DIABLOG Weblog

Reflections on an Interview

Wed, 09 Aug 2006 17:21:26 GMT

I recently did an interview over at Blogcritics with Carl Sheeler, who's running in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat currently held by Lincoln Chafee. It was an interesting interview for a variety of reasons, not least because he's one of the 'Fighting Dem' veterans who's trying to shake up the Democratic party and set them on a somewhat more radical course. I'm not going to reproduce the whole interview here, but Sheeler raised some points in response to my questions which I think need to be addressed, and which I couldn't really address within the structure of an interview conducted through email. I want to be fair to Sheeler, who I think is doing a very courageous thing by challenging the Demcratic establishment, but some of his answers so perfectly typify the misguided nature of the far-left elements of his party that they need to be examined. Sheeler's an underdog, but his campaign is significant, because he's just one of a group of similar candidates, some of whom have proven to be much more successful than he is likely to be, the most notable example being Ned Lamont, who just won an upset victory over Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. What makes this particular campaign in Rhode Island significant is that Sheeler is contesting for a chance to run against liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee, one of the few remaining traditional Republicans who's still in office, with a basically libertarian philosophy and very progressive positions on social issues - he's pro-choice and anti-war, among other things. Chafee is so hated by the far-right newcomers in the party that they've actually urged Rhode Islanders to vote for a democrat in the general election if it will get Chafee out of office. Ironically, Chafee is probably more liberal than Sheeler's opponent in the Demcoratic primary, party insider Sheldon Whitehouse. To put my cards on the table, I think that Chafee is one of the bright lights of the GOP. I don't agree with him on every issue, but he stands up for many of the principles which his father subscribed to, and he's carrying the torch for the party which freed the slaves, integrated the federal bureaucracy, desegregated the schools and made civil rights a reality. He's part of the old-money elite of the Republican Party who have lost a lot of ground in recent years to extreme right refugees from the godflogging southern wing of the Democratic Party. That's a trend which needs to change, and keeping Chafee in office helps stem and perhaps turn that tide. DN: A recent Rasmussen poll shows your primary opponent beating either Lincoln Chafee or Steve Laffey in the general election, and although you've made impressive strides in catching up, you still have to be considered a long shot. Why should dedicated Democrats vote for you instead of Sheldon Whitehouse if he can deliver victory in November and you're an unknown quantity? You've commented "If Lincoln Chafee had run as a Democrat or Independent, I might not be running for U.S. Senate." Will you be able to run effectively against him if you get the nomination? CS: Ninety days before the 2002 gubernatorial elections few people knew who Don Carcieri was, as he had not previously held elected office...however, between Sheldon Whitehouse not lending support after his defeat to his primary opponent, Myrth York, and despite York's two prior runs, Carcieri became our Republican governor. This event speaks volumes. Likeability is a key attribute in RI's retail politics and Sheldon does not have that "mojo". Paul Wellstone was also an unknown quantity and he defeated four primary candidates and a two-term GOP incumbent because of his populist support and views. RI Democrats fall into two distinct categories - "anybody but Sheldon" and those who support the establishment "machine" candidate. Then there is the significant number of Independents who who are less concerned about the ruling party and more so interested in what the candidate and his/her campaign offer. I offer a background as a middle class father of five, business owner, and a court appointed financial expert with the ability to listen, think and act - not carefully scripted sound bites with very little substance. People are smart and empty promises don't resonate. My time as a Marine Combat and Staff Officer taught me to stay focused on taking care of people and that is exactly what public service is supposed to be. It's not a legacy. It's leadership. It's building bridges and making concessions among groups with disparate agendas. This is why even Sheldon finds me "very likable". Great ideas, passion and connecting with a wide range of people are key to winning the primary and general elections. These are offered by my campaign. I have very strong support from local and national Veterans and peace groups, which is why both Chafee and Sheldon are spending over a million in ad buys targeting these groups. Sheldon is running on "he's a Republican" therefore vote for me. Leadership is "we can pull together and get our country back." When you strip the "R" and "D" away from the candidates, Sheldon fails to offer a real compelling difference. The Latino and minority communities support my campaign because they've been ignored and the immigration issue is a tipping point putting many into primary elections this year. Small business owners and social activists are very supportive. They are a critical component to our campaign. The one area of strong dominance is our carefully nurtured outreach to faith-based leadership that includes over 200 parishes. Sheldon's special interests money machine is formidable... but he simply can't dance and whining over $350 an hour boredom as an "of counsel" attorney at a prestigious law firm while looking out his window and "it's my legacy" with some skeleton's in his A/G closet are not ways to win the hearts and minds of Rhode Islanders. DN: You have said of the Whitehouse campaign: "I'm running because his campaign has repeatedly merely attacked Chafee and the Republican Party instead of offering real solutions to our bread and butter issues that we working families experience." Yet you've put up a billboard just outside Providence which reads "Be Patriotic, Impeach Bush" on one side and "Fund Our Future, Not Bush's War" on the other. Doesn't that amount to very much the same thing � running against Bush and his policies rather than running against Sheldon Whitehouse? CS: On the contrary, do Americans expect if they work hard and play by the rules will have meaning if their leaders are not going to adhere to the fundamental principles of our Constitution? They know tax cuts for the top 1% earning $750,000+ annually; especially, during time of war is not fair. They know they're down $3500 in discretionary pay just since 2001 due to high energy costs that can be associated with big energy lobbyists and this war. They know Halliburton and big special interests are eroding their lives' pursuit of the American dream and that of their kids. They know they've been lied to and are as disenfranchised with many of our democratic leaders as they are with Republican elected. Finally, they know if we don't put leadership into our Congress great hopes of domestic security, single payer national healthcare, high quality education K - College and ebergy independence are just "me too" claims with no substance of being realized. They want accountability and this cannot happen with our presence in Iraq and few willing to fight for checks and balances that preserve our Constitutional rights. DN: You're one of the 'Fighting Dems', with a background of military service the Marines in the...

Charles Whitman and Futureshock 40 Years On

Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:20:54 GMT

Here in Austin this was a big day in the media, though not one recognized nationwide. 40 years ago today a troubled ex-Marine named Charles Whitman climbed the clock tower of the University of Texas administration building and began to gun down students and passersby on the south and west malls of the University and on nearby Guadalupe Street. Before heading to the University Whitman had killed his mother and his wife in their home, leaving behind a detailed suicide note with instructions to give his estate to psychological research and do an autopsy to determine if there was something physically wrong with his brain. As it turned out there was a tumor in his hypothalamus which may have been pressing on his amygdala and altering his emotional state. He was able to get a footlocker and a small wooden crate full of guns into the building and to the top of the 27-storey tower, including a Remington 700 rifle with a hunting scope, an M1 Carbine, another rifle, a shotgun and a variety of small arms. He started firing at 11:48 and ultimately killed 16 people and wounded another 31. The incident ended when Austin police officers Ray Martinez and Houston McCoy were able to break through the barricade Whitman had made to block the observation deck door. Martinez shot him repeatedly with his service revolver and McCoy hit him with a shotgun blast. Whitman was dead before he hit the floor. Whitman, the UT Clock Tower and the events of August 1st of 1966 have become ingrained in popular culture, even as symbols in the minds of those who have no specific awareness of the events. It was the first widely publicized mass random killing of this sort, the model for novelists, moviemakers and copycats. It was also the first incident of this sort to be covered live on TV, with a camera crew from the local CBS affiliate broadcasting from within the zone of fire. It put Austin on the national map in a negative way which it took the Armadillo, Willie Nelson, South by Southwest and years of great music and heavy partying to live down. Today it's all a piece of increasingly distant history, but hearing interviews with many of those who were involved on the radio and local television today was enlightening in a bizarre, futureshock or perhaps reverse futureshock kind of way. It was revelatory to be reminded of how different things were in 1966 in Austin and how the city and our world have changed since then. A few examples relating to the incident stood out. 1966 was really before the introduction of SWAT teams. They were invented at least in part in response to this incident. As a result the response to Whitman's sniping was much more rapid than it would be today, concluded in a couple of hours when today it might have taken twice as long or more. But the process involved a lot more risk for civilians and for the officers involved. Regular patrol officers showed up, there weren't very many of them, they had no special weapons and had to work fast and improvise. There was no real attempt to negotiate, although that might have changed if Whitman had hostages. There was also minimal supervision and coordination, and certainly no scenarios or game plan for dealing with what at the time was a unique situation. There was an aerial flyby and a very unsuccessful attempt to shoot Whitman from the plane, but solving the problem basically came down to a few very brave and outgunned men charging a trained killer. What struck me as most fascinating were the accounts from several sources of how the police dealt with the lack of covering fire that a SWAT team would provide today. They just went to citizens in the area and asked them to bring their rifles and shoot at the tower, and they all went to their pickups, got their deer rifles and did what they could to help. Their covering fire kept Whitman down and limited him to shooting through a drain opening, pretty much stopping the killing and giving officers the opportunity to get into the building. The officers also deputized one of the citizens to go with them into the tower to give them a bit more firepower, although he didn't end up facing Whitman. What a different world. First, it was taken for granted that a bunch of people in the area would be carrying powerful rifles openly in their trucks in the middle of the state's capitol city. What's more, the police felt no hesitation in asking those citizens to help out in a dangerous situation and the citizens were eager to do their part. None of this was seen as out of the ordinary or unexpected at the time. Everyone had guns openly in public and they were willing to take responsibility and use them when asked. Perhaps most remarkably, the police saw armed citizens as an asset rather than as a threat. The shock is how much things have changed today, and not necessarily for the better. Citizens are no longer seen as nor do they see themselves as primarily responsible for their own defense and the defense of others. The armed citizen isn't seen as a force for keeping the peace and assisting authorities, but as a potential threat. We're all seen as Charles Whitmans waiting to happen, and the memory of the responsible citizens who kept him pinned down with their rifles is forgotten. In a city as big as Austin is today you'd likely be pulled over by the police if you carried a hunting rifle in a rack in the back of your pickup, even if it may technically still be legal. You certainly wouldn't be called on to help out if you showed up at a crime scene with a gun. In the 40 years since 1966 we've seen the increasing infantilization of the population. In the Whitman incident the citizens were treated as adults who could take responsibility and put themselves at risk for the good of the community. Today we're treated like children who cannot be trusted with responsibility and have to be protected by government not only from the Charles Whitmans of the world, but from ourselves as well. Having become used to being treated that way, it seems like more and more of us accept that role and don't feel that we have a responsibility to stand up for others or even for ourselves. And when government doesn't act fast enough to protect us or provide for our needs we become like infants, whining and crying in our powerlessness and frustration. In a society which has improved in many other ways, these changes are certainly not for the better. We've gained many material things, but spiritually we are weaker and less self-sufficient and less prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and help those around us. As a people we are increasingly risk-averse and passive and indecisive. We are not as familiar with danger, react poorly to it, and expect someone else to fight our battles. The post-war generation which had their pickups parked around UT 40 years ago hadn't been brought up to expect that luxury and they were better for it. They helped stop Charles Whitman. What would you be able to do in that same situation today? Would you be armed? Would you be willing? Would you even be asked? In a greater sense this issue isn't really about the specific example of an armed citizenry assisting in a crisis situation. Much more simply it's a question of our willingness to be the good samaritan or the good neighbor, to think beyond our own needs and solve problems without having to turn to...

lebanon polls

Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:31:26 GMT

http://www.skileb.com/adminc/anm/templates/skileb_articles.asp?articleid=31&zoneid=1 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=74334 http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

election commentary

Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:35:17 GMT

Thanks for all the fine comments. As most of you realized, the call for Bell to drop out isn't entirely realistic. But it does seem justified on the numbers, even if there's very, very little chance of it happening. For those who think Kinky is the spoiler, all I can say is that independents HAVE won elections before. Jesse Ventura won, Joe Lieberman is likely to win as an independent this fall, and there are more examples. The party system is breaking down. There are too many divisions within the GOP and too many dissatisfied Democrats. Every election more voters describe themselves as 'independent'. Kinky may be unorthodox and he does (gasp) have a sense of humor, but he also has some good ideas and charisma - which the other candidates utterly lack. I originally supported Strayhorn, but I had the opportunity to speak with her a few weeks ago and was dismayed by her lack of vision and adherence to some of the old, failed policies Republicans have been running on for years. There's nothing new there, except maybe opposition to the toll roads and TTC, and I'm not sure how much I believe her on those. Which brings up the issue of RINOs. The term gets thrown around a lot by the extreme right. I have news for the religious fundamentalis crowd. They're the RINOs. People who believe the state should impose religion on the schools and push a moralistic social agenda and promote an expansionist foreign policy do NOT understand what the GOP has stood for all these years. Most of these far right RINOs come from backgrounds where they or their parents were democrats in the not too distant past. They come from the religious southern democrat tradition, or the post-stalinist extreme left faction of democrats which produced the Neocons. They are not part of the GOP of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater. That's the real GOP, and those who don't believe in the principles of a strong defensive military, hands-off social policy, and enthusiastic support for small business and the free market are the ones who are RINOs and dragging the party down. Anyway, back to the point of the article. The most important thing - and I say this as a Republican who has worked on campaigns and been a convention delegate - is to stop Rick Perry. Perry has been disastrous for the state, has opposed every positive innovation and supported every negative and exploitative program that could make a buck for his friends. He needs to go. Dave

Tradition vs. Radicalization on the Arab Riviera

Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:35:34 GMT

I was born on the 'Arab Riviera', a term you may hear today applied to Dubai, but which was a very real and accurate description of Lebanon in the 1950s and early 1960s. When I was a kid living in Syria and Jordan we would go to Lebanon to enjoy the beautiful beaches and stay in a nice hotel - older folks went there for the nightclubs and casinos and ski resorts with a view of the ocean. I was born there because Beirut had the best, most modern hospital in the area and it was a reasonable drive from Damascus. It was a cosmopolitan, westernized and affluent society. A third of the people were Christian and a third were Moslem and a third were Jews or Druze or members of other strange sects, and they all got along with each other. The women dressed and looked like Sophia Loren, the men dressed like Danny Thomas and usually looked better. They drove Mercedes, drank martinis and there wasn't a Kaftan or Hijab to be seen - except on wide-eyed tourists from the more backwards parts of the Arab world. This was Lebanon from about 1950 to 1967 - a brief renaissance for the Arab Riviera. Then came the Six-Day-War, a war in which Lebanon was pointedly not a participant. Of all the surrounding Arab nations, they were the only one not to send troops or even provide logistical support for the attempted invasion of Israel. They stood by the peace they had negotiated with Israel after the Arab-Israeli war as they had for 18 years. But after the war Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their captured territory and over 100,000 of them ended up in southern Lebanon and over time their numbers grew to three times that many largely poor, unskilled and angry refugees - a major administrative challenge even for an affluent nation like Lebanon. This poor, displaced population was easy pickings for the promotors of both militant fundamentalist religion and militiant political ideologies. Pretty soon that population of Palestinian refugees became the powerbase for a succession of terrorist groups, starting when the socialists of Fatah and the PLO were kicked out of Jordan in 1970, and then continuing when they moved their main operations to the West Bank and the terrorist void was filled with the arrival of the Iranian-backed Shiite Hezbollah in 1982, accompanied by about a thousand of the Ayatollah's Revolutionary Guard which formed the nucleus of a very active terrorist organization. These Palestinians and the Iranian Shiites who came later were all outsiders who came to Lebanon as a result of war. They were either chased out of their own lands or dumped there by other nations who were tired of harboring terrorists, or they came because of the proximity of Israel and the opportunities to cause death and mayhem for the 'zionist regime' to the south. They quickly became a cancer on an otherwise hopeful nation, disrupting the political and economic life of Lebanon and driving the whole region into violence, poverty and despair. With the help of allies in Syria and Iran they turned the Arab Riviera into a warzone of mines and bombed out buildings and refugee camps. They took what had been the most peaceful and progressive nation in the region and turned it into a maelstrom of warring factions in a bloody civil war which killed 100,000 people and lasted for 15 years and ended in a period where parts of Lebanon were occupied by both Israel and Syria and the Lebanese government was a weak Syrian puppet. Hope returned to Lebanon in the Spring of 2005 with the 'Cedar Revolution', a largely bloodless uprising in reaction to the assassination of popular former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Inspired by the rise of democracy in many eastern nations, from the Ukraine to Iraq, the Lebanese finally asserted themselves and demanded that Syria withdraw its troops, and much to everyone's surprise Syria actually did, leaving Lebanon with a new native government, but still plagued by Hezbollah in the Beqaa Valley on the border with Israel. With freedom you began to see the old Lebanon reemerging, with casinos reopening, hotels rebuilt, and businesses flourishing. Tourists began to come back for the beaches, the skiing and the nightlife, not only from around the Arab world, but even from Europe and beyond. Sadly, a prosperous Lebanon with the strong government and economy that prosperity would eventually create was not in the best interests of the extremists of Hezbollah and their masters in Iran. Hezbollah has plenty of hatred to go around. They certainly hate Israel and everything it stands for, but they have to hate the idea of a rebirth of a prosperous, secular Lebanon just about as much. As religious fanatics, they don't fit well in the kind of modern, westernized state Lebanon very much wants to become again. Potentially a reborn Lebanon would be Israel's most natural ally among the Arab states, and once their military was stronger and their government stable they would certainly make every effort to remove the terrorists from their southern border. At least part of Hezbollah's goal in escalating attacks against Israel is to get Israel to strike against Lebanon as a whole. If they can get the Israelis to weaken Lebanon, damage its rebuilt infrastructure, discredit its fledgeling government and radicalize its population, then their tenure as terrorists-in-residence will be extended. They know that under UN Resolution 1559 the Lebanese government has free reign to disarm, destroy and deport them if it can get its feet on the ground and exert some control over the country. Provoking Israel makes their removal less feasible. Forget Hezbollah's attacks on Israel, and forget Israel's retaliation. The real victim in this fight who deserves our care and concern is Lebanon. On the verge of its rebirth as a model of the best that the Arab world could be, it faces a deadly threat from terrorists within its own borders and from the most powerful military in the region. Every missile that strikes Beirut or Sidon or Tyre is sent by Hezbollah to bring down Lebanon, no matter who actually fired it. When the media tells you that Israel is bombing Lebanon, remember that their target is Hezbollah, a group which is not part of Lebanon and whose members are not Lebanese. When the media announces Lebanese casualties, remember that those civilians died because Hezbollah is using them as human shields, launching missiles from mobile trucks placed near sensitive civilian targets. The people of Lebanon have suffered with great patience, but will they be able to withstand this assault and retain the vision to see who their real enemies are and the strength of will to hold onto their dreams and not fall prey to the radicalizing force of terror? I hope that their memories of what Lebanon was 40 years ago and could be again remain strong enough to fight to get back everything they have lost to the fanatics and extremists.

Texas Election 2006: It's Time for Chris Bell to Drop Out

Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:14:14 GMT

It's a scenario that doesn't come around all that often in our ossified party system, but down here in Texas we're in the strange situation where the annointed Democrat in our gubernatorial race has essentially become a spoiler whose run is counter to the best interests of his own party, the constituents they serve and the state as a whole. I'm sure Chris Bell is a fine guy in many ways, but as a candidate for governor his only role is to guarantee a victory for Governor Rick Perry who has failed everyone in the state with his poor management, corruption and utter lack of vision. The Democrats dropped the ball in this election. Bell self-sacrificingly picked it up and is attempting to run with it, but party loyalty isn't a good reason to sacrifice the good of the state and it's people even if you're willing to waste your time and the money of party loyalists on a pointless campaign. The problem for Bell is that there are two very popular independent candidates running in the election, creating a four way split in which he likely comes in last under any realistic scenario. The two independent candidates - Kinky Friedman and Carole Strayhorn - have strong moderate appeal and draw substantial voters from both parties. If they were not in the race Bell would go the way of other Democratic candidates in Texas and lose to the Republican incumbent by about 10 points. With them in the race Bell is polling as low as the mid-teens in many polls, behind both of them as well as Perry. The most detailed recent poll comes from SurveyUSA and breaks down support by party, political philosophy and other factors. It shows clearly the problem with the Bell campaign which more general polls that provide less detail don't address. This poll shows Perry with 35%, Friedman with 21%, Bell with 20% and Strayhorn with 19%. If they combined all of their votes any two candidates could beat Perry. However, because of the way support breaks down the only candidate who could drop out and give virtually no support to Perry is Bell. If Strayhorn dropped out, the breakdown would probably end up with Perry first, trailed by Friedman and with Bell far behind. If Friedman dropped out, the breakdown would likely be Perry first with Strayhorn 10 points behind and Bell a distant third. But if Bell were to drop out, his votes would almost all go to the independent candidates, particularly Friedman, with a Perry and Friedman virtually tied around 35% and Strayhorn a few points behind. These scenarios are hypothetical, but believable. None of them shows Perry losing, but of the three the Bell dropout scenario at least puts Friedman close enough to have a shot at beating Perry. No other change in the current field would threaten Perry at all unless two candidates were to give up. In a scenario where two candidates drop out, the chances of defeating Perry increase dramatically. Either Friedman or Strayhorn would likely win if the other two candidates dropped out. But again, If they both dropped and left Bell as the sole candidate too many of their votes would go to Perry and Bell would suffer a definitive defeat. There is no scenario in which Bell could win the election, so why is he running and destroying any hope for defeating Perry? A recent Wall Street Journal poll shows Bell in a stronger position and a recent Rasmussen poll shows him running a distant third. Making the whole situation more interesting, some of the most recent polls show Perry dropping dramatically, suggesting a lot more vulnerability if the current balance among the challengers shifts. With an already weak record on the budget, Perry has recently taken very unpopular positions opposing legalized gambling, both at indian casinos and racetracks, a potentially enormous source of revenue, all of which is currently going out of state. His ideologically rigid unwillingness to consider creative solutions to the state's budget problems is just the latest in a series of signs that Perry is no friend to the people of Texas. Still strong on the radar and generating popular rage is his unstinting support for toll roads and massive and unnecessary high-speed rail boondoggles. All of the challengers oppose Perry on all of these issues, a fact which might give someone who actually wants to serve the people pause, but has no impact on Perry. What's clear from all the polls is that the people of Texas really, really don't like Perry. He may be beating the other candidates, but 65% of voters still want to vote for anyone who isn't Perry. Even within his own party he's just a bit over 50% in the polls and dropping. He has been a terrible governor whose greatest achievement is his dazzling smile and well-coiffed hair. The only thing giving Perry a chance at reelection is that the three challengers are going to split the opposing vote, unless something changes dramatically. The people of Texas want Perry gone, but for that to happen at least one of his three opponents needs to drop out and endorse one of the others. The best choice for this noble sacrifice is Chris Bell because neither of the other candidates dropping will win it for anyone but Perry. Bell should take a hint from the fact that he only polls with 44% support in his own party and do the right thing. Party loyalty is not enough reason to run for office, and defeating Perry is more important than personal ego or party loyalty. It would actually be a victory for the Democrats if they could show the integrity and care for the people which Perry lacks and put defeating Perry ahead of their own petty interests. For the good of Texas and in the best interests of the people, Chris Bell needs to pack it in and go home.

Scenarios 2008: How I Could Vote for a Democrat

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:27:49 GMT

Ordinarily I wouldn't expect to find myself voting for a Democrat in 2008. Ideally I'd be voting Republican or doing as I did in 2000 and 2004 and voting for a Libertarian on principle. But it occured to me today that there is a scenario under which I could find myself reluctantly voting for a Democrat. Right now it doesn't seem likely. The early field of potential Republican candidates is rich and promising. But there are some potentially disastrous candidates and groups who I don't think I could bring myself to support putting in the White House. On the other hand, there are Democrats who could get nominated who aren't totally unappealing if the GOP can't come up with someone genuinely appealing.

gun rights quotes

Sun, 23 Jul 2006 06:43:05 GMT

Sure, Lee. Noah Webster in a pamphlet explaining the Bill of Rights to the voters of Pennsylvania in 1787: Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia writing about the Virginia Constitution: "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." George Washington's First Inaugural Address: ""A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

Remind Me - Who Are the REAL Fascists Again?

Sun, 23 Jul 2006 05:41:11 GMT

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. - Noah Webster, 1787

Critics on the left are relentless about trotting out the term 'fascist' to apply to the Bush administration over its efforts to beef up Homeland Security at the expense of Constitutional rights. To some degree it's a valid criticism, though I prefer the term 'statist' to 'fascist'. There are certainly things in the USA PATRIOT Act which trample the 4th Amendment, though that bill passed with strong majorities in both parties. Every once in a while, even though they are out of power, the Democrats remind us of what real statists would do if they were in power and saw an opportunity to shred the Constitution and empower themselves on the pretext of national security. We got a great example of this last week when the Homeland Security Appropriations bill came up for consideration. It included an amendment from Senator David Vitter (R-LA) which prohibited the use of any taxpayer funds for the confiscation of lawful firearms held by private citizens during an emergency or disaster. The Vitter amendment was inspired by the outrageous behavior of local officials in New Orleans during the Katrina disaster, when they ordered the National Guard and local police to confiscate legal firearms from citizens and then didn't return them until compelled months and several lawsuits later. The citizens needed those guns to defend themselves and their property and the government that had failed to protect them took away that last and essential protection in a time of crisis. So the Vitter Amendment is a very, very good thing. It is a blow struck on behalf of our rights as the founding fathers intended them to be protected. When it came up for a vote in the Senate last week, for once our legislators didn't let us down. It passed overwhelmingly, supported by all 55 Republicans and a majority of Democrats as well. What's dismaying is that 16 Democrat Senators voted against the amendment, giving us a chilling preview of the threat which our rights would face if Democrats were to gain control of one or both houses of Congress. These enemies of your rights include the usual rogues gallery of statist villains like Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), but the most chilling member of the cabal was Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), belying her cynical attempts to move to the political middle and showing her true colors when she thought no one was looking. When the 2008 presidential campaign gets going, remember that Hillary Clinton stood on the side of an oppressive state even when the majority of her own party stood up for your rights. The Vitter Amendment hasn't yet made it into law. It still has to pass the House of Representatives as part of the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act and ought to be up for a vote in the next few weeks. When that vote comes, keep your eye on it. It ought to provide the same kind of moment of clarity for the House that this recent vote did for the Senate. For once it might actually be worth your time to stay awake through a few hours of C-Span, just to see which House members care about your rights and which ones will join the 16 Senate Statists in voting to support an oppressive government against people who just want to be safe in their homes and persons. When they vote and the lines are drawn, ask yourself just who the real fascists are, and take that memory with you all the way to the voting booth in November.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington, First Inaugural Address, 1793

Global Warming - The Intelligent Design of the Left

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:26:20 GMT

Global Warming and Intelligent Design share a fundamental characteristic in common, the lack of definitive, proven evidence of the causation which would make them fact rather than theory. In Intelligent Design you can see the leaps of evolution and the bizarre anomalies in the fossil record and you can say "something must have caused this", but there is no proof of what or who is the cause. You can choose God or aliens or mutation or random unidentified forces as your explanation equally convincingly because no evidence exists to definitively identify the unknown forces driving the evolutionary process. If you believe in a conscious force behind evolution you can only reach that conclusion through faith. In the same way, Global Warming is a clearly identifiable phenomenon which can be documented through the geological record and contemporary temperature measurements, but it is impossible to point to a specific cause and say "aha, here's THE thing which is causing global warming." Human causation is the popular choice as a cause, but human output of the gasses which cause global warming is substantially less than the cumulative yearly output from natural sources like volcanoes and forest fires and falls well within the normal variations of those gasses from year to year. Natural forces like solar activity and the earth's climate cycle also contribute to global warming and it is impossible to definitively identify one cause as specifically responsible. If your choice is to believe in human causation as the one thing that causes Global Warming, that position can only be reached by the equivalent of a leap of faith. Because these are beliefs which can only be reached by faith, those who subscribe to them have a tendancy to be driven to fanaticism in defense of their position. They attack and harass those who disagree with them, deride them as deniers driven by a political agenda, be it secularism or corporate greed, and do their best to essentially redefine reality on their own terms. They will go to great and destructive extremes to force their beliefs on others, including imposing their agenda on the school curriculum, promoting their beliefs through advocacy groups, seeking to pass legislation enshrining it in law, and attempting to destroy and discredit those who don't agree with them. The remarkable thing with this sort of fanatically held belief is that it doesn't matter if there's any truth or evidence behind it, or if there are facts which directly contradict it. The true believers will gladly redefine reality on the fly so that whatever facts they're presented with will fit into their worldview. Inconvenient fossil records predating the biblical creation of the earth? God created them to test our faith. Inconvenient record snowfalls and cooling trends in Europe? Well, of course, cold weather is a symptom of global warming. The great thing about faith is that it can help you rationalize anything no matter how ridiculous. It's interesting that the people who object most to the irrationality of Intelligent Design theory are often the same people who are just as dogmatic in their adherence to Global Warming theory, and vice versa. The two are unrelated, but it's interesting that both groups have their issues of absolute belief which they hold to be inviolable with equal levels of vehemence and obsession. What neither group considers is that maybe both positions are irrational and untennable and that both theories have flaws, are open to criticism and might need more study and analysis. Both Global Warming and Intelligent Design are still theories and neither has the stamp of absolute empirical truth on them, because both are based on assumptions which cannot be definitively proven and to some degree have to be 'taken on faith'. I find any demand to believe something which cannot be proven just because others believe in it - no matter how numerous they are - to be objectionable and an offense to reason. Reality isn't defined by a majority vote. What's worse, when a theory becomes dogma, those who subscribe to it fanatically will try to stifle further discussion, exploration and analysis, and that's a very negative force in a any kind of scientific inquiry. Personally I'd prefer to take nothing on faith, leave all possibilities open, and retain some objective distance. Both of these theories might be right and both might be wrong. What harm does it do to keep an open mind and question both of them? Only by being objective and questioning everything, especially beliefs based on faith, can we eventually find a truth which is provable and does not require us to accept a set of guesses as gospel.

Green Business

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:40:38 GMT

http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/breakingnews/article/569819/sustainability-greensky-thinking/

Federal Marriage Amendment Fails Again

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:29:24 GMT

In all the furor over President Bush's veto of the stem cell research funding bill, an important vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday has largely been overlooked by the media and the public. A proposed Constitutional amendment to define the insitution of marriage - generally viewed as banning gay marriage - was up for a vote in the House and failed to get the 2/3 majority necessary for passage by a solid 45 votes. This same amendment has been proposed and defeated three times before. It did better by a few votes this time, though still falling well short of the needed votes for passage. The amendment would have both defined marriage to "consist only of the union of a man and a woman" and declared that the Constitution could not be used as the basis of any claim that marriage should be "conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." Opponents of the amendment hailed the defeat of the amendment as a major victory. Joe Salmonese of the Human Rights Campaign commented:

�A bipartisan group of Representatives today rejected the politics of discrimination and stood up for the American value of fairness. More and more Americans are beginning to understand that same-sex couples and their children deserve to be treated equally under our nation�s Constitution, nothing more and nothing less."

Gay marriage opponents also claimed a qualified victory based on a slightly better show of votes over their last attempt and vowed to continue to try to limit gay marriage on the state level and to bring the amendment up again in Congress. House Speaker Dennis Hastert commented "be assured, this issue is not over." Although 19 states have banned gay marriage in the last 8 years, of the 11 states to consider bans in the past year 8 rejected banning gay marriage. In addition, polls suggest that opposition to gay marriage which had been strong is gradually eroding. Recent polls in New Jersey, and Wisconsin show voters almost equally divided on the issue. The same polls show about 2/3 of the public supporting gay civil unions equivalent to marriage in all but name. This suggests that despite efforts by the extreme right, if gay advocates were to pursue the moderate course of civil unions without insisting on the relatively meaningless label of 'marriage' they could win a genuine and definitive victory that only something like the apparently unpassable Federal Marriage Amendment could interfere with.

Should France Attack Israel?

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:09:10 GMT

Our favorite French pundit Dissident Frogman has a ripping new piece on his bilingual blog excoriating French parliament member Jacques Myard for his recent statements suggesting that France attack Israel in defense of the Lebanese people. As always, it's funny as hell and very politically insightful. If you didn't think there were any Frenchmen left with common sense, the Frogman is out there to reassure you, just as people like Myard are there to remind you how rare sensible Frenchmen really are. Dave

A History of Walls

Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:39:53 GMT

Great Wall of China Antonine Wall Hadrian's Wall Offa's Dyke The Pale The Berlin Wall Gaza Strip Barrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_wall

Fun with statistics

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:13:53 GMT

Serial Killers 1/10,000,000 - m Murderers 1/4,000 - 37 in Iraq Rapists 8/10,000 - 120 in iraq

The Truth About Illegal Immigration

Sun, 16 Jul 2006 05:20:28 GMT

The cool thing about the immigration debate is that it never goes away. I started writing on the topic a year ago, firmly convinced that it was a vital issue to address because we might have a new immigration policy at any moment. Now I realize that I can keep writing on it forever, because the anti-immigration ideologues will never see sense so we'll never get any kind of immigration policy passed and bloggers and pundits can feel free to enjoy the topic forever. Why this should be the case is a bit mystifying. The facts about the undocumented immigrant population are all there in black and white. Our tradition of welcoming immigrants is indisputable - it's on the Statue of Liberty, afterall. The benefits immigration brings to the country are obvious and undeniable. The ridiculous impracticality of deporting 12 million people we can't even identify has already been clearly demonstrated. Support for a realistic immigration solution crosses party lines and unites people who would normally be enemies but just happen to have good sense. Yet a certain political faction prefers rhetoric over reality and would rather hold out for the impossible dream of total interdiction than implement sensible policies which would limit immigration and address the needs of the nation. It almost makes you wonder if they would rather not solve the problem so they can keep bitching about it for the next few elections. Perhaps I can do my part of move the debate along by going over the facts one more time. � Illegal immigrants don't increase your taxes. Surveys of immigrants show that they actually come with the expectation that welfare and social service benefits will not be available to them. What's more, they actually use welfare benefits less than the native population does per capita. Studies show that only 2% of Mexican immigrants have ever used welfare or social security and only 3% have ever used food stamps. In comparison, 84% pay income tax and none of them file a rfeturn. Because so many of them pay into the tax and social security and medicaid systems without being able to retrieve any of that money or benefits, the government actually makes a substantial profit on each illegal who comes here. This has resulted in a surplus in social security funds of more than $50 billion a year just from payments applied to fictional social security numbers. After factoring in services provided, on average during his time in the US an illegal immigrant will contribute $80,000 more to the government than he consumes in services. The one negative tax impact is that they act to transfer money from the states who pay most of the services, especially education, to the federal government which gets most of the tax benefits. � A more open immigration policy will not lead to a flood of new immigrants. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants return to their home countries after spending a limited time in the US and most (64.7%) come to the US for a year or less to work and then go home. What's more, they don't breed like rabbits as many have suggested. Mexicans have 2.3 children per mother, only slightly higher than the birth rate in the US. Mexico has only a 2% annual growth in population, slightly higher than the US, but low compared to many other nations. All of this argues very strongly for the effectiveness of a guest worker type program, suggesting that most workers would use it if it was available rather than accepting 'amnesty' if offered. � Undocumented immigrants aren't necessarily the poor refuse of the world. Mexico is hardly an impovershed nation overall. They have a higher GDP per capita and higher wages than most nations, and a relatively low cost of living. The average wage is higher than anywhere else in south and central America, including fairly prosperous nations like Brazil. Real poor people can't afford to travel to another country to earn better wages - they're too downtrodden. Mexicans can come here because they have the resources and skills to make it practical and worthwhile. What's more, Mexicans like the life they have in Mexico. A peculiar survey conducted in 2004 determined that Mexico is the second 'happiest' country in the world in terms of how satisfied their population is with the life they have. The US ranked 15th. � Mexican immigrants are not criminals. Despite some highly publicized groups who have come into the US from other countries and gone into organized crime - mostly legal immigrants from countries like El Salvador - immigrants as a whole are no more inclined to commit crimes than our native population. When compared by age, the crime and incarceration rates for Mexican immigrants is roughly equal to the general population and much better than most other legal and illegal immigrant groups. Perhaps if we could get past the issue of illegal mexican immigration we could crack down on the Cubans, Dominicans, Eastern Europeans, Asians and Salvadorans who commit most of the immigrant crime. � Immigrant workers do not take jobs from natives or lower the overall working wage. While the presence of immigrant workers does reduce the cost of goods and services for consumers, this is not because they lower wages, but because without their presence those jobs would go unfilled. According to one analysis we would end up with 2.5 million jobs which could not be filled, leading to business closures and inflation. It might even ultimately lead to more unemployment among native workers. The skills of natives who are out of work and the skills of undocumented immigrants are different, so natives would not take the jobs which would become available if the illegals were deported. 84% of unemployed natives have at least a high-school education, while most illegal immigrants from Mexico have less than a high-school degree. However, undocumented workers are not necessarily low paid. They may have skills and family connections which can get them well-paid reliable employment at well above minimum wage. Even for day laborers the median hourly wage is still around $10. On average undocumented workers earn about $2 less per hour than documented workers in the same jobs, a difference which accurately represents the added risk and expense of hiring them. They are good at economizing and most send substantial amounts of money home to Mexico to the point where they contribute $20 billion a year to the Mexican economy which is about 3% of the Mexican GDP. Workers used to a third-world lifestyle and earning $10 a day can do very well earning that much an hour in the US. What all this tells us is that while working here benefits illegals and Mexico, it also benefits the United States and our population in a number of ways. Immigrants are doing jobs which might go unfilled without them, keeping inflation down and contributing disproportionately to our tax and social program revenues. What's more, most of the negatives applied to them by those who'd like to close the borders appear not to be true. They don't want to flood the country and take over. They don't even want to stay here in most cases. They aren't taking jobs that Americans are willing or qualified to do. They aren't committing lots of crimes. They aren't living off of welfare or sucking up social services. They just come here to work and make their lives better. What's also clear from the evidence is that a straightforward guest worker program would solve most of the problems currently associated with illegal immigration. It's likely that 80% of the currently undocumented workers would be perfectly satisfied with temporary worker status,...

Tunnels and Bridges and Subways, Oh My!

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:15:05 GMT

The recent news has been full of both accidents and terrorist acts which we ought to be taking as a sign, as a big finger pointing out what should be obvious. That certain elements of the public transportation structure of our nation are incredibly vulnerable to terrorist attacks which could be particularly devastating in their cost in human life, expense and inconvenience. Take as examples the terrorist attacks yesterday in Mumbai where subways and busses were targeted, and the similar attacks in London one year earlier almost to the day and in Madrid the year before that. These attacks were all particularly effective not only because of the destruction of life and property, but because they were impossible for the population to easily take in stride, leaving a permanent legacy of inconvenience and reconstruction which continued for months after the actual attacks. They shut down major cities for a couple of days, caused lost days at work and cost a great deal in rebuilding transportation infrastructure. Other recent events have shown that the transportation infrastructure in the United States is just as vulnerable. The derailment on the EL in Chicago shows how much inconvenience, damage and injury can be caused by a simple mechanical failure. In addition to crushing a car and killing a young woman, the recent partial collapse in the Big Dig Tunnel in Boston paralyzed commuted traffic for days. Try a Google search for 'tunnel collapse'. they don't get that much publicity, but in the last few years there have been major tunnel collapses in China, England, India, Spain and the United States as well as other countries. Bridge collapses have also been in the news. 9/11 overshadowed it, but a few days after the attack there was a horrendous bridge collapse in Texas when a barge hit the bridge connecting South Padre Island to the mainland causing a collapse. A few month later a virtually identical accident collapsed the I-40 Bridge in Oklahoma. Both of these incidents had enormous costs in inconvenience and loss of revenue. As transportation infrastructure ages, the vulnerable elements like tunnels and bridges become more and more vulnerable to natural forces and to man made threats. When terrorists strike their immediate goal is to scare the public more than it is to killl people. They want to get attention for their cause. A high bodycount guarantees a lot of attention, but shutting down a major city and causing millions of people to miss days of work and feel threatened is even better. This makes the most vulnerable elements of our transportation system enormously attractive targets, and like any modern country the US has lots of bridges and tunnels and trains, all of which are vulnerable to terrorist attack as much as they are to natural and man-made disaster. Americans like to solve problems. When we see that something is dangerous we want to make it safe. The problem with the transportation infrastructure and what makes it particularly attractive as a terrorist target, is that elements like bridges and tunnels are virtually indefensible. Most effective protective measures which could be taken cause even more inconvenience or disruption than a terrorist attack would. Stopping and searching every car going into the Lincoln Tunnel would pretty much defeat the purpose of facilitating faster commuter travel for which the tunnel was built. Government officials responsible for these systems find themselves having to weigh the potential loss of life from a future attack against the cost and inconvenience required to implement effective security. As a result, despite cries of alarm from some quarters, what you usually get is an increased presence of men in uniform and little substantive improvement in real security. They do what they can, but their efforts are more to create an illusion of safety than to actually protect anyone. To actually stop the kinds of terrorist attacks which would hit the most vulnerable parts of our transportation system requires going after the terrorists themselves not attempting to protect the targets. This is why the focus of government efforts since 9/11 has been on distracting terrorists and using covert means to identify and neutralize them. In a nutshell, we took the War on Terror overseas and have seen uncomfortable increases in domestic surveillance, because not only is 'offense the best defense', but given the impracticality of defending the nation, it's likely that a strong offense may be the only effective defense available. We may not like the way the administration has chosen to fight the War on Terror, but critics may not realize how unattractive and impractical the alternatives would be. The main alternative would be a kind of 'Fortress America' approach, with massively heightened internal security, closed borders, national ID cards, widespread domestic surveillance and much more government intrusion into our lives. When concerned politicians complain about our ports not being safe and how vulnerable our infrastructure is, remember that what they're essentially arguing for is the only real security alternative - the creation of a massive police state. Of course, there is one other option. We could accept that a certain level of vulnerability to terrorist attack is part of life and the price that we pay for convenience. For the sake of our rights, our sanity and getting to work on time, we might just have to live with the possibility that every once in a while a bridge, a tunnel or a subway is going to get blown up.

The UN on Human Rights - Still an Embarassment

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:01:27 GMT

In the continuing saga of failure, crime and corruption which is the United Nations, nothing is a better example of how far the organization has slid into chaos than the farcical antics of the UN in the area of human rights. What does it say about the United Nations Commission on Human Rights when every major independent human rights group from Amnesty International to Human Rights Watch condemns it? What does it suggest when the political left and right in the United States - as represented by the New Republic and the Washington Times - both condemn it? These things ought to be a hint that the commission is even more seriously screwed up than the rest of the UN. The heart of the problem with the UN Commission on Human Rights has always been that it includes on the commission, often in positions of administrative power, nations who are themselves among the greatest human rights abusers in the world. Traditionally this has included nations like Zimbabwe, Iran, Sudan, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia. These countries and their slightly less outrageous friends would pool their resources to make sure that nothing the commission did was ever effective or aimed at the right targets. But wait. It's a new era. The United States and other sensible nations called for sweeping reform of the UN and one of the reforms was to strengthen and clean up the Human Rights Commission. The result was that it was replaced with a new Human Rights Council which was formed in May and made up of 54 members voted on by the general membership of the United Nations. Wow, that ought to fix things up and make them spiffy. We'll get all that nasty genocide and oppression cleaned up in no time. We've got nothing to look forward to but freedom and happiness now that the new Human Rights Council is on the job, led by upstanding nations like Cuba, Venezuela, China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan. Yippee! The new council got rid of oppressive African nations and replaced them with the top human rights abusers of the Muslim world. In this age of terrorism and jihad that sure is a step in the right direction. Plus they kept Cuba and China, two of the biggest human rights abusers and added in their little budy Venezuela which is just getting started in the political oppression business but has shown some real precociousness for a young dictatorship. When the idea of forming a new council came up all sorts of proposals were made to clean up the council and make sure that it had some real power and the right sort of membership to promote human rights. But sensible suggestions, like barring nations who had a history of human rights abuses from the council, were voted down - largely at the instigation of Cuba and its supporters - and despite all efforts the new council looks pretty much the same as the old commission, and it can be expected to do the same old things - ignore massive human rights abuses all over the world and condemn western countries for banning smoking or executing serial killers. You see, the problem doesn't really start with the UN Council on Human Rights, it's built into the membership of the UN. Human rights abusers wouldn't be on the Council if they hadn't gotten voted onto it - often with a 2/3 majority of the general membership. The answer to the problem is contained in the US proposal to ban human rights abusers from the Council. But that proposal didn't go far enough. Instead of banning them from the council, they ought to be banned from the UN as voting members alltogether. A good third of the membership of the UN ought to be kicked out and have all UN aid cut off until they have open elections, a free press and go for at least 3 years without any major human rights abuse incidents. Why should the policies of this world peace organization be in any way influenced by nations which are perfect examples of the abuse and oppression which it was supposedly formed to combat? How can we let the UN continue to exist when it is effectively dominated by the worst world citizens who use it to spread their poison of corruption and abuse throughout the world. This is not what the United Nations was intended to be. Its charter says that its purpose is to:

reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

Does this sound at all like a description of policies which Cuba, China or Iran want to promote on a worldwide basis? Human rights, social progress and larger freedom aren't exactly on the top of their list of priorities. The power and influence which these rogue nations wield at the UN demonstrates clearly that it has failed to live up to its charter, just like the League of Nations before it. When the League of Nations failed we replaced it with the UN. Now that it too has failed it's time for it to be replaced as well.

We Are the Minutemen of Our Times

Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:00:44 GMT

In the Concord Hymn, Emerson wrote a moving and effective memorial for the citizen militia who a generation or so before had defended the North Bridge in Concord Massachusetts and repulsed multiple assaults by larger British forces to delay those soldiers so that their efforts to seize colonial armories could be thwarted. Emerson isn't my favorite poet, but his connection to that place and time gave him a special perspective on the events at Concord and the first verse of the hymn is particularly good at summing up the commitment and accomplishment of those few, brave men.

The Concord Hymn By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April's breeze unfurled, Here once the embattled farmers stood, And fired the shot heard round the world. The foe long since in silence slept; Alike the conqueror silent sleeps; And Time the ruined bridge has swept Down the dark stream which seaward creeps. On this green bank, by this soft stream, We set to-day a votive stone; That memory may their deed redeem, When, like our sires, our sons are gone. Spirit, that made those heroes dare To die, and leave their children free, Bid Time and Nature gently spa The shaft we raise to them and thee. ----- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Those 'embattled farmers' were just the common men of the time, willing to take up arms and defend their homes and their rights against an oppressive enemy with superior forces, superior training and superior firepower. Outgunned and outmanned they could not be outfought. The very land they stood on gave them strength because they fought to defend their homes and for no gain or glory or king's coin. The 'shot heard round the world' which was fired by their rifles in defiance of the British government was truly remarkable, because armies around the world had fallen before those supremely disciplined troops in their red uniforms and yet driven primarily by issues of principle, these simple men were willing to stand up to the lead wall of the volleys of trained British muskets and take offer their lives and if necessary 'to die, and leave their children free'. Others in America and around the world heard that shot and answered its call and came to offer themselves to the cause of freedom. Some came great distances to fight for principle on behalf of people they had never met like Casimir Pulaski and Wilhelm von Steuben - enemies in the continental wars of Frederick the Great who fought on the same side for America. Others came to share their ideas and leadership, like Thomas Paine who served best with his pen rather than his sword. The idea of freedom and the willingness of individuals to fight for it is an enormously powerful force which still draws people to America 230 years later, willing to make their own sacrifices in order to be free. Unfortunately, those who have enjoyed freedom for generations often forget the sacrifices their forefathers made to attain that precious liberty and are seduced into leading complacent lives where they take their liberties for granted and may not notice as they slip away bit by bit through the incremental erosion of greed and ambition and well-intentioned folly. Every July 4th we light off fireworks and they're loud and bright, but while they may grab our attention for a moment they don't have the power to direct it towards the truth which the date of the Declaration of Independence ought to remind us of. That Declaration was the written expression of the beliefs which inspired the Minutemen who fought at Concord and for the rest of the War of Independence. What those fireworks ought to be telling us is that freedom is not free, that it must be paid for in blood and that we're never done spilling that blood and paying that price. Freedom is like a subscription and it has to be renewed periodically and each generation has to pay for that renewal or the subscription expires and becomes something less than what we signed on for in the first place. Each of us in some way can act to keep freedom alive in our times. We can volunteer to help out in our community. We can change our habits to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We can keep watch on our government and our leaders and on the forces abroad which threaten us. We can embrace and support those who love freedom and resist and oppose those who would destroy it. At the very least we can be informed on the issues and vote. We owe it to their great sacrifice to make our own smaller sacrifices to preserve the legacy of freedom which they entrusted to us.

Supreme Court Rules Against Trials for GITMO Detainees

Sat, 01 Jul 2006 03:09:04 GMT

In a decision which ought to reassure those on the left who think the court has gone too conservative, the Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that prisonsers held at Guantanamo Bay cannot be tried by special military tribunals. The decision was based on both provisions of the Universal Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. The main point of issue being that both documents suggest that specially convened courts cannot be used to try prisoners of war who must instead be offered the same quality of justice as non-combatants, which presumably means a normal trial under a legitimately constituted judiciary with a lawyer and all the trimmings. This argument had been struck down by a lower appeals court and was reinstated by the Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision with the Chief Justice recusing himself because the previous appeal had been heard in his court. Salim Ahmed Hamdan is a Yemeni who had been Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and driver and who was captured during the invasion of Afghanistan. Dissent from the opinion was strong, with the normally silent Justice Thomas demanding time minutes to make a statement rejecting the reasoning of the majority opinion written by Justice Stephens. The stumbling block for the efforts to try these prisoners in special courts appears to be the failure of Congress to pass legislation authorizing these courts under the UCMJ when they authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. This oversight could be corrected in hindsight and Republicans in Congress are drafting legislation to authorize special trials. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist commented:

''Since this issue so directly impacts our national security, I will pursue the earliest possible action in the United States Senate."

Another option which the administration has not discussed would be returning the prisoners to Afghanistan to stand trial, where the pro-American government would be able to try them legitimately but in a very unsympathetic environment. Of course, the one option which the administration is foolishly overlooking is putting the Guantanamo detainees on trial in US criminal courts. That would more than meet the criteria of the UCMJ and the Geneva Accords, under which they could be tried as terrorists rather than as legitimate combatants. As demonstrated in other cases American juries would be unlikely to be terribly sympathetic, but it appears that the associated publicity and potential difficulty of presenting the cases in a regular court are more than the administration wants to take on. Taken along with the 2004 decision from the Supreme Court which determined that the GITMO detainees could not be held indefinitely without trial, this ruling puts considerable pressure on the administration to go further in resolving the status of those still being held. Many detainees have already been returned to their home countries, where some immediately resumed their terrorist activities. Those who remain are likely the most dangerous of the lot, but they're a lot less dangerous to the United States if they're in a faraway country and that would at least be some progress. It might be a good idea to keep a few for show trials under US justice and just dump the rest at this point.

Medical Marijuana - The Fight Goes On

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:14:04 GMT

Yet again the House of Representaitves is considering a vote on the Hinchey-Rohrbacher Amendment, the Wilmot Proviso of the new millenium. It's an amendment jointly sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat to protect the rights and safety of private users of medical marijuana and exempt them from criminal prosecution. It doesn't legalize pot and doesn't even generally decriminalize marijuana. All it does is make sure that those suffering with AIDS, Cancer, Glaucoma and other medical conditions won't be thrown in jail for using the one viable treatment available for their conditions, by restricting federal authorities from interfering with state laws that protect medical marijuana users in the 11 states which have passed medical marijuana laws. The Drug Policy Alliance has done a really excellent job of raising public awareness of this issue, and their site has all the information you need to write your representative and urge them to support this bill. I could go on and on about the failure of the War on Drugs and the ridiculousness of spending tens of billions of dollars a year to turn what should be a victimless crime into a massive industry of organized crime and exploitation, but I'm sure you've heard that story before. Instead I wanted to praise the vision and courage of Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and the other Congressmen who've actually taken a stand on principle to support this amendment against the positions of the ruling elites of both political parties. Like David Wilmot 150 years ago they have placed principle ahead of politics and are doing the right thing - again and again - in the conviction that it will eventually lead to victory. It worked for Wilmot. He proposed his amendment almost 100 times prior to the Civil War and it was voted down every time. But Wilmost rests happy in his grave because the slaves were eventually freed. Let's hope that Rohrbacher, Hinchey and the thousands they are working to help don't have to endure that same kind of struggle before sanity prevails.

The UN and Supreme Irony on Independence Day

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:51:44 GMT

The first act of any tyrranical regime is to disarm the populace. One of the things which sets the United States apart from most of the rest of the world - more even than the other provisions of our Constitution - is that our Republic has built into it a tolerance of and endorsement of the right of our citizens to be armed. That right has been qualified and whittled down a bit more than I'm comfortable with over the years, but in principle it still survives. Yet right here, on our own soil during the week we celebrate our independence, the United Nations has gathered together representatives of the worlds many petty tyrranies to discuss the methods by which civilian populations can be disarmed on a world-wide basis, with their chief target the negation of the 2nd Amendment. The U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects is going on right now in New York - a city which shows the success of incrementalism in eroding our rights by maintaining its own unconstitutional ban on firearms. The chairman of the conference, Sri Lanka's Prasad Kariyawasam, maintains that the 2001 agreement on small arms and the discussion of the conference will focus on controlling the trade in illegal weapons, not on taking guns from private citizens, yet the wording of the original agreement which can be found in the UN Firearms Protocol does have some troubling elements. It is not a call for the outright ban of guns in the hands of private citizens, but it does clearly imply tight state controls on firearm ownership, including tracking of all guns in private hands and encouraging states to restrict private gun ownership as much as possible, saying:

Tighter controls over the possession of and access to small arms and light weapons by both authorized government bodies (police, armed forces) and by civilians would also help stem the illicit flow of arms.

For the UN the dividing line between privately held arms and illicit arms is a very fine one, merely the matter of the whim of a dictator or a future UN mandate. This may not be an outright gun ban as some have claimed, but it's a big step in that direction. And the real threat may come from the proposed legislation in Congress to implement the restrictions which the UN has mandated, legislation which includes rigid licensing restrictions for gun sales and severe penalties for the smallest infractions. Make no mistake that the intention of the UN and its supporters is the ultimate elimination of private gun ownership. Anti-gun radicals from all over the world have been invited to attend the conference in the expectation that their voices will be heard while those of the American public will be ignored. No one will appear to represent the interests of private gun owners. The 60 nations officially represented at the conference include a rogue's gallery of tyrranical and terrorist nations, among them Iran, China, Nigeria and Indonesia. The National Rifle Association has made a major issue of this conference, probably out of proportion to the real threat which it poses. Their efforts have been remarkably successful, with over 100,000 letters sent from their website to UN and US government officials decrying the conference and its efforts. Adding another letter to that pile probably wouldn't do any harm. The UN has, in past statements, singled out the US as a major offender in the proliferation of small arms largely because of our domestic market for firearms and our lack of repressive regulation of gun ownership.. The timing of this conference to coincide with our major patriotic holiday is certainly no coincidence. The UN is sending a message to gun manufacturers and gun owners that they stand hand in hand with groups like HGCI, IANSA and the Brady Campaign to work step by step to disarm American citizens and put them at the mercy of tyrrants at home and abroad. There will come a point where Americans in government and individually are going to have to decide whether they are willing to stand up for the protections of our Constitution against the dictates of the UN. This conference is one more step towards that moment of conflict.

The Relentless Negativism of the Left

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:52:08 GMT

The Relentless Negativism of the Left Global Warming Nuclear War Peak Oil National Debt Balance of Trade The world is falling apart, there's nothing we can do about it. Only the state can save us.

How to Write News for the Blogosphere

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:01:09 GMT

You may wonder why you would want to write news for a blog at all, given that there are so many newspapers and magazines already feeding their content to the web. What they post is pretty much the same as what they publish in their print editions - straight news, usually covered in fairly limited depth, and not presented in a way which makes any use of the power of the web to make news more complete and personal. The reason for you to write news on a blog is that you can do it better and more powerfully than they can in print or in a print article adapted to the web. There are three keys to writing good news for a blog. These are: � Depth. You can examine more aspects of a story and explore details and implications which the limitations of the print format make traditional reporters overlook. You can bring your readers the whole story, not just the highlights you find in newspaper or television reports. Go read a news piece from a TV news report sometime. They boil down major world events to one paragraph with no detail and no nuance. � Linking. In addition to providing a good, complete version of a story you can also link to other sources. You can give readers the opportunity to learn everything you knew when writing the story. You can send them to the full text of speeches and press conferences, to relevant documents and evidence, to editorials and other articles on the same topic, and even to the websites of the people involved in the story in many cases. � Perspective. Even when writing straight news there is room in the blog format for more personal expression and input. While remaining relatively objective, you can add your observations and interpretations of the facts. This should be done with some restraint and a certain amount of objectivity, but it can be valuable. It's particularly appropriate to use the freedom of the format to explain and analyze news issues in depth which is rarely attempted in the traditional press. You can take the time to explain why something is illegal or controversial or explore the different sides of an issue. Analysis is different from expressing opinion. When you analyze news you explain the events and put them in context. Opinion just means giving your personal thoughts, which should probably be kept to a minimum. The first thing to do in writing a blog news article is to find your sources. There are two kinds of sources, those you go to in order to find stories, and those you go to in order to do research. http://www.balancednewsblog.com/ http://www.cq.com - cqpolitics http://hosted.ap.org/ http://today.reuters.com/news/home.aspx http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/ http://www.tass.ru/eng/ http://www.afp.com/english/home/ feed://rss.cnn.com/rss/cnn_topstories.rss feed://www.foxnews.com/xmlfeed/rss/0,4313,0,00.rss feed://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/rss/newsonline_uk_edition/front_page/rss.xml

The Rational Solution for Gay Marriage

Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:44:03 GMT

In Congress's recent consideration of a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, no one seemed to be asking the fundamental question which underlies the entire gay marriage issue. Marriage is first and foremost a religious institution. It is a fundamental sacrament in most churches. Why does the government think it should be in the marriage business in the first place. What right do they have to dictate a matter of faith or to decide who can or can't get married in the first place? In all this talk about a Defense of Marriage Amendment our legislators seem to have missed the fact that we already have an amendment which defends marriage, the First Amendment. It clearly defends marriage as a sacrement of the church and declares it to be free from government interference when it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If my religion recognizes marriage as a sacrament and allows me to marry someone of the same gender, doesn't the First Amendment clearly say that Congress has no right to prohibit that exercise of religion and that I am free to practice that sacrament? To tell my church what it can and cannot define as a marriage seems like a total violation of this separation of church and state. Marriage isn't defined in the Constitution any more than Baptism or Confirmation is. The state doesn't try to interfere in those rituals. Why should it interfere in marriage? What we need here is not another amendment, but a clear decision from the Supreme Court declaring that the government has no jurisdiction over a religious institution like marriage. Then, if Congress wants to pass a law - it doesn't even have to be a Constitutional Amendment - which defines what kind of living relationships people can have, they should go to it. Of course any such law would need to pass muster under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, which would certainly rule out prohibiting same-sex relationships or polygamy or any other arrangement involving consenting adults. Once you take marriage out of the arena of law and give it back to the church where it belongs, then any relationship between two people for the purposes of creating a household, combining assets and other activities like raising a family becomes a purely contractual relationship and falls under common law and the partnership laws of the individual states, all of which recognize the right of individuals to enter into binding contracts for extended periods of time and assign rights and legal status to those partnerships under the law, and anything can be written into a partnership contract, including shared control of assets and by extension presumably of children as well. Boilerplate partnership contracts could easily be developed which covered material possessions, powers of attorney, guardianship of children and every other concern and the local courthouse could have different versions available for different needs, so you wouldn't have to pay for a lawyer. Couples or members of a plural marriage or any other type of partnership could then file their contract at their local courthouse and that would be that. Or if they wanted, they could go to a church which sanctioned their particular form of marriage and have it recognized as a marriage under the laws of that church with a ceremony and everything. And make no mistake, there are plenty of churches willing to marry just about anyone to anyone else, and if there aren't someone will certainly start one to fill the need. This seems like a simple, clean solution to this divisive problem. It doesn't violate the sacred institution of marriage - in fact it ends years of government violation of religious rights. It doesn't add more useless junk to the Constitution or waste more time and money on pointless unpassable legislation. Finally, it allows consenting adults to live however they want so long as it harms no one else. Marriage protected and equal rights for all. What more could either side of this debate ask for? And if they aren't satisifed with a solution like this, then let them tell us honestly what greater political agenda and moral values they're really trying to force down our throats?

Amnesty for Terrorists? Why Not?

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:58:23 GMT

On Wednesday information leaked from the office of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the Iraqi government was considering offering amnesty to terrorist groups who were willing to lay down their arms and cease hostilities. The reports were quickly repudiated in a statement issued later in the day, and Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi who had been the source of the leak was fired from the Maliki administration. In a public statement after his firing, Kadhimi stood by his assessment of the Iraqi administration's plans, saying: "The Prime Minister himself has said that he is ready to give amnesty to the so-called resistance, provided they have not been involved in killing Iraqis." Maliki's office was quick to distance itself from Kadhimi and to stress that any amnesty would only be considered for terrorists who had not killed US troops or Iraqi soldiers or civilians. Maliki went on to make a televised speech on Thursday where the issue of negotiating with terrorists was raised again with an emphasis that only those who did not have "Iraqi blood on their hands" would be approached. While talking to the Press on Wednesday, President Bush made a lot of use of the term 'reconcilliation' in the context of Iraq, which many of his opponents have interpreted as a subtle statement of support for this idea of offering an olive branch to selected terrorist groups. And it does seem likely that President Bush is aware of Prime Minister Maliki's intentions and that the US leadership in Iraq may also be involved in considering this course of action. In reaction, many on the left have gone absolutely berserk over this possibility. People who a week ago were shouting for us to get out of Iraq and basically give the country to the terrorists are now demanding that we draw a line in the sand and refuse to give a single inch. People who were shouting about the Maliki administration being a US puppet government are now demanding that we stop them from acting on this idea and tell them how to deal with their internal problems. A whole gaggle of Democrat politicians held a press conference to express their outrage, led by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who said:

"It is shocking that the Iraqi prime minister is reportedly considering granting amnesty to insurgents who have killed U.S. troops. On the day we lost the 2,500th soldier in Iraq, the mere idea that this proposal may go forward is an insult to the brave men and women who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom. I call on President Bush to denounce this proposal immediately."

What on earth could have caused this sudden change of so many Democrats from doves to hawks overnight? Could it be the possibility that if Maliki can persuade most of the more moderate terrorists to lay down their arms, Iraq might not turn into the disaster they've been saying it is and it might even start to get sorted out before the midterm elections? When you look at it, are negotiations with some of the terrorist groups such a bad idea, and might this not be the right time to do it? You always want to go into negotiations from a position of strength. With sources inside Iraq suggesting that with the death of Zarqawi the Al Qaeda forces there are in total disarray and their own internal memos indicating that they are feeling 'gloomy' about their prostpects, and with a massive cleanup of Baghdad underway with 75,000 Iraqi troops hunting down terrorist cells, it looks very much like the Iraqi government is in the kind of strong position where they can afford to offer the hand of peace to some of the more legitimate groups, like the Shiite militias and bring them into the political process. If that takes amnesty, then it ought to be on the table. We've negotiated with terrorists throughout our history. We negotiated with the Viet Cong. We negotiated with the PLO. Today's terrorist may be remembered in history as a freedom fighter. Remember, our country was founded by terrorists - read up on the Sons of Liberty sometime. In fact, we've already negotiated with insurgents in Iraq during the course of the war, reaching accomodations with moderate militias in Basra and other areas to function as auxiliaries of the Iraqi military. So why not negotiate? Why not further isolate the truly criminal terrorists in Iraq by extending some consideration to those whose terrorism is more the product of internal Iraqi politics than of some grand Jihad? Making a few deals would make it much easier to hunt down and eliminate the real bad guys - hell, the militias will probably help us do it. What's more, if we've set Iraq up to be a sovereign nation, shoudn't it be the Iraqi leadership, who will have to deal with these people in the long run, who make the decision on how to treat them? It certainly shouldn't be Democrats on Capitol Hill who've been giving aid and comfort to these terrorists for years, just because the political winds are blowing against them now. I guess I'm weird because I'd like to see the War in Iraq end quickly with the establishment of law, order and a successful democratic government for the Iraqis. If that means negotiating with some terrorists, why the hell shouldn't we? I'd be outraged if our government and the Iraqi leaders weren't considering it.

Love Him or Hate Him, Karl Rove is a Survivor

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:05:22 GMT

After testifying five times about his involvement in the 'outing' of CIA operative Valerie Plame, Senior Whitehouse Advisor Karl Rove was finally notified this week that he would not face charges for his role in leaking her identity to the press. His attorney commented:

"We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr Rove's conduct."

Others were far less pleased. Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean commented:

"He does not belong in the White House. If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So, I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it is not very good news for America."

The final word on the subject went to President Bush at his press conference on Wednesday morning, where he said:

"I appreciate the job that the prosecutor did. I thought he conducted himself well in this investigation. He took a very thorough, long look at allegations and rumors. And I, obviously, along with others in the White House, took a sigh of relief when he made the decision he made. And now we're going to move forward. And I trust Karl Rove, and he's an integral part of my team."

As the news of his emergence from the shadow of prosecution was spreading, Rove was already out in public, apparently having dropped some weight and looking fitter and more energetic than he has in years, defending the President and promoting his policies in a series of public appearances and speeches. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the ormer Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney still faces charges for perjury and obstruction of justice. The main difference between Libby and Rove appears to be that Rove cooperated with the investigation and Libby did not. As in the Clinton impeachment, the main issue here was not the actions of the principles involved, but their attempts to cover them up by lying to the grand jury. What seems quite clear in this case is that ignorance is to some degree a defense in the eyes of the law, because Rove's main argument was that he didn't realize that Plame still had a covert identity because she was not actively working undercover and her role with the CIA was so widely known in Washington. That argument likely also clears anyone else at the Whitehouse who critics might have hoped would eventually be indicted. In the end, despite a personna which will likely always be controversial, Karl Rove wins another victory and the President continues to stand by him.

"Hadji Girl" - Silly Song or War Crime?

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:05:37 GMT

Controversy is growing over the release of an amateur video of what appears to be a singing U.S. Marine performing a song called "Hadji Girl" while people in the background laugh and applaud. The video was first released on the video-sharing network YouTube which features a wealth of silly and bizarre amateur videos. It eventually came to the attention of the frequent terrorist-apologists at The Council on American-Islamic Relations who complained to YouTube and issued an enraged press release, with the result that YouTube yanked the video, the press began playing up the controversy and immediately every teenager who had downloaded a copy re-uploaded it to YouTube.

HADJI GIRL I was out in the sands of Iraq, and we were under attack, and I, well I didn�t know where to go. Then the first thing that I see is everybody�s favorite BurgerKing. So I threw open the door and I hit the floor. Then suddenly to my suprise, I looked up and I saw her eyes, and I knew it was love at first sight. And she said� Dirka dirka Muhammed jihad sherpa sherpa bakala. Hadji girl I can�t understand what you say. And she said Dirka dirka Muhammed jihad sherpa sherpa bakala. Hadji girl I love you anyway. And she said that she wanted me to see; She wanted my to go meet her family But I, well I couldn�t figure out how to say 'no', Cause I dont speak Arabic, so� She took me down an old dirt trail And we pulled up to a side shanty And she threw open the door And I hit the floor� Cuz her brother and her father shot her. Dirka dirka Muhammed jihad sherpa sherpa bakala They pulled out their AKs so I could see and they said Dirka dirka Muhammed jihad sherpa sherpa bakala so I grabbed her little sister and put her in front of me. As the bullets began to fly the blood sprayed from between her eyes and then I laughed maniacally. Then I hid behind the TV and I locked and loaded my M16, I blew those little fuckers to eternity. And I said Dirka dirka Muhammed jihad sherpa sherpa bakala. They shoulda known they were fuckin with a Marine

The video features a man dressed in camouflage pants and an olive-green t-shirt with a miltiary-style haircut - to all appearances a Marine - playing guitar and singing while the recording picks up laughter and applause from the background. The song is clearly intended to be humorous, and the crowd heard on the video clearly appreciates the humor. However, the lyrics of the song and its references to violence both to and by moslems were not at all appreciated by CAIR, who apparently have a different take on what's amusing. The Marine Corps doesn't seem to be amused either and strongly condemned the video as "clearly inappropriate and contrary to the high standards expected of all Marines." The reaction in the blogosphere has been to disseminate the video everywhere, even as friends of the marine involved are attempting to discourage any further distribution and get it off of sites where it has already been posted. Not wanting that to happen, CAIR has even posted it on their website. The written reaction has been mixed, from right wing blogs like General Quarters calling the singer "the finest stage talent the Marine Corps has EVER produced!" to those on the left who are cursing it for everything from insensitivity to being an outright war crime. Interestingly, the video has been circulating on the internet for several months with little public reaction or criticism from Moslem groups until this week, when it CAIR discovered it and has made much of the video in the context of the Haditha incident. The video itself is ambiguous in a number of ways. There's no indication who the singer is, where he is, and what his status as a Marine is. While he's wearing what look like military clothes he is not technically in uniform and has no insignia of rank or unit visible. There's also the issue of the sound quality of the video. The audio track appears to be out of sequence with the video and may even have been recorded separately and combined with the video. While lip reading suggests that most of the lyrics are the same in the audio and video, the fact that they are out of synchronization raises a lot of questions. CAIR has been accused of misrepresenting the nature and content of the song. Clearly it's a song about the Iraq war, but at the same time it's obviously satire - the oft-repeated nonsense phrase having been drawn directly from the movie Team America: World Police. In addition, contrary to CAIR's claims, the song is not about murdering Iraqi civilians, but appears to clearly be about a soldier who is lured into danger by terrorists and defends himself. It isn't the Marine who starts the violence, but the family of the 'Hadji Girl' who shoot her and her sister to get to him. Plus there's a dark irony in the final refrain where by repeating the nonsense words of the terrorists the Marine demonstrates that he has become like them. Yes, the images are ugly and the tone is jingoistic, but it's hardly as terrible as some are making it out to be. Although the Marine who sings the song in the video has not been officially identified, some comments have surfaced on the internet from people in the service who claim to know him and to have been present when the song was performed. According to those sources he is not referring to any specific incident, and the song was written immediately after and in the context of having viewed the movie Team America: World Police. In addition, the singer has not been deployed in combat in Iraq and there's nothing autobiographical about the song, contrary to suggestions which have been made by some critics. CAIR is, of course, demanding that the singer be disciplined, and it's quite likely that by this point he has been identified, but as yet there has been no statement from the Pentagon regarding his identity or his fate. There's a long history of the 'barracks-room ballad' - humorous songs written during wartime about the enemy, like the famous Colonel Bogey's March during World War II. The tradition goes back as long as there have been wars. I actually presented a paper at a conference about war ballads of the 14th century. When these songs originate with the troops they tend to be scatalogical, graphic and pretty dark. In past eras they've circulated quietly and then ultimately been recorded nostalgically after the fact and become part of our cultural heritage. The existence of video and the internet has taken them out of the barracks and put them on the front lines of the propaganda war which now accompanies every conflict. What's truly unfortunate about this video is the use to which it is being put. Taking it at face value and setting aside all the questions about the origin and nature of the video, what we're dealing with here is basically a silly song from some soldiers who are blowing off steam about the frustrating nature of the war they're in. The real tragedy is that in our overexposed culture their private moment of humor has now gotten out into a public forum where it cannot be just laughed off as it would have been...

Reforming the UN

Sat, 10 Jun 2006 16:59:06 GMT

The UN is in the midst of a crisis. Superfically it is a crisis caused by corruption and incompetence, but at a deeper level it is a crisis of legitimacy. The UN lacks the basic ethical foundation to function with legitimate authority as a world peacekeeping body. The UN is a democratic organization. You know, democracy. That stuff the USA so energetically and enthusiastically exports to the rest of the world. How on earth could you possibly object to a working democratic organization? While it may technically be a democracy because it votes on things, it isn't representative in any sense of the word. First off, in the general assembly every nation has an equal vote regardless of population or any other consideration, including whether that government is itself legitimately elected. Plus some of those dictatoriships are represented on the Security Council, which is absolutely unacceptable. This was a problem we had in the US over 200 years ago in the Confederation Congress and we were able to figure out a solution. The Security Council itself is unfair and undemocratic. It arbitrarily empowers certain nations over others in many cases with little or no justification or contrary to any kind of good sense. If you want a working UN it needs to be restructured to actually be representative. This can be done in the following ways: 1. No nation which doesn't have a verifiably and popularly elected government with a working legal system should be allowed a vote at the UN. They can be provisional, non-voting members. 2. There should be a two-house system of government, with one house representing the populations of the member states, with 1 representative for each 10 million population in that nation and one representative for all nations with less than that total population. There should be an upper house with representation based on GDP, with 1 representative for each 1 trillion in GDP. Both houses should have to agree on all legislation with the upper house proposing and framing all legislation involving spending or appropriations. Alternatively, if you don't like a 2 house system, you could make representation based on a combination of population and GDP. 3. The UN should have the ability to determine its own taxation rate and all members should be required to participate. Provisional members should pay a flat fee. All others should pay proportional to GDP. How that money is raised is up to the individual nations involved. The tax should be constitutionally capped at no more than .5% of GDP. That would be $72 billion for the US. 4. The court system should be constitutionally limited to jurisdiction only over disputes between member nations and issues which are strictly international in nature. 5. There should be a prohibition against any form of standing army. This should be part of a clearly written bill of rights applying to INDIVIDUALS, protecting them from the UN and their own governments. In the USA's case, by withholding vast sums of money and in the process both financially and politically weakening it seems to be the preferred choice. The irony of the situation seems to escape almost all of you. What the US is doing is the MOST democratic form of protest. We are withholding our support from a pseudogovernment which doesn't make any effort to look out for our interests and actively works against our welfare in many situations. Since the UN is not democratic in any way except for the money it asks for, that's where the real voting power lies. Furthermore, the USA lacks any credible claim to the moral high ground. If it was genuinely interested in ridding the world of some of the most corrupt and evil regimes in history, it would be invading countries like Burma and Zimbabwe not failed states like Afghanistan or Iraq. What does moral high ground have to do with anything? The UN includes these repressive regimes as full voting members and does nothing to discipline them. They even put murderous governments on the human rights and security councils. They have no moral standing at all. We at least have the moral position of knowing something is wrong with the UN and not being willing to put up with it. You really need to clear the blinders from your eyes. The UN is no more your friend than the giant, bloodsucking bureaucracy of the EU is. Dave

The Price of Gas - Not High Enough Yet

Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:56:25 GMT

You've probably noticed that gas prices here in the United States have been at 'historic' high levels for quite a while now. What that means is that they're super high compared to what we've gotten used to, but not quite as high as they were under Jimmy Carter when prices are adjusted for inflation. Everyone's moaning and whining about how much they're paying. Right now it's an average of an extra $500 per vehicle per year compared with a couple of years ago, and that's a shock. It's counteracted some of the benefits of the Bush tax rebates, it's breaking the back of the working man, it's going to lead to runaway inflation, and so on - or so they tell us again and again. Here's the truth. Gas prices have been artificially low in the US for decades. It's been great for the auto industry, and it has helped keep other consumer prices down, but it's also built up hugely false expectations, led to dangerous complacency in a number of industries, devastated our balance of trade, and cost us a good measure of our economic independence. People in every other country around the world are paying about twice what we pay for gas, and they find a way to live with it. Right now we only see the short-term cost, but maybe it's time to look at the long-term benefits of higher gas prices and finally embrace reality and encourage them to go even higher. Yes, lower gas prices do save us gas money and let us drive bigger and more expensive cars. They also slightly reduce the prices of most consumer goods which are distributed nationwide by truck. Here's what low gas prices have also done. � They've destroyed our domestic oil industry by making it unprofitable to exploit the massive oil resources here in the US. � They've destroyed the railroad industry because they make trucking goods cheap enough that trucks can outperform railroads which are by nature a more cost effective and efficient means of transporting goods. � They've encouraged stagnation in the auto industry. Better, more efficient engines have been designed, but because gas prices have been so low the market demand for them is low, so they aren't being produced with much enthusiasm. � As a side effect of this, low gas prices also contribute to higher levels of pollution because they encourage us to drive more than we really need to and not use alternatives. � They increase the tax burden for everyone because high levels of traffic increase maintenance cost for highways. � They've encouraged urban sprawl which has spread people out too much and made urban mass transport impractical and expensive. � Dependence on low gas prices has put us at the economic mercy of terrorist nations in the Middle East which we depend on for our supply � They've even been a large factor in the near disappearance of the family farm, because with cheap trucking it's easier to bring in produce from outside of the country or from huge agrobusinesses than to buy from small local producers. The list goes on and on. Low gas prices are at the root of many of the long-term economic problems we face today. Yes, high gas prices hit us hard in the wallet. But what's the natural response to an unexpected expense? You look for ways to economize. You don't like paying so much for gas for your Hummer? Go out and buy a smaller car. Go out and buy an electric car. Go out and buy a hybrid car. Drive a car that runs on a non-petroleum fuel - they do exist. Ever heard of Ethanol or Biodiesel? You might even take a look at public transportation. Your parents and grandparents probably used it and they survived. Low gas prices discourage innovation and the introdcution of new technology Did you know that a company called UQM Technologies has developed a hybrid engine for the Hummer? But because gas prices have been so low, it hasn't been planning to make it available to the public and is just selling it to the military. Similarly, Dodge has a high-efficiency hybrid pickup that can run on biodiesel - a brilliant combination - but they aren't marketing it to consumers because cheap gas keeps demand down. Several companies even have viable electric cars ready to go to market as well. They've just held off from major distribution because they couldn't compete with regular cars because gas prices have been so low. Similarly, distribution of alternative fuels for the already existing vehicles which can run on them has been slow because it was hard to compete with gas on price. Biodiesel sells for about $2.75 and pure Ethanol for around $3. The gas price has to get higher than that before they're competitive. Until then they're just much lower polluting and cooler than petroleum. Higher gas prices would change all of this. Higher gas prices mean that you might soon be able to buy a Hummer which gets better gas mileage than a mid-size sedan does now. Higher gas pricew would mean: � Instead of buying foreign oil we could use our vast domestic resources of harder to access oil like oil shale, which would create lots of jobs and business revenue � Reducing our trade deficit and making the economy stronger by importing far less gas at a disadvantageous price. � A rebirth of the failing railroad industry so we wouldn't have to bail it out every few years. � Giving the lazy car companies a kick the right direction and putting new and more efficient technology on the fast track. � The return of farmers markets, farm cooperatives, a boom in small farms and the end of farm subsidies - all because it would become more economical to produce locally than trucking produce nationwide. Not to mention the huge growth in agriculture for the production of biodiesel and ethanol. � Less endless highway construction to accomodate ever growing numbers of cars. � Lower state and local taxes for road maintenance on roads which will handle less traffic. � New and better transportation networks, making attractive but impractical systems like light rail a truly viable option. � Reduced pollution, first from people driving less and ultimately from increased use of more fuel efficient and less polluting vehicles. � A much stronger economy because all of these things would create jobs and opportunities to make money and start new businesses. Every additional cent you pay for gas is an investment in strengthening our economy, improving our environment, and making our nation more independent. Do you like paying money to oil shieks who pass it on to terrorists? Realistically, our current gas prices around $3 a gallon aren't quite high enough to cause all these changes quickly - that's actually still a relatively low price compared to other parts of the world. We're getting closer and things are slowly changing, but to see real change we need to head for $4 a gallon or break the $5 barrier. What we really need on top of this increase in gas prices is a whopping big federal gas tax. Don't expect to see such a move from the Bush administration, but a $1 a gallon tax on gas would push the price high enough to bring about immediate change, plus it would put enough revenue into the federal coffers that they could balance the budget and pay for the War in Iraq and maybe even keep lowering our taxes at the same time. Another quarter or so in state taxes would solve state budget problems just as quickly. Conservatively, with a $1 tax on each...

Set PBS Free!

Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:49:04 GMT

I love groups like MoveOn.org. They send out emails about all sorts of issues so that I can go and figure out exactly what efforts they're putting forth and how best to oppose them. This week they've got a bee in their bonnet about the attempt of the evil House Republicans to kill PBS and NPR, starting (accoring to them) with Sesame Street. Yes, Bert and Ernie have been denied their right to gay muppet marriage, and now they're going to be consigned to oblivion by the meanies on the Hill. We're in a budget crunch, and the cuts have to come somewhere, and some bean counter decided that providing free entertainment in competition with commercial networks wasn't a good use of government money. Go figure. They've actually been trying to cut PBS funding every year, but it's awfully hard to drive pigs away from the trough. The impact on PBS programming from these cuts would be fairly severe, basically cutting off all government funding by 2010, as the MoveOn.org letter points out:

"President Bush's budget proposed cuts to NPR and PBS, but Congress is going even further: slashing 23% of this year's public broadcasting budget�$115 million�and denying NPR and PBS any funding in two years. The cuts immediately terminate support for commercial-free children's shows like "Sesame Street," "Clifford," and "Maya and Miguel."

What they fail to point out is that all three of the programs they mention are available for commercial syndication and are marketed as commercial programming in other countries, plus they have merchandising deals which bring in enormous amounts of revenue, all for the producers rather than CBS. Public broadcasting would lose nearly a quarter of its federal funding this year. Even worse, all funding would be eliminated in two years�threatening one of the last remaining sources of watchdog journalism.2 Can you ask 3 friends to sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS again this year? http://civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/?id=7965-6388552-xLVbUQaj7GychdsKb.ek2A&t=2 Last year, over 1 million of us signed the petition, and Congress listened. We can do it again if you pass this message along to any friends, neighbors, or co-workers who count on NPR and PBS for news or children's programming. This would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting. The Boston Globe reports the cuts "could force the elimination of some popular PBS and NPR programs." NPR's president expects rural public radio stations may be forced to shut down. The lawmakers who proposed the cuts aren't just trying to save money in the budget�they're trying to decimate any news outlets willing to ask tough questions of those in power. Americans trust public broadcasting more than any corporate news media.3 This is an ideological attack on our free press. President Bush's budget proposed cuts to NPR and PBS4, but Congress is going even further: slashing 23% of this year's public broadcasting budget�$115 million�and denying NPR and PBS any funding in two years. The cuts immediately terminate support for commercial-free children's shows like "Sesame Street," "Clifford," and "Maya and Miguel." The House and Senate are deciding if public broadcasting will survive, and they need to hear from viewers like you. Ask 3 friends to sign the petition at: http://civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/?id=7965-6388552-xLVbUQaj7GychdsKb.ek2A&t=3 Thank you for all you do. �Noah, Eli, Adam G., Tom, Marika and the MoveOn.org Civic Action Team �Thursday, June 8th, 2006 � P.S. You can learn more about the threat to public broadcasting from our friends at Free Press at: http://www.freepress.net/publicbroadcasting/ Sources: 1. "GOP takes aim at PBS funding," Boston Globe, June 8, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1864&id=7965-6388552-xLVbUQaj7GychdsKb.ek2A&t=4 PBS' Ready to Learn program (funds "Sesame Street" and other children's shows) http://www.pbs.org/readytolearn/ 2. "CPB Responds to House Appropriations Subcommittee's Proposed Funding Levels for Public Broadcasting," Corporation for Public Broadcasting, June 7, 2006 http://www.cpb.org/pressroom/release.php?prn=551 3. "2005 'Open to the Public' Objectivity and Balance Report," Corporation for Public Broadcasting, January 31, 2006 http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/goals/objectivity/ 4. "Bush Budget Pumps Propaganda, Slashes PBS," MediaCitizen, February 7, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1865&id=7965-6388552-xLVbUQaj7GychdsKb.ek2A&t=5 The folks at freepress.net have sent out a letter to rally support for the public broadcasting system which is under attack by the new head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson. As was done when the CPB was founded, he's loading the agency up with politically partisan administrators. The difference is that his minions are conservative, while the tradition of the agency descends from the Kennedy/Johnson era and has preserved their liberalism. Freepress.net is a typically misnamed left-wing organization which isn't so much interested in a free press as they are in a leftist press. They're relentlessly anti-administration and so far to the left that they don't represent anyone in the mainstream of current US politics. They're in the same quasi-socialist camp as moveon.org. This isn't entirely obvious on their relatively respectable website, but if you go to the slightly different address of freepress.org it takes you to their activist website where their extremism and their agenda are entirely clear. They're not interested in an actual free press, they're much more interested in suppressing speech which doesn't fit with their political perspective. That background having been established, here is their letter - specific commentary follows:

Dear Media Reformer: I'm writing to ask you to help save America's public broadcasting system from political interference. PBS and NPR -- America's two most-trusted sources of news and information -- are under assault from Kenneth Tomlinson, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Tomlinson has suppressed polling data, which shows overwhelming public support for PBS and NPR, to push through a series of initiatives designed to reshape public broadcasting as a mouthpiece for the White House. He has hijacked the CPB's nonpartisan mandate to stack the agency with conservative political operatives and push programming on PBS and NPR further to the right. Tomlinson has done all of this without once consulting Americans, a vast majority of whom find public broadcasting to be trustworthy and "fair and balanced" compared to other national news sources. Last Sunday at the National Conference for Media Reform,...

Conservative Music?

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:53:33 GMT
Conservatives don't really think of themselves as conservatives. They're young rebels who grew up and got rational. So what they like in music is what they liked when they were young, even if there's the superficial appearance that their political views no longer match those expressed in the music they like.

Panderfest 2006

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:50:56 GMT
First gay marriage, now immigration. Next abortion?

Panderfest 2006

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:50:45 GMT

Illegal Immigration: A Case Study

Tue, 06 Jun 2006 01:14:36 GMT
This past weekend here in Austin we were handed a perfect object lesson of the nature of illegal immigration and immigration enforcement courtesy of gun-toting INS agents looking to make an example and score some PR points for Governor Petty and President Bush. Early Saturday morning java junkies at the Texas French Bread near the University of Texas were shocked when INS agents charged into the building with their guns drawn, heading for the kitchens in search of illegal aliens. They emerged a few minutes later with five people who were dragged away in handcuffs. Of those five, four were deported immediately without even so much as a hearing under the fast-track deportation provisions of the Secure Borders Act. One had the number of a lawyer and is still in the country and will presumably enjoy some limited measure of due process before being given the boot. What makes the case interesting is the details of who the immigrants were and their actual social and economic status. If you believe the portrait of immigration painted by the scaremongers - by the Rep. James Sensenbrenners of the world - you'd expect these illegals to be borderline criminals, working unskilled jobs for below market wages, paying no taxes, stealing free health care and sending all their money home to their families in Mexico. You'd also expect the employer to be a modern Simon Lagree, stealing from willing Americans to cut costs, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the illegal workers and exploiting them every way that he can. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. All five of these workers were hired on the basis of what appeared to be legitimate work visas and social security cards. The employer had no idea that they were illegals and no reason to question them based on their documentation. It was not a matter of turning a blind eye. He had specifically checked their papers and they seemed legitimate. Rather than being paid slave wages they were being paid the same wage as his other employees. The lowest paid was receiving $9.50 an hour and the highest paid was working as a store manager, a salaried job paying about $30,000 a year. Taxes were being withheld from their paychecks, including Social Security and Medicare. It's quite likely that some of them even had health insurance. All five of the workers had been with the company for several years. One of them had worked for Texas French Bread for over a decade. All of them had families with children living here in the United States, entirely in the open and not part of some sort of underground conspiracy. They all appear to have been functional English speakers. In the aftermath of the raid, the bakery has had trouble finding skilled workers to replace the deported immigrants, and the owner has had to work in the kitchen until replacements can be found. So what we're talking about here are not some day-laborer vagrants you can pick up at Home Depot. They're solid, lower and lower-middle income skilled workers. They're fully contributing members of the community, earning wages, paying taxes, spending money and taking nothing from the government or society which they haven't earned. In short, they're just like the rest of us, but for one difference - that armed men were able to legally come and take them from their homes and jobs and send them to Mexico with no notice, minimal evidence and none of the legal protections the rest of us enjoy. Texas French Bread owner Murph Wilcott expressed the his own dismay and the concerns of the community when he commented:
"These people paid taxes. They worked like crazy. The people that they took away hadn't done anything wrong...It's violent what they did. They came and raped my business."
He raises the point that's often overlooked in the debate over illegal immigration. The truth is that most of these illegal immigrants don't come here to cause trouble or commit crimes or take advantage of the system. Most of them come here, get jobs and work just like any other American. As was the case with the five taken in this raid, they were indistinguishable from their native co-workers, just workers filling a need and supporting their families. Many other illegals fall into this same category of working under forged papers and bogus Social Security Numbers, and it raises an interesting question. The nativist crowd moan and rant about illegals taking social and medical services without paying into the system in any way. But these workers and others like them paid into all of our various tax-based programs and would likely never receive services of value equal to their contribution to those systems. They'd certainly never see any of the money they paid into social security again, which raises the interesting issue of how much the floundering social security system depends on the contributions of illegals who will never draw benefits from it, because the payments go to a number that doesn't really exist. A quick calculation suggests that even if only half of the illegal immigrants pay taxes, they basically donate $7.5 billion a year to the system to help underwrite everyone else's costs. Can Social Security afford to lose that money. While we're considering implications, imagine what might have happened under some of the draconian new laws being considered in the Congress. Murph Wilcott, who was just hiring the best workers he could find and paying them a fair wage, would face the real possibility of jail time even though he checked the workers documents as well as he could. Nativists are pushing for using measures against employers as the hammer to drive immigrants out of jobs and out of the country, so they're advocating zero tolerance and harsh penalties. Jail time hardly seems fair for someone who's just trying to run a small business and satisfy his customers. By the way, Texas French Bread makes a damned fine baguette, excellent croissants and has branched out into sandwiches, lunch fare and gourmet coffee. They're a nice homegrown alternative to the chain coffee and pastry franchises. If you live in Austin stop by and show your support and fill your tummy.

Live Music: Beausoleil at The Oaks

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 06:10:09 GMT
As I've mentioned before, there's a new nightspot called The Oaks just down the road from my house out here in eastern Travis County. Our neighborhood hasn't traditionally been the center of the phenomenal Austin music scene - everything seems to start downtown and move west rather than east - and that makes The Oaks a kind of musical pioneer encampment braving the wilds of the eastside. I've been waiting for the right opportunity to go to The Oaks and it came my way on Friday when my wife spotted the name Beausoleil on their marquee. For those shamefully unfamiliar with the musical heritage of Louisiana, Beausoleil is the premier cajun band in the world with 10 grammy nominations, and a win in 1997 for Best Traditional Folk Album. The sextet is led by the Doucet brothers, Michael and David on fiddle and guitar respectively, joined by Jimmy Breaux on accordion, Al Tharp on bass and Billy Ware and Tommy Alessi on drums. They've been together for 30 years with 20 albums and a new live compilation CD available from Vanguard Records. Their music is distinctively cajun in style, with traditional beats and lots of dance-style tunes heavy on accordian and fiddle, but it also includes a lot of folk and blues influences. I've seen Beausoleil quite a few times since they make Austin a regular stop on any tour. I've got great memories of dancing with my wife and eldest daughter to their waltzes and zydeco two-steps. The wife was game to see them again, and while number one offspring is now too cool at 14 to go to clubs with her parents, we've got a new youngster who loves to dance, so it was like old times, but in a new location. The Oaks seems a little unprepossessing from the street (F.M. 973). It looks like a primitive roadhouse, hammered together from old boards and tin siding. It's been enhanced with excellent signs and decorations painted by legendary local artists Jim Franklin and Hank Rodriquez, but it still looks pretty much like a big shack. Inside the atmosphere is 100% genuine rural barroom - it's the atmosphere which a lot of chain restaurants pathetically try to copy, but at The Oaks it's authentic, left over from a past history as a rural saloon and barbeque joint going back for decades. The Oaks starts to look more impressive when you go through the bar and out onto the back deck with its view of the covered, expandible stage, large dance floor and state-of-the-art stadium-style bleachers, plus some nicely placed tables around the dance floor and on the deck. In fact, the corner of the deck probably has the best view of the stage. It's one of the nicest outdoor venues I've seen, with room for lots of people and plenty of seating for those of us who are aging and don't want to have to stand in a sweaty crowd but still want a good view. It's in the tradition of local favorites like The Backyard and Stubbs, but it's bigger than Stubbs and better laid out than The Backyard. As for the music, it was everything we expected and more. We missed the opening band, but got there a few minutes before Beausoleil went on. They played a good, long set, with a lot of their favorites and some classics including their great version of the Big Joe Wilson standard Baby Please Don't Go which is even better when transformed from delta blues to cajun swing, and still holds up after 70 years. Once some problems with the sound levels on David Doucet's guitar were worked out, the sound quality was great. The acoustics were perfect - you could hear clearly but it wasn't too loud even right up by the stage. There was much dancing and other fun on the dance floor, and since The Oaks is kid friendly I was out there with our 3 year old, dancing and giggling and throwing her in the air. She didn't quite get the concept of waltzing, but as long as there was dipping and she got carried most of the time she had a blast. She was one of several kids in her age range and they all seemed to be having a great time while their parents enjoyed the music on a more cerebral level. The dancing wore the little one out pretty fast. We took a break and she fell asleep in her mom's lap a bit over an hour into the show. We stayed for a while longer, but ultimately the old parents got worn out too, so we headed home before midnight came and we turned into pumpkins. When we left Beausoleil was still going strong, giving the audience their all as they've been doing for 30 years, delivering timeless music performed with panache and virtuosity. Beausoleil was great, but I also have to give high marks to The Oaks itself. It's a near-perfect, Austin style musical experience. From the rustic barroom to the sophisticated performance facilities, it's a brilliant combination of the rough and the refined, the rustic tradition of the honkytonk with the needs of contemporary performance quality. The only catch is that the stage is outdoors, but performances are at night when it's usually passably cool, and that doesn't seem to have hurt the success of major venues like Stubbs - it's often the only practical way to accomodate a large crowd. One thing troubled me about the experience. Beausoleil should be a huge draw, but by my count there were just over 100 people there for the show. Beausoleil was followed the night after by W. C. Clark who has a strong local following and a quick survey of the parking lot suggested that turnout wasn't much better. Admittedly, The Oaks has only been open for a bit over three months, but if it's going to keep attracting major talent they've got to have decent audiences, because audiences pay the cover and buy the booze and that gets the bands paid and keeps them coming back. I had a chat with Steve Dean, the mastermind behind The Oaks while we waited for Beausoleil to come on. He's got lots experience managing Austin-area venues, including the Austex Lounge and others, but it's still a pretty bold move to strike out east of the city when most of the money and the trendy set go downtown or west. I think it's a fantastic idea and it deserves to be a huge success, but he's pioneering in what's basically a musical and cultural wilderness. The population of Manor and the surrounding area is growing fast, and there's a good mix of middle class and more affluent developments, but it's still not the same sophisticated market as downtown or West Austin. Steve clearly hopes that booking popular local acts and perennial favorites will bring crowds out from the city and establish repeat business so he doesn't have to rely on the local market alone, but I fear we're benefiting more from his efforts than he is right now. He does have a pretty solid lineup of acts for the next couple of months as he works to get The Oaks established and attract some attention. Local favorite Vallejo may go over big with the Manor area population, and the grammy winning country of Bobby Flores is going to be featured the fourth Friday of every month. He's also got regular shows set up for some popular Austin acts like Rotel and the Hot Tomatoes, plus there's a Singer/Songwriter showcase with Dave Insley and...

Rick Perry Saves America from La Reconquista

Fri, 02 Jun 2006 02:54:56 GMT
Texas Governor Rick Perry and his amazing hair held a press conference today to announce that through pure genius and superhuman effort he's going to singlehandedly save America from the flood of illegal aliens. Not content to let Senators and Congressmen hash out their differences over immigration on the federal level, Perry - who faces a bizarre four-way election this fall - has decided to take the initiative on the state level and put forward a unique and creative plan for dealing with immigration here in Texas, where we have the longest border with Mexico and therefore the most opportunities to address immigration enforcement directly. Perry's plan takes advantage of an accidental budget surplus created by neglecting school finance reform and instituting a variety of rapacious fees on businesses to spend $20 million to expand the presence of state law enforcement on the border. But the real lynchpin of his plan is $5 million 'virtual border enforcement' in the form of motion detectors and night-vision video surveillance equipment all along the border, particularly at popular crossings, to identify and monitor border crossings. The fun part of this plan is that it gives the whole online population the opportunity to become Minutemen in their own dens, because Perry is going to put live feeds from the cameras on the web, with a toll-free number that you can call if you see any illegals in order to dispatch state troopers to catch them red handed. Perry commented "we will post this video on the Internet -- in real time -- so that concerned Americans can help protect our nation through online neighborhood watch programs." You'll be sitting safe at home in your skivvies, watching endless hours of horny toads and coyotes, and if you're still awake and awfully lucky you might get to catch a glimpse of a pack of future lawn manicurists, live-in nannies and pool boys making their run for jobs and freedom. Then you grab the phone, call the Rangers, and they'll show up at the crossing spot hours later with no clue at all where the illegals went once they were off camera. Or more than likely the illegals will have taken the camera and headed off to sell it at a pawn shop in Laredo. Clearly there are some potential technical problems with this plan. Obviously the first thing those who do business on the border will want to do is disable or remove the cameras. Even if the cameras survive, it just doesn't seem likely that they'll produce good enough video to identify border crossers and it seems even more unlikely that border enforcement officers will be able to be dispatched quickly enough to respond effectively along a border that's over a thousand miles long. Then there's the question of viewer participation. Right now there are a lot of rabid xenophobes eager to cleanse the nation of foreign invaders, but their fervor is likely to wear off in the face of endless hours of tedious blurry nightvision shots of cacti, lizards and snakes. Then we might have $5 million worth of cameras with nobody watching them. There might be an unintended upside, though. With all those cameras it's possible that we'll finally be able to catch live video of El Chupacabra and make an invaluable contribution to cryptozoology. As election year grandstanding goes this really is a masterpiece. It cashes in perfectly on the current immigration mania, and offers the really appealing element of making people think that they can be involved in solving the problem. Getting them involved in this might actually get them out to vote, too. Objectively the plan is an idiotic waste of money, but it's going to look great to the uninformed and paranoid segement of the voting population. The papers haven't picked it up yet, but I expect it to be hitting the front pages tomorrow, catapulting Perry and his excellent hair ahead of his three gubernatorial challengers.

Betting on hurricanes

Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:06:15 GMT
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-06-01T162224Z_01_N31300899_RTRIDST_0_WEATHER-HURRICANES-ODDS.XML http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/weather/weblog/hurricane/archives/2005/07/betting_on_stor.html http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14692598.htm

Bush: A Legacy of Honorable and Failure

Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:13:03 GMT

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory or defeat." -- Theodore Roosevelt
in the autumn of his administration every president's thoughts turn to his legacy. His sleep is haunted by visions of the highschool classrooms of his grandchildren. Will he be remembered for his ideas, his achievements, the crises he faced, or for the scandals on his watch. Will his legacy be one of success or failure? Most presidents have a mixed legacy which combines victories and defeats. If he's lucky the wins outnumber the losses or he at least have some great achievement to hang his hat on and make sure that his footnote in history is a happy one. There are quite a few presidents who had troubled terms but are remembered positively because of one great accomplishment and others whose terms were fair overall but permanently tainted by one disaster. There are a few presidents who are in a special category where they tried to do all the right things, but for one reason or another were doomed to failure despite all their efforts. They were often ahead of their times or out of step with the political realities they had to deal with. Classic examples of presidents whose reach outstripped their grasp are John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren.

Ethanol Fuel Comes To Texas

Mon, 29 May 2006 20:28:39 GMT
No one drives more than Texans. Our cities are huge and sprawling, with downtown business centers located huge distances from where people live in suburbs or exurbs. My obervation on Dallas is that no matter where you live or where you're going it always takes 45 minutes to an hour to get there, and the same is true for most of the state. Here in Texas we literally live in our cars. I keep a laptop in my pickup because it's easier to just sit in the truck and work for a few hours than to take the time to drive home to my office after having driven all the way into town. In fact, I'm parked at a MacDonalds using their wireless internet right now. With the time we spend in our vehicles we like to get large and comfortable ones, like SUVs or fancy pickups or large luxury cars. Even with the new, higher fuel economy standards, they tend to guzzle gas, and at current prices that can be pretty painful. Plus, when you're driving 2 to 3 hours a day you start to feel guilty about all the pollutants your car is spewing out, no matter how warmly you feel about the Texas oil industry. The answer to this is alternative fuels and higher fuel economy vehicles. Hybrid engines are the main answer to the fuel economy problem, but progress on hybrid trucks and SUVs has been painfully slow, and the selection remains limited to either very expensive foreign SUVs like the Toyota Highlander, cramped little SUVs like the Ford Escape or the idiotically designed line of GM hybrid pickups which get the same gas mileage as their non-hybrids. None of these gets enough better gas mileage to justify the higher cost you pay for a hybrid over the life of the vehicle. To get decent return on your investment your hybrid really needs to be a compact or sub-compact car like the Prius, and no one wants to drive 3 hours a day scrunched up like a pretzel in one of those microscopic deathtraps. The real answer is alternative fuels which pollute less and have a lower cost. One alternative fuel option is biodiesel. Any diesel vehicle will run on it, it produces almost no pollution, and if you shop around it costs a little bit less than unleaded. The catch is that a diesel engine adds about $5000 to the cost of your vehicle, and there's a pretty limited selection and it's mostly large pickups. The only diesel SUVs are the tiny Jeep Liberty and the enormous, inefficient and overpriced Hummer. For most people the real alternative fuel option is a vehicle which will run on ethanol, or at least on E85 (85%) ethanol. There are lots of 'flex-fuel' vehicles which will run on E85, likely including the car you already own, but people aren't very aware of their existence. The real catch with E85 as an alternative fuel is that until recently there was nowhere between the Rockies and the Mississippi where you could buy E85. Even most of the states that grow the corn it's made from had virtually no retail outlets for it. Like biodiesel, which is becoming more available, it's getting easier to find ethanol based fuel as well. We're on the bring of an alternative fuel breakthrough for these two fuels which will run in vehicles which are already on the market and require no modifications. One of the main reasons for this is President Bush's energy initiative, which includes substantial tax credits for production of both ethanol and biodiesel and also changed the national fuel standards to replace toxic MTBE which was added at 15% to all petroleum fuel with pure ethanol. Starting about a month ago all of the gas you buy is E15, which will run in any gas vehicle and reduces a lot of harmful emissions. The increase in ethanol production to meet the new requirements also means that higher mixes of ethanol like E85 are going to be more and more widely available for those who want to use them. E85 does have a somewhat negative impact on gas mileage, but it also reduces emissions by about 40%. A modern engine produces very little pollution to start with, and if you run it on E85 it produces almost none. Biodiesel is still probably slightly better for fuel economy and low emissions, but it's a close race. The really good news with E85 is that because of the tax break and relatively low production costs of ethanol it's likely to be priced at least 30 cents a gallon less than unleaded in the same market, a price break which biodiesel won't be able to match until production increases substantially, and a market force which may lead to an explosion of consumer interest in E85. The first sign of the coming ethanol boom here in Texas - always the bellweather for fuel trends - is the entry of the H.E.B. chain of grocery stores into the market. H.E.B. owns a number of gas stations around the state. Starting this summer they plan to offer E85 at five of their stations located along the Interstate 35 corridor. H.E.B. has a reputation for innovative marketing, and this may be a pretty clever move for them. With a company as mainstream as H.E.B. embracing ethanol fuel it's reasonable to expect others to follow in their footsteps. Biodiesel is already expanding around the state, and the market for E85 is much larger, so if the marketplace works its usual magic, the combination of lower price and cleaner output ought to create a customer base and other fuel retailers should follow H.E.B. in anticipating or eventually responding to demand. Availability is the last barrier for alternative fuels. The vehicles have been here for years and now the fuel is going to be available as well. Too many people think of hydrogen or some other inconvenient, hypothetical or high-tech option when they think about alternative fuels. You don't need to modify your vehicle or wait for new technology. Alternative fuels are here now and they're cheaper and cleaner than petroleum. All you have to do is start using them.

Bush at Arlington - Memorial Day 2006

Mon, 29 May 2006 16:14:02 GMT
As he has every year since he was first elected, President Bush took a trip over Memorial Bridge this morning to Arlington Cemetery. There he paused to recognize the contributions made by our service men and women, both living and dead, to keeping America a free and sovereign nation. He spoke in the plaza around the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers. His speech was brief and to the point, lasting for less than half an hour. The audience was filled with veterans and their families and current members of the armed services and was very receptive to his simple message. It wasn't a long or complicated speech, but it had some very strong and memorable parts, particularly early in the speech when he said:
"All who are buried here understood their duty. They saw a dark shadow on the horizon, and went to meet it. They understood that tyranny must be met with resolve, and that liberty is always the achievement of courage."
A good, clear expression of the basic reasons why Americans have always gone to war. Most of the speech focused on the fallen veterans themselves and he included quotes from those who fell in several wars and left us their thoughts in final letters to their families. A quote from First Lieutenant Mark Dooley who was killed by a terrorist bomb in Iraq was particularly meaningful. He wrote to his parents: "Remember that my leaving was in the service of something that we loved, and be proud. The best way to pay respect is to value why a sacrifice was made." He concluded by saying:
"Our nation mourns the loss of our men and women in uniform; we will honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives -- by defeating the terrorists, by advancing the cause of liberty, and by laying the foundation of peace for a generation of young Americans."
An important reminder that despite all criticism and all the partisan confusion, what America and Americans fight for is always to spread freedom and the peace whcih makes it possible. It reminded me of Wilson's statement to Congress when asking for a declaration of war against Germany:
"America must fight, not to conquer, but for peace and justice. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make."
Like Bush, Wilson's presidency was troubled and like Bush he was also faced with challenges beyond his capabilities, but despite their shortcomings, both men seem to share an understanding of the basic nature of the American character and the principles we all believe in when our better natures hold sway over petty partisan allegiances and personal prejudices, as happens when we join together in times of great peril for the nation. This idea that America fights for freedom and for no other cause goes all the way back to the days of the Revolution and the writing of Thomas Paine in The Crisis:
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."
What we should never forget is that today, as was the case in Wilson's day and in Paine's, what we ultimately fight for is always freedom - be it freedom from foreign domination or the tyrrany of terror - regardless of the distractions and baser motivations of some among us. To dedicate our lives and the lives of our young men and women to any lesser cause would be to fail the generations which have gone before. This is a truth which you cannot ignore when you stand before row upon row of white crosses at Arlington.

A Memorial Day Poem: Life in a Time of Death

Mon, 29 May 2006 03:53:57 GMT
There was a time when I was possessed by the poetic muse and spat out poetry compulsively. I even made some money at it, which is something, since 'Poet' isn't exactly listed on the Business Week catalog of the top paid professions. About once a year the muse comes back and randomly slams a poem into my head and I have to let it out somewhere - in this case it was yesterday in the shower - so here it is.
Life in a Time of Death Today's the day that we remember those Who died so long ago and far away That now their deaths become Romantic, tragic, literary or forgotten. That's easy. Quote the Kipling. Say a prayer. Fly the flag. Move on. For harder Try those still among us Who live with war Embittered in their hearts Whose sleep is restless From the sound of shells That burst too close Or for lost comrades Who come faceless to their dreams. Night on night relentless As years wear on And other memories fade While war remains Embittered in their hearts. Or harder Try those not yet memories, Who walk among us, Living dead before death, Doomed unknown To snipers bullet or to Coward's bomb, To the risks of living life In a time of universal war That spares no innocence And demands no special Rank or Insignia. All men are soldiers Living In a time of death. Life as we live it every day Is our memorial To ourselves. Not knowing now If someone then Will need us For their beacon, inspiration And Will light a candle to our memory. We don't choose To be or not be martyred, But do choose how we live Each moment in succession To that day When fate or nature takes us, Leaving the way we lived As our memorial.

Religious Tolerance in Kurdistan

Sat, 27 May 2006 06:08:11 GMT
According to reports from Iraq originating on Radio Sawa and passed on by Omar at Iraq the Model, the people and government of Kurdistan are setting an example of religious tolerance which is in sharp contrast to the recent story of a man faced with the death penalty for converting to Christianity in Afghanistan. According to reports from Radio Sawa and confirmed in a recent statement by General Georges Sada, there have been substantial numbers of Kurds converting or reverting to Christianity since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Sada himself was born an Assyrian Christian and converted to Islam during the reign of Saddam and later converted back to Christianity, a pattern which many seem to have followed. Kurdistan has a history of religious diversity, with a fairly large Christian minority, but unlike Iran and Syria which have gone to great lengths to purge their religious minorities, Kurdistan is embracing theirs. They even openly tolerate the Yezidis and Zoroastrians who have been heavily persecuted elsewhere in the region. Rather than condemning these conversions, Muslim Kurdish Prime Minister Nejervan Barzani commented "I'd rather see a Muslim become Christian than to see him become a radical Muslim," a uniquely enlightened viewpoint in these times and in that part of the world wher extremism and intolerance often seem to be out of control. This is yet another reminder that there is at least one third of the cobbled-together nation of Iraq which seems to have its head screwed on straight and isn't being torn apart by factionalism and fanaticism.

The Courts Have Spoken. We're Journalists. We Have Rights.

Sat, 27 May 2006 05:05:32 GMT
In an important decision for bloggers' rights, the 6th District Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of O'Grady vs. Apple Computer. In their unanimous ruling they declared that bloggers are essentially indistinguishable from traditional journalists and enjoy the same legal protections. This case originated with Apple Computer's efforts to track down employees who leaked information about software development projects to bloggers at AppleInsider, PowerPage and other sites. Apple attempted to use their deep pockets and the court system to force the bloggers to reveal their sources. The Electronic Frontier Foundation came to the defense of the sites which were under attack, and have pursued the issue on a pro bono basis through an initial ruling in favor of Apple in early 2005 to this ultimate ruling supporting the rights of bloggers. In the course of the suit Apple attempted to subpoena Nfox.com the email service provider for PowerPage as well as two other email services for email messages which might have revealed the bloggers' source at Apple. The privacy of these communications became a central element of the case, with the EFF making an argument in favor of the essential right of privacy for the sources used by bloggers:
"The confidentiality of the media's sources and unpublished information are critical means for journalists of all stripes to acquire information and communicate it to the public. Because today's online journalists frequently depend on confidential sources to gather material, their ability to promise confidentiality is essential to maintaining the strength of independent media."
Apple's argument that their efforts were intended to protect trade secrets were rejected by the court which determined that basic Constitutional rights overruled the argument. The court's ruling was extremely forceful in laying out the absolute right of online journalists and bloggers to the same protections enjoyed by journalists in other media. It said, in part:
""We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news. Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law, or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace."
And went on to strongly reject the idea that there is a difference between bloggers and other journalists:
"In no relevant respect do they appear to differ from a reporter or editor for a traditional business-oriented periodical who solicits or otherwise comes into possession of confidential internal information about a company."
As far as the court is concerned bloggers are legitimate journalists, or more specifically, there is no criteria for judging the legitimacy of one kind of journalist relative to another, so everyone deserves the same rights and protections. This ruling provides protection not only for bloggers and their sources, but for all email users, because it means that any effort to get access to your email will have to go directly through you rather than through your email provider. If someone wants to find out what your email says they will have to call you to testify about it with a subpoena and you will be protected by the 5th amendment. EFF Spokesman and staff attorney Kurt Opsahl concluded: "Today's decision is a victory for the rights of journalists, whether online or offline, and for the public at large." For more information on this story see the coverage at InternetNews and Yahoo News.

When Politicians Write the History

Sat, 27 May 2006 05:04:58 GMT
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=interviews&trh=20060520&alt=&syf=butun

Liveblogging the Capitol Crisis

Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:03 GMT
One anonymous phonecall and the media is off to the races. Someone heard a gunshot on the same parking level of the Rayburn House Office Building where the firing range is located and it's lockdown time, room to room searches, and lobbyists locked in hearing rooms sizing each other up to find the best cuts of meat for a late lunch. As a reporter on Fox News said a few minutes ago, "Nobody's been arrested, nobody's been captured, and nobody's been injured." He could have gone farther to point out that nobody's even seen a gunman or figured out who made the phonecall that started all of this. But the Capitol Police are taking the report seriously nonetheless, and I imagine those being told to stay in their offices and hearing rooms and the cafeteria with assault-rifles pointed at them are taking it pretty seriously as well. Having worked on the house side of Capitol Hill and spent a lot of time in the Rayburn Building I can attest to the fact that it's a huge building and damned hard to control. Not only does it have a complex design with multiple corridors connecting different parts of the building, but there are scores of exits and entrances, multiple levels and elevators spaced far apart, a huge multilevel parking garage, and secret underground tunnels which many who work there are fully aware of. There's an underground subway system which the public generally doesn't know about, public tunnels to the capitol, and there are hidden steam tunnels all over the place which are large enough to walk through and which provide access to all of downtown DC, though most people aren't aware of them. As I understand it some of these means of access have been sealed off since I worked there. Back in those days you could sneak in and out of the building at will if you had some balls and some basic tools. It was a favorite target of building 'hackers'. A couple of observations as the crisis develops. First, they keep referring to a 'gunman'. Why couldn't it be a woman? Rep. Cynthia McKinney has a gun and is clearly mentally unstable, has a history of violence and is currently under a lot of pressure. She's tops on my list of purely speculative suspects. Second, the person who was evacuated early in the crisis on a stretcher was not shot. She was a staffer who fainted because of the stress caused by the situation. Why they put a bag over her head is a mystery. Why they couldn't figure out who she was and why she was evacuated for more than an hour is rather mysterious as well. The other major casualty - a Capitol Police officer twisted his ankle. Third, it's amusing that this happened during the hearings on whether reporters should be held liable for revealing national security secrets. The result is that every network has multiple reporters in the building, all with cell phones and some with cameras as well, so the coverage from inside the crisis area is unprecedented. But as usual, it's mostly reporters reporting on reporters - the new standard for American journalism. The main conclusion of the reporters and the lesson to learn from the crisis until we hear more - if you get caught in a security lockdown, make sure you're in the cafeteria. And the crisis continues with not very much happening...

At Long Last an Iraqi Government

Sun, 21 May 2006 18:31:56 GMT
It took a hell of a long time - five months in all - but the questions have been answered and the deals have been made, and Iraq finally has a fully functional government with executive leadership to go with the Parliament which has been wrangling over the assignment of jobs since the end of last year. The delay has been a cause for much concern, but the outcome is a validation of the new Iraqi constitution, which has proven to have the flexibility to support and encourage consensual government and coalition building which may help solve the problems of Iraq's contentious religious and political factions. There were moments of strife and a long period of negotiation, but ultimately most of the 275 legislators seemed satisfied with a cabinet which shares power quite equitably between the major factions. At the head of the government is Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He's a religiously trained Shi'ite and a former teacher of Arabic Literature who was very active in the Dawa Party and helped lead the resistence against Saddam while he was in exile under threat of death. Since the removal of Saddam he has been in charge of debaathification and has a reputation as a competent and decisive administrator. U. S. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice said of al-Maliki, "This is a strong leader. I have met him. I looked into his eyes. This is somebody who is determined to do what is right for the Iraqi people." In his first speechto the Parliament al-Maliki said:
"The first challenge we face is security and how to deal with the terrorist killers who are destroying the country and shedding the blood of the Iraqi people. Those people should know that this government is designed in a way to effectively face this challenge."
He went on to explain a 34 point plan for restoring order and the rule of law and rebuilding infrastructure. His plans are ambitious, and he conluded, "We pray to God almighty to give us strength so we can meet the ambitious goals of our people who have suffered a lot." The cabinet has a total of 40 members and almost every position has been assigned at this point, with appointees from all of the religious and regional factions. The only exceptions are three of the top slots, those of Defense Minister, Interior Minister and National Security Minister. These offices control the army, the police and the intelligence gathering apparatus respectively. Prime Minister al-Maliki has temporarily filled the positions by temporarily dividing them between the three main factions in the government, taking the role of acting Interior Minister for himself, giving the Defense Ministry to Sunni Deputy Prime Minister Salam Zikam al-Zubaie and making Kurdish Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleb the National Security Ministry. These appointments are temporary, but they may not be entirely the result of difficulty picking candidates for the jobs as has been represented. They may be an effort to strengthen and raise the significance of the top offices in the cabinet by giving direct administrative roles to the Deputy Prime Ministers so that each faction will have a leader in government with real power, while at the same time satisfying the requirements of the constitution. The appointment of a cabinet doesn't immediately solve all of Iraq's problems, but it was the final step in establishing a fully functional government with the authority and the institutions necessary to complete the process of taking responsibility for running the country and eventually reducing or eliminating the need for foreign assistance and support. The general response from Iraqis has been relief and guarded hope. Mohammed who blogs from Baghdad at Iraq the Model summed up the situation well when he wrote:
"I do believe we have a good chance to correct our mistakes and build a modern state and although the new government isn't a perfect creature it is a positive step forward mainly because it is much more widely representative of the population than the previous one."
That's the key to the new government. It may have taken a while to get sorted out, but it really does represent all of the people of Iraq and it does so with the inclusion and acceptance of the majority of every politically active group except for the most extreme terrorists. If the terrorists are going to be stopped and peace established it will be because this government has been able to make government by consensus and coalition work, and thereby established its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. Much will depend on Prime Minister al-Maliki. Iraqis are used to strong leadership, and it looks like he is starting on the right foot by consolidating some power, while still sharing authoirity with the other major factions. If he can use this new unity to generate real progress in establishing security and improving the infrastructure of the nation his ambitious goals might start to look more realistic.

The BBC's Peculiar View of the US Economy

Wed, 17 May 2006 06:51:12 GMT
Sometimes when trying to understand your own country it's helpful to look at it from the perspective of outsiders. For me that sometimes means checking the news at the BBC to see what they make of events and trends in the United States. I recently wrote an article on the strong trends in the US economy. Things seemed pretty good, but just to put it all in perspective I thought I'd check out what the BBC has to say. Well, apparently the BBC is afflicted with a bizarre case of schizophrenia when it comes to looking at the US economy. Dollar actually bottomed out at .73 to the Euro in January of last year. It then climbed to a peak of .86 by the end of the year. When the BBC article was written the dollar had fallen back down to .78, about halfway betwen its low and its high for the past 3 years. The dollar's decline begain in 2002, as a result of a deliberate effort by the Bush administration to encourage foreign investment by essentially putting the US on a 20% off sale. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4772049.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4765713.stm

Bush Offers a Rational Plan for Immigration and Border Security

Tue, 16 May 2006 02:29:15 GMT
Confirming many of us in our belief that President Bush is at heart a rational moderate, tonight he outlined a plan for immigration which addresses the nation's border security concerns, our need for immigrant labor, and our tradition of welcoming those who want to live and work and become American citizens. What he expressed in his speech tonight was essentially the plan which Senator McCain and others had put together a few weeks ago in the Congress, but which was narrowly voted down. Perhaps now, with this unambiguous presidential endorsement the plan will pass as it should have the first time. In his speech the President made four clear points: 1. Secure the borders. As he put it, "The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration, and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists." The plan - by the end of 2008, increase the Border Patrol by 50% to a total of 18,000 men. In the interim temporarily fill those jobs with 6000 National Guardsmen from border states. For additional border security, deploy new technology like motion sensors, urban fences, infrared cameras and aerial surveillance. 2. A Temporary Worker Program. Make it possible for Mexicans to come here to work at will with legal, non-resident status. As he said, "A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, and it would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their families while respecting the law." Workers would have to go through criminal background checks and would eventually have to return to their home country. This would meet our economic needs and the workers would be trackable to prevent any security problems. 3. Internal Enforcement. Make sure that illegals who are caught are sent home promptly and that we have enough facilities to hold them until they are. End the 'catch and release' approach to immigration enforcement. Improve the ID system so that employers can tell whether papers employees offer them are legitimate or forgeries. 4. Open Up a Path to Citizenship. For those already in the country we need to provide a way for those who would be desirable additions to the population to apply for citizenship. This program would offer opportunities without offering amnesty. As he said"
"It is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently, and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record."
In other words, keep the good, hard-working and honest illegals and send the bad ones back. Charge them a "meaningful penalty for breaking the law" - something like the $2000 fine proposed in the McCain bill. Make them learn English and make sure they have long-term employment. Then let them apply for citizenship with slightly less priority than those applying through the regular process. In this section he stressed clearly the idea that appropriate punishment will satisfy the law and should open the path to rehabilitation, a fundamental principle of our legal system. There was a fifth point, but it was basically a generalized restatement of the fourth point, followed by some patriotic babble about the contributions of immigrants to the country. A valid issue for consideration, but not really part of the plan for immigration. As to the plan itself, it's almost exactly what they voted on in the Senate and couldn't quite pass. It is very much what Bush calls the "Rational Middle" approach to immigration (btw, guess who owns the domain name rationalmiddle.com?). It includes both enforcement to address the nation's safety and the issues of illegality, but also the opportunity for Mexican workers to come here on either a permanent or temporary basis to better themselves and provide the labor we need. President Bush didn't come right out and say it, but what he's offering is a sensible position between two unacceptable, even crazy extremes. On the one hand there is the paranoia and xenophobia of the reactionaries who want to cleanse the country of the 'brown menace' as expressed by the Minutemen and the Santorum plan currently up for consideration for a second time in the House of Representatives - a militarized border, detention camps and mass forced deportation. Opposed to this is the pipe dream Reconquista of the Mexifornia faction and radical groups like Mecha who want to take over the US Southwest through uncontrolled immigration and ultimately even force and make it a hispanic nation. What the President and Senator McCain and other moderates offer is a balanced solution which addresses demands from both sides and would solve the immigration problem without creating chaos in the nation or irreparable harm to the economy. It addresses the argument of one group over the 'rule of law' issue by punishing illegals and making sure they receive no special favoritism and addresses the demands of their opponents by recognizing the legitimate need for immigration under proper procedures. This plan has been offered in substantially the same form in the Senate. It has now been endorsed and expressed clearly by the President. It fully addresses both border security and the need for immigration. It is a plan which is comprehensive, fair and practical. What rational and responsible national legislator could oppose it when it comes up for a vote again in a week or two? Nonetheless, some will oppose it, and I encourage you to vote their bigoted, politically opportunistic and irrational asses out of office in the next election.

NSA Data Gathering Leads to Lawsuits

Sun, 14 May 2006 06:26:05 GMT
This week two lawsuits have been filed in response to the recently publicized National Security Agency program of gathering telephone call information from major phone service providers. Both suits are class action suits targeting Verizon for their role in voluntarily providing information on what numbers hundreds of thousands of customers called since 9/11. One suit, initiated by Daryl Hines of Beaverton Oregon, seeks $1000 per customer of Verizon Northwest (about a million people) plus $1 billion in punitive damages. The punitive damage figure is high because the likelihood of proving actual harm or establishing quantifiable damages in these cases is minimal. Hines' complaint objects to the company's voluntary delivery of call information to the NSA without first advising or obtaining permission from its customers, in violation of Section 222 of the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Verizon is one of three companies which cooperated with the NSA in its effort to gather information to track calls from potential terrorists to known terrorists outside of the United States. The other companies involved are Bellsouth and AT&T. Qwest was solicited for the same information and refused to provide it without a warrant. A second suit was filed this past Friday against Verizon in federal court in New York. It seeks $5 billion in damages as a class action suit and demands that Verizon cease providing customer information to the government. The compilation and analysis of phone records was begun by the NSA in 1999, initially using publicly available data and then continued on a wider scale with data obtained from phone companies after the attack on the World Trade Center. The focus of this program was on identifying phone numbers which made frequent calls to suspected terrorists outside of the United States. This program did not involve monitoring, recording or analyzing the content of the phonecalls themselves, but may have helped to identify targets for more in-depth telecommunications surveillance, such as the controversial NSA data mining and wiretapping programs carried out withou the approval of the FISA court and the similar program launched during the Clinton Administration known as Project Echelon. The viability of these lawsuits and the overall legality of this NSA program, hinges on the interpretation of one sub-section in the Telecommunications Act of 1934, because while the act in general protects the privacy of "Customer Proprietary Network Information", it grants an exception in Section 222d, which says:
Nothing in this section prohibits a telecommunications carrier from using, disclosing, or permitting access to customer proprietary network information obtained from its customers, either directly or indirectly through its agents...to protect the rights or property of the carrier, or to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services.
The argument can certainly be made - and will be made by Verizon - that the use of their phone services to provide information to or receive instructions from international terrorists constitutes an "abusive, or unlawful use" of their services. This would appear to be a very strong argument, and it is presumably on the basis of this provision in the law that the NSA felt justified in asking for the information and the phone companies felt that it was appropriate to disclose it without a warrant, as the law clearly makes such disclosure entirely discretionary. In addition, the argument that customers were harmed and deserve damages is unlikely to go very far in court as the NSA never disclosed the information or used the data in any way beyond their legitimate, stated intention of identifying likely terrorist associates. In the wake of the suits against Verizon it's likely that similar suits will be filed against the other companies involved in the next few weeks, since the lawyers clearly sense some deep pockets ready to be picked.

Castle Doctrine in Oklahoma

Sat, 13 May 2006 20:20:06 GMT
OKLAHOMA GOVERNOR SIGNS NRA-BACKED "CASTLE DOCTRINE" BILL INTO LAW Today, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry (D) signed HB 2615, the NRA-backed "Castle Doctrine" self-defense bill, into law. "I want to thank Governor Brad Henry for signing this victims' rights bill into law," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "When you're confronted by a criminal, you don't have the luxury of time. This bill states that if victims choose to stand their ground and fight, their decision will not be second-guessed by the State of Oklahoma. The ability to protect yourself, your children, or your spouse from harm is important, whether you're in your home or outside." HB 2615 simply states that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle or your place of business, you may presume he is there to do bodily harm and you may use any force necessary against him. It also removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a legal right to be. Further, HB 2615 provides protection from criminal prosecution and civil litigation for those who defend themselves from criminal attack. The "Castle Doctrine" bill met with overwhelming, bipartisan support, passing 96-2 in the state House and 83-4 in the Senate. Oklahoma joins eight other states that have signed similar legislation into law this legislative cycle. "On behalf of all NRA members in Oklahoma, I want to thank Governor Brad Henry for signing this important bill into law. I'd also like to thank the bill's chief sponsors, Representative Kevin Calvey (R-94) and Senator Harry Coates (R-28), for their leadership in passing this vital measure," concluded Cox. "The 'Castle Doctrine' bill is about putting the law back on the side of the victim, the way it's supposed to be." Passed in florida last year http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0512/ States that have already passed �Castle Doctrine� legislation: Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, and South Dakota. States where the act is awaiting their Governor�s signature: Alabama and Georgia. States where legislation has been introduced: Ohio, Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

Friedman and Strayhorn Make the Cut - Hope Lives in Texas

Thu, 11 May 2006 02:14:48 GMT
Despite what many have cited as ridiculously difficult ballot qualification requirements, both State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and entertainerKinky Friedman have now more than qualified to be on the ballot in as independents in the Texas Governor's race this November. Strayhorn turned in about 223,000 petition signatures on Tuesday and Friedman turned in about 169,000 yesterday, beating their required number of signatures by a factor of more than 4 to 1 and 3 to 1 respectively, and making it in under an incredibly tight deadline, gathering all their signatures in less than two months and drawing on only those voters who did not vote in the primary this Spring. Verifying the petition signatures will take some time as Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams has them all manually verified in the slowest and most painstaking method possible - including calling many of the signers on the phone - in order to reduce the campaigning time for the two candidates. Strayhorn had filed a lawsuit to try to speed up the procedure, but it was rejected by the court. Despite these difficulties momentum for the independent candidates seems to be snowballing. Driving around Austin and the surrounding area Friedman bumperstickers are everywhere, followed by small numbers of Strayhorn stickers. Supporters of Perry are few and far between and no one seems to have even heard of Democrat Chris Bell. Bell is trying to make the best of the situation and point out that Friedman and Strayhorn are likely to draw more votes from Perry than they are from him, but despite the desperate scenarios thrown out by groups like the Lonestar Project who claim this situation guarantees a Bell win, the truth is that Bell has little name recognition or money, and both independent candidates got more ballot signatures than Bell got in the Democratic primary where turnout was extremely low, likely because voters wanted to remain eligible to sign Friedman or Strayhorn petitions. Perry's campaign has commented frequently and derisively about the petition drive, pointing out that the total petition signatures for Strayhorn were only a small fraction of the vote in the last election. While this may be true, those signatures were gathered in only a few weeks from a very limited pool of qualified signers, and likely represent a fraction of the number of votes the two independents will be able to generate in the election. Even if the independents get only twice as many votes as they got signatures, that would be more votes than the rather large margin between Perry and his opponent in the last gubernatorial election. The conventional wisdom from both the Democrats and the Republicans is that the impact of the two independents on the election will be minimal, but Strayhorn has an established base of support and Friedman seems to be generating substantial grassroots interest which transcends party boundaries and reaches beyond the normal limits of politics to draw in a remarkable amount of interest from thsoe disenchanted with politics as usual. The conventional wisdom has Perry winning with around 40%, Bell second in the mid-30s , Strayhorn in the low 20s and Friedman in the single digits. I'm going to go out on a limb right now and say that the numbers are just about backwards because the analysts just aren't figuring in the massive voter dissatisfaction with the system and with Perry. I see a very real possibility of a surprise Friedman win, Perry second in a close struggle with Strayhorn in the mid-20s and Bell forgotten in last place in the single digits. One subject which is dominating the polls and on which the entire election may hinge is the issue of gratuitous toll roads and massive development of megahighways like the Trans Texas Corridor. Perry is the only candidate to support these projects which are widely hated by Texans of all political persuasions. Perry's role in developing and promoting these boondoggles and the favoritism he has shown to cronies and political allies while riding roughshod over the best interests of the public, have made him far more unpopular than he and his campaign staff seem to realize. In small towns threatened by the highway projects and among urban consumers facing huge and unnecessary toll expenses for highways already funded with taxes and bonds but now being turned into toll-roads as a form of hidden taxation, Perry is literally hated and despised as the symbol of corrupt and rapacious government completely out of touch with public interest. Perry may be lucky to hold onto anything beyond the 20% of the votes controlled by the Baptist bluehairs and the hardcore religious right as election day nears.

UN Gun Ban

Wed, 10 May 2006 03:55:06 GMT
Meanwhile, the NRA is drawing a bead on IANSA, whose member organizations are working in Africa, Latin America, parts of Asia and Europe. With a UN Small Arms Review Conference slated for June 2006, the group has been calling for international controls over what it says are the 639 million small arms and light weapons circulating in the world today. Since 2003 IANSA, Amnesty International and Oxfam have been promoting the idea. According to Oxfam, forty-two governments have signed on to the campaign. And on October 3, the EU for the first time threw its support behind calls for control. Despite the NRA's warnings that the international gun ban movement threatens the Second Amendment, Rebecca Peters says she isn't aware of any plans to start a moratorium campaign in the US. And even if a UN treaty existed, the US Congress would have to ratify it, an unlikely proposition. Besides, says Cukier, there is no international gun-ban movement. "Dogs are registered in many countries," she says, "but you don't hear people saying anyone is trying to ban dogs."

Introducing the BigAss EcoTruck

Tue, 09 May 2006 17:30:05 GMT
What is the conservation-conscious Texas Republican supposed to do when looking for transportation? On the one hand, he'd like to have something economical and ecologically responsible. On the other hand he's in Texas and has to do a lot of driving and needs a big, comfortable vehicle that can seat the whole family. And, of course, it helps a lot if it's a pickup truck in order to fit in with the neighbors. The answer? Why a BigAss EcoTruck, of course. After much research I determined that the best solution for the BigAss EcoTruck was a Dodge Ram 2500 Diesel pickup with a four-door Crew Cab. Other options presented themselves but didn't hold up. The best was the Dodge Contractor's Special, which is basically the same truck but with a hybrid diesel engine. The clueless marketers at Daimler-Chrysler haven't realized how marketable a hybrid pickup would be in Texas, so they're only available for fleet purchase in California, which means you have to buy 30 or more and transport them to Texas yourself, and I didn't feel like opening my own car dealership just to buy one truck. The only other hybrid pickups are from General Motors, who prove with every stupid decision why they deserve to go out of business. In the case of their hybrid pickups, their idiocy is displayed by having used the hybrid features of the engine to improve towing capacity rather than gas mileage, totally defeating the purpose of hybridization. Ford has a nice hybrid engine suitable for a pickup, but it's only going to be available in SUVs for at least another year. Another option might have been a truck which would run on E85 Ethanol fuel, and they do exist, but no one in the state of Texas currently sells E85, though that's bound to change since about half the gas-powered vehicles on the market can actually use it. Still not an immediate solution. Since hybrids weren't a realistic option, the best way to go was with an alternative fuel vehicle, and the Dodge Ram 2500 qualifies on all counts. It's a serious truck with a three-quarter ton carrying capacity, plus it has the most comfortable backseat for the kids of any of the extended cabs I've looked at. It has a gigantic 5.9L Cummins Diesel engine, and while most of us are familiar with stinky commercial trucks running on PetroDiesel, the fact is that Diesel engines are able to run clean-burning BioDiesel with no modifications. Rudolph Diesel invented his engine back in 1892 to run on biofuel. His first working model displayed at the 1898 exposition in Paris ran on pure peanut oil. The Diesel engine, by its very nature, is designed to run on low-volatility, high-viscosity fuel. It works by heating the relatively stable fuel to a more combustible temperature where it burns much more efficiently than fuels like gasoline. Modern Diesel engines, as developed by Clessie Cummins, are modified to use fuel injection to work with lighter weight fuels like PetroDiesel (still much more viscous than gasoline), but they can still run on biofuels which have either been processed to be lighter weight or are actively heated in the engine to reduce viscosity. Diesel engines also have a great deal of tolerance for variations in the fuel, so under the right conditions you can run on a variety of different fuel mixes from straight vegetable oil to small amounts of BioDiesel used as an additive to improve the performance of standard PetroDiesel. The Cummins Diesel engine in the Dodge Ram comes well prepared to run BioDiesel. It can run processed, fuel-quality BioDiesel just like regular PetroDiesel, despite the fact that it may have double the viscosity. It also comes with an engine heater which can be used to heat the fuel to reduce viscosity, which can make it feasible to run on much heavier weight oils and also makes it possible to run on various Diesel fuels in cold temperatures where they might gel and become useless -- a problem even with PetroDiesel, though admittedly not much of an issue in the sweltering hell that is Texas. The engine heater even comes with an external power cord which you can run out of the hood and plug into house current to heat the fuel before starting the engine in extreme cold (below 0 degrees Fahrenheit). It has to be noted that neither Dodge nor Cummins will officially endorse the use of anything higher than B20 in these engines, but extensive private testing has been done and is well documented on BioDiesel discussion forums with very few problems reported. Using BioDiesel also doesn't void the engine warranty unless it can be proven to have damaged the engine. Since it generally leaves fewer deposits and burns cleaner than regular Diesel, this shouldn't be a concern. The one frequently noted issue is that on older engines the detergent properties of the BioDiesel may clear sludge deposited by past use of PetroDiesel out of the engine and deposit it in the fuel filter, which may have to be replaced. The most telling endorsement of BioDiesel is that the Cummins racing team uses B100 BioDiesel in all their racing engines, which are the same basic engine as in the Dodge diesel trucks. One of the key reasons I chose a truck which could run BioDiesel was fuel availability. I had given up on finding Ethanol in the Austin area, but two different companies are providing various different blends of Biodiesel -- Willie Nelson's BioWillie and Austin Biofuels, with a total of five stations between them and more on the way. The way I figured it, there was no point in getting an alternative fuel vehicle unless I could be confident of finding fuel for it. The other advantage of BioDiesel is that, potentially, the price will remain lower than that of gasoline. The raw material cost of BioDiesel from waste oil is about $1.10 a gallon. The raw material cost for new oil is about $1.80 after a rebate from the IRS. Taxes and processing expenses still add into that, but the end result is that the price for B99 BioDiesel should stay stable at about $2.70 a gallon while the price of gasoline fluctuates with market volatility in the $3-$5 range. Since BioDiesel is a renewable resource produced domestically on a pretty small, localized basis -- you can even make it yourself fairly easily -- there shouldn't be the kinds of problems we've seen recently with petroleum, so the price can be counted on to stay the same or even go down as production increases and becomes more efficient. Another major consideration is gas mileage. A 20% mix of BioDiesel has been found to increase overall engine efficiency and fuel mileage by around 15%. Plus diesel engines generally get better gas mileage than gas-burning equivalents. Diesel mileage increases over time, but mileage figures in the 21-25 mpg range are not unheard of when using B20 fuel, and that's pretty good for a large truck. BioDiesel also causes a lot less pollution. With the efficiency of modern engines the emission levels from BioDiesel are really remarkable. BioDiesel produces significantly lower levels of...

Take Cover, there's a Kennedy at the Wheel!

Sat, 06 May 2006 04:16:23 GMT
What is it with Kennedys and moving vehicles? Put them in a plane or behind the wheel of a car and disaster is only a few heartbeats away. We should be glad they're so rich they ride in limos most of the time, because if not for their chauffeurs, we'd all be in danger. A lot of people have been hard on Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr. because of the conflict between his strident environmentalism and his hypocritical use of a chauffered Ford Expedition, but I say give the man a break. He's getting driven around in a gas-guzzler for the sake of humanity. We can't enjoy clean air if we get run over while standing on a street corner breathing it. The tragic history of the Kennedys and vehicles is documented as far back as World War II, though I suspect they were crashing oxcarts in Ireland in the early 1800s. JFK's elder brother Joseph was shot down in a plane during the war, echoing the dramatic death of his nephew John F. Kennedy, Jr. in a crash in 1999 while flying a private plane to Martha's Vineyard with his wife and her sister on board. JFK Jr.'s death was shocking, but the Kennedy clan seems to have a lot more trouble with cars than with planes. Perhaps they realize that flying is just too dangerous when you're genetically incompatible with steering and born without a directional sense of any kind. The most famous driver in the family is third-string patriarch Teddy. The senior Senator from Massachusetts almost ended his political career in 1969 when he drove off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, plunging his Olds Delmont 88 into a pond and drowning his passenger Mary Jo Kopechne. His career eventually recovered, but his personal life has been plagued with problems associated with drinking and poor personal judgement. Former Congressman Joseph Patrick Kennedy II, once heir apparent to the Senate seat of his uncle Teddy, has had driving problems too. In 1973 he was the driver of an open top Jeep which he drove off a road and rolled several times. The accident crushed the spine of passenger, Pam Kelley, crippling her for life. Now the Kennedy driving magic is in the news again. At 3 a.m. on Thursday, Representative Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) sideswiped a capitol police car and crashed his car into a security barrier, coming inches from killing a capitol police officer. He then got out, staggered around drunkenly, and told the officer that he was late for a vote, despite the fact that the rest of the Congress had gone home hours before. He has since claimed that he doesn't even remember getting up and getting dressed, much less driving down to Capitol Hill. The police report cites alcohol as being involved in the accident, and Kennedy has admitted to having an ongoing prescription painkiller problem, and today he checked himself into the Mayo Clinic for rehabilitation for the second time in six months. Statistics do show that on average any person in the United States will be involved in some sort of car accident every five years. But most of those accidents don't involve drugs or alcohol and don't result in the deaths of passengers. The Kennedys seem to exceed the national average for accident lethality and basic irresponsibility. Some seem to write this off as a charming eccentricity or part of their Irish heritage, but it seems like it's also a symptom of deeper character flaws. There is a basic irresponsibility and arrogance which seems to be bred into some who come from backgrounds of great privilege. They assume that success and good fortune are their birthright and never consider the consequences of their actions. To their credit, many of the families of the American multi-generational plutocracy try hard to teach responsibility to their children. They embrace the idea that wealth and social responsibility go hand in hand. Some scions of this class go through a maturing process where they realize that there is a price that has to be paid for a permanent adolescence of self-indulgence, and learn to balance their amusements with good works. Ideally this is supposed to be an evolution each individual goes through, from profligate youth to productive maturity. It's something all of us experience to some degree which gets amplified and exaggerated by wealth and status. In the case of the Kennedy clan the pattern seems to be different. Some members take to a life of service seriously and with great success, seemingly using good works to expiate a feeling of guilt for all of their special opportunities. Others seem to exist in a foggy realm of presumed unaccountability where it's always summer, they're eternally sixteen, and wine, women and song - or Scotch, interns and drugs - are always flowing freely. In particular, the hard-working and long-suffering women of the clan and women who marry into the clan seem to end up paying the price for the bloated, self-indulgent men. The men enjoy the life of Dorian Gray and their wives and sisters end up as the haggard portrait that his sins settle on. It's a hell of a way to live, both fascinating and repulsive to those of us on the outside and certainly irresistible to the jackals of the media. On balance they've probably done more good than bad as a family, even counting Papa Joe's questionable Nazism and rum-running. For the most part, their lives of dissipation harm only themselves. But when they get behind the wheel of a moving vehicle, that changes, and they become dangerous to those around them, both their passengers and innocent bystanders. Hence my plea: Kennedys, for the sake of all of us, get a chauffeur. While you're at it hire a pilot. You can afford it!

Explaining Tax Cuts for Morons

Fri, 05 May 2006 19:48:22 GMT
1. The poor don't benefit directly from a tax cut because they already pay no taxes. Same for working class folks up to a family income of about $45,000. 2. The tax cuts are a PERCENTAGE, so the more you make the more you get back. You don't get back a larger percentage if you have a higher income, just a larger total number of dollars because you paid more in the first place. So a person earning $50K after deductions and exemptions might get a reduction of $1000, while a person earning $500K might get a reduction of $10,000 - but it's the same percentage. The wealthier person is still paying enormously more tax. 3. The tax rebates Bush gave out to some degree balance out the percent based cuts, because they are a flat cash value. So if you got the full $600 and have an income after deductions of $30,000 you're getting a 2% rebate. If you earn $300,000 you're getting a .2% rebate. So this benefit cuts the other way. Of course neither the rebate nor the percentage cut is that much money for most people. 4. If the taxes on the wealthy are cut what do they do with that money? They spend it or invest it - which is another form of spending. That money goes to expand the capital based of businesses which means they can hire more people and create new jobs, or it goes into discretionary spenidng which also creates jobs in services and manufacturing. Any tax cut benefits the entire population because it means more wealth in circulation and therefore more jobs and more work for better pay. 5. When taxes are cut the government also benefits, because it results in more job creation, more investment and a growth in the volume of business. This means more sales taxes and also more income tax. This is why in the wake of the Bush tax cuts we've seen a dramatic increase in tax revenues on both the state and federal levels. These things are observable, constant facts. They're not a theory or wishful thinking. They're the way the economy works. This is why tax cuts are almost always desirable and benefit everyone.

A Godless Nation Saved by the National Day of Prayer!

Fri, 05 May 2006 08:02:15 GMT

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. - Matthew 6:6
Another great National Day of Prayer has just wrapped up, and I know that I feel myself lifted up on the wings of angels as the prayers from all over the nation sweