chilling to watch Senator Kerry continue to speak while security drags Andrew Meyer, a student, to the back of the room to be forced to the ground, painfully handcuffed, and tasered multiple times.

This occurred after Andrew Meyer, 21, asked Senator Kerry why he did not contest the 2004 presidential election (which Kerry had lost to President Bush). Mr. Meyer also wondered why Congress would not impeach the president. According to Steven Orlando, a university spokesperson, Andrew Meyer went on far too long. We see from the video how the university addressed the problem.

I anticipated another reaction from John Kerry. Hell, invite the young man up on the stage. Share the forum with him. Congratulate him on his passion, discuss his points, if any are valid, Kerry could admit his mistakes and say, "Yes, I screwed up in not challenging the election results." Perhaps, he might have tried for an older mentor montage, a sort of Ted Kennedy strolls beside a young John Kerry visual. I confess to a shameful naiveté.

But if I cast my mind back four years, I may have remembered another anti-war protest. It took place inside Senator John Kerry's office. This one involved three young protesters, members of the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party, who wanted Senator Kerry to back Senator Kennedy's resolution requiring congressional approval before a war on Iraq. They expressed dissatisfaction with John Kerry’s leadership. They felt that he gave impassioned speeches against military force in Iraq in public, but consistently voted to support the war in the Senate.

In any event, when these three activists arrived at Senator Kerry’s office, he did not meet them. And his aides refused to let the three activists use the restroom after they staged a non-violent sit-in. They were told that if they left the Senator's offices, they would be locked out and not allowed to return. As one protester said, “A battle of will quickly became a battle of bladders."

Ultimately, the Senator's aides called the capital police to arrest the protesters. In their view, those actions “showed Senator John Kerry’s true position to back the war against what is politically expedient."

Other Reactions:

Senator Kerry said in response to Andrew Meyer's arrest :

In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way.
I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention.

I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of answering him when he was taken into custody.

I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured.

I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted.

In a Daily Kos post entitled Student Had it Coming to Him, it is pointed out that it violates the law to disrupt a meeting at an educational institution. Likewise, on Daily Kos, a former student who knew Andrew Meyer indicated, "Andrew made the entire liberal population at UF seem like the supporting cast of 'The Scarlet Letter' when he would get on a tangent."

Andrew Meyer appears to have a web site and this web site. We learn that he endorses John Kerry. We get to see some of his earlier writing on the first web site and there are links to some Youtube videos on the second.

According to Kim Wilmath of the Independent Florida Alligator, the police shot Andrew Meyer with a Taser gun, arrested and charged with a felony Monday because he started a riot during Sen. John Kerry's on-campus speech. Charged with a third degree felony, Andrew Meyer, a telecommunication senior and former Alligator columnist, faces up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

According to Michelle Malkin, "Kerry claims he wasn't aware of the tasering until after he left the campus. Hard to believe he didn’t hear all of Andrew Meyer’s caterwauling as he sat on stage."

The American Pundit states in A Little More to the Kerry Story, "I don’t like Kerry, but he acted respectfully towards the student. The student didn’t share the same courtesy. Kerry was answering another student’s question, and then assured Meyer that he would get to his question and answer it as well. At that point Meyer should’ve sat down and shut up, but instead decided he was entitled to have his answered now."

From Bill Quick of the Daily Pundit, "Moonbat or not, the guy was exercising certain constitutionally guaranteed rights, and unless you consider stupid political questions asked in a forum where questions were requested and Meyer was recognized to speak as being the sort of disturbance meriting the application of repeated painful electric shocks to a guy already handcuffed and held on the floor by a trio of beefy cops, then you ought to think Michelle is on the wrong side of this issue."

Allahpundit of Hot Air wonders whether this was a publicity stunt. And CNN reports that two University of Flordia Police officers are on paid leave after the incident. Moroever, the student's behavior is under scrutiny.

If I hear the drums of war beating Iran’s name, am I paranoid or just realistic?

2007-09-16T23:41:00.000-07:00

According to French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, we should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear programme. Moreover, we read reports that senior CIA and US defense officials believe that the White House is preparing for a military confrontation with Iran due to its nuclear weapons program.

In Australia, we hear of recent strategic developments in the Middle East that can be read as preparation for a two-front war with the United States striking Iran and Israel striking Syria. This may relate to rumors that earlier this month, Israel struck a Syrian Nuclear Facility built with North Korean help.

On August 28, President Bush accused Iran of threatening the Middle East with a nuclear holocaust and said he authorized US military commanders in Iraq to "confront Tehran's murderous activities." He accused the Ahmadinejad government of supporting violent Iraqi forces. This ties closely with what certain retired military officers have said regarding Iran. Specifically, they want President Bush to forcibly deal with Iran's interference in Iraq, which they think is the underlying cause of Iraq's difficulty in establishing a functional democracy.

In the Sunday Telegraph, we read that Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail. Moreover, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who had pushed for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

I've seen Middle Eastern estimates giving the low end of a chance of a US war with Iran as 30%. The idea of expanding the war with Iran seems problematic to me. What are other people's thoughts on this issue? Do you see a low probability of war with Iran. Or a much higher probablilty?

Greenspan on Bush

2007-09-15T00:02:00.000-07:00

Greg Ip and Emily Steel of the Wall Street Journal discuss Greenspan's memoirs:

Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose.

Greenspan states in his memoir that his "biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending." He writes, "Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency."

According to the Washington Post, Greenspan also condemns the Democrats for excessive federal spending with one exception: Bill Clinton. The Washington Post tells us that Bill Clinton emerges as the political hero of The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Greenspan's memoir.

A Compilation of Candidates and Other Positions on Healthcare

2007-09-14T23:17:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore addresses healthcare in Sicko. John Stossel presents a different view in his 20/20 special, Whose Body is It Anyway. Both have been called one-side and elitist by those on the other side. I think it is always helpful to watch the other side's presentation before making up your mind. If you watch both, study the issue of healthcare on your own, and examine the positions of the candidates, you should have a fair idea of what you want in a presidential candidate on this particular issue.

(Sicko Trailer)

(John Stossel v. Michael Moore on Cuban Healthcare)

(Whose Body is it Anyway, Part 1)

(Whose Body is it Anyway, Part 2)

(Whose Body is it Anyway, Part 3)

(Whose Body is it Anyway, Part 5)

(Michael Gravel on His Proposed National Healthcare Voucher System)

(Ron Paul on Healthcare)

(John Edwards on Healthcare)

(Mike Huckabee on Healthcare)

(Rudy Giuliani on Healthcare)

(Bill Richardson on Healthcare)

(Joseph Biden on Healthcare)

(Mitt Romney on Healthcare)

(Dennis Kucinich on Healthcare)

(Arnold Schwarzenegger on Healthcare)

(Ronald Reagan on Socialized Medicine)

(Tommy Thompson on Healthcare)

(Barack Obama on Healthcare)

(Fred Thompson responds to Michael Moore)

(Hillary Clinton on Healthcare)

(John McCain on Healthcare)

In Honor of Omar Mora and Yance T. Gray: Two of America's Finest

2007-09-12T12:36:00.000-07:00

On August 19, 2007, in a post styled, Boots on the Ground: AKA The War As Seven Enlisted Men from the 82nd Airborne Division Saw It, I directed you to a powerful editorial (The War As We Saw It) written by seven enlisted men of the 82nd Airborne. A month later, I pause as I write these words, because tears fill my eyes.

As you may already know, on Monday, sergeants Omar Mora and Yance T. Gray (two of the seven authors of the New York Times editorial) died in Iraq. In total, we lost six soldiers (and two Iraqi detainees) when a M-915 five-ton cargo truck rolled over. The accident took place in western Baghdad. I do not yet know the cause or details of the accident.

I wish I knew the names of the four other soldiers who died in that vehicle accident. But as I could not yet ascertain them, let me simply say, America lost six brave men in that accident. Our nation is the weaker for it today.

Mora, 28, leaves behind a five-year old daughter, his wife, mother, brother, sister, and stepfather. A native of Ecuador, he is from Texas City, Texas. A few weeks ago, he became a United States citizen.

Gray, 26, is a native of Ismay, Montana. He is survived by an infant daughter, a wife, and his parents.

I won't parrot the words that appear in the many eulogies to these two men. Not because the words are not worth saying, but because others have said it far better than I can. I do suggest that you take a moment to learn a bit about these men. It won't take long; the Internet screams their names today, rightfully so.

On a related note, just before the New York Times piece was published, a third of the seven men who wrote this piece was shot in the head in Iraq. Thankfully, he survives. His name is Sgt. Jeremy A. Murphy.

War is a brutal, ugly business. Good or bad, well-managed or poorly managed, the history of each and every war stands as a monument to the failure of man to live in peace. Paradoxically, the men that fight our wars can and often do stand as shining examples of the very best of mankind.

I submit that Omar Mora and Yance Gray were two such men.

The New Flag Burning or Just Ugly Vandalism? War Memorials Defaced

2007-09-10T21:58:00.000-07:00

Vandals hit the Sacramento Vietnam Veterans War Memorial at the beginning of this month:

CBS13) SACRAMENTO Vandals have hit the Veterans War Memorial at Sacramento's Capitol Park. Veterans say it is a recurring problem and now they're fighting back.

He spent 3 years serving in Vietnam, and now Ken Nelson spends his days taking care of those who didn't make it back.

"This is the second best memorial in the country," Nelson says.

Nearly every day, Nelson protects the more than 5,200 names at the Vietnam War Memorial. But often, while polishing the bronze statues, he finds himself picking up what vandals left behind.

"People sleeping, use it for a toilet, total disrespect, it kind of hurt me," he says.

Nelson says it's been going on for some time. People litter, deface the statues, climb the flag pole, and just yesterday, sprayed graffiti.

"They don't have appreciation for the sacrifice people made, you know these people died," says Stephen Holm, a visitor to the memorial.

Surveillance cameras look over the memorial, but Nelson says it's not enough. He's asked investigators to step in and keep a closer eye on visitors. The California Highway Patrol says it's listening.

"We have bicycle patrol...officers on horseback," says Officer Bill Brandon.

Changes that may just keep vandals away, and let a veteran focus on what he came out here to do.

"These guys gave their lives for change and no one respects it and I'm here to see it doesn't happen," says Nelson.

Vandals attacked the Iraq War Memorial near Mt. Pleasanton several times in June. According to the news,

The memorial was erected in 2005 for the Late LCPL Justin Ellsworth and all the men and women who have served and are serving in Iraq.

We read that vandals "torched the flag, bent the flag pole over, tore up the flowers left by the families for their loved ones, and caused "other destruction."

Last December, vandals hit the Iraq War Memorial in Layfatette, California:

Nighttime vandals late Tuesday or early Wednesday defaced the sign accompanying crosses planted on a Lafayette hillside as a memorial to American soldiers slain in Iraq.

Police said it appeared the culprits used black tar to paint over the sign's message, which had read, "In Memory of 2,867 Troops Killed in Iraq.

In Beeville, Texas, vandals destroyed a memorial dedicated to veterans of four wars (World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam):

There was a somber sight in the city of Beeville Tuesday night, as a war memorial honoring veterans killed in four wars was completely destroyed.

That memorial once stood as five granite panels, with the names of 45 veterans who lost their lives, paying the ultimate sacrifice. But Tuesday, the memorial lies in pieces at the city's maintenance yard.

In Fitchburg, Massuchusetts, vandals knocked a limestone memorial to Civil War dead from its pedestal along with 90 other tombstones in a spree of vandalism.

In Boulder, Colorado, vandals stole flags, ripped signs and scrawled expletives in the sidewalk to a memorial dedicated to both civilians and soldiers who have died in Iraq.

"It's disappointing," Stewart said. "It's hugely disappointing, I mean why? This a memorial, how could you desecrate a memorial for U.S. soldiers and dead Iraqis?" Another Colorado University student, Tegan Davis, said, "There are lines you don't cross as a decent human being." This is a video news report of the incident:

Vandals also defaced Andover's Vietnam Veterans War Memorial:

ANDOVER — The lyrics of a 1970s protest song and a reference to Iraq were scrawled on the town's Vietnam Veterans Memorial this week.

"War, what is it good for, absolutely nothin," was written in red marker along with a peace sign.

Near the base of the memorial where the phrase "our cause is just" is etched, a vandal wrote "just like in Iraq."

The lyrics are from "War," a song that Motown soul singer Edwin Starr popularized in 1970.

Michael Burke, director of veteran services, covered the graffiti with blue painter's tape and paper yesterday, while he decided how to best remove it.

There was no structural damage to the stone monument which was dedicated May 29, 2006, in The Park near the corner of Chestnut and Whittier streets, close to Town Offices.

The Park is a popular teenage hangout on summer nights.

Police Lt. Harry Collins said the vandalism was under

investigation.

Burke said he would call in Methuen Monument to assess the damage.

"We could probably scrub it off, but we don't want to damage the monument," he said.

The above article also points out that in Haverhill earlier this summer, vandals ruined parts of a Korean War Memorial and spray painted a World War II monument.

This past weekend, vandals hit the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial in Washington, D.C.:

Friday night, someone squirted an oil/petroleum-based substance on the Vietnam Wall. As a result, the wall absorbed the substance and obliterated some of the heroes' names inscribed at the wall.

The vandal or vandals,

[W]alked along the wall while squirting an oil based substance from a container on the lower sections of the panels. The liquid discolored the polished surface of the stone memorial and was absorbed into the porous stone where the names of our fallen heroes are etched into the wall.

Many names have become unreadable due to the absorbtion of the fluid.

According to some witnesses, the oil appeared to have acidic component. It damaged the entire base. The worst hit area is the center:

Mrs. Trooprally called [the poster] this evening to tell me that she and her husband, as well as Concretebob, saw damage along almost the entire length of the Vietnam Memorial Wall. They found this damage this morning, when they walked through the area before participating in the September 11th Freedom Walk.

You will find pictures if you follow the links. The one below is representative:

As one man remarked,

The most tragic part of the vandalism is that the damage appears to be permanent. The Park Service employee who talked to me said that the initial diagnosis was that the oily substance had stained the stone. He said another analysis would take place tomorrow.

This is not the first time vandals have hit the D.C. war memorial. I believe that was in 1988 when,

Early this month the National Park Service said it had discovered 8-inch scratches, including one resembling a swastika, on two of the memorial's 140 polished granite panels. Scratches were also found later on a third panel on the 493-foot wall, which contains the names of those killed in the Southeast Asian war.

Mr. Scruggs said neither the fund nor the Park Service had solicited contributions. Instead, the money, which he called ''gratifying,'' was raised by groups and individuals who decided on their own to make donations after accounts of the vandalism.

Sadly, it will not be the last. I could say more. But I hold my tongue and merely express my desire that someone investigate these crimes and jail those responsible. I do not list all the memorials defaced in the last year. I merely illustrates the nature and scope of the problem with this short list. To me, these criminals resemble those culture destroying Taliban who pulled down the Buddahs in Afghanistan.

If you are blessed with a nearby war memorial, think about seeing to its security. Vandals prefer easy, unsecured, in-and-out nighttime vandalism.

Hat tip to Hillbilly White Trash, from whom I learned about the Washington, D.C. vandalism.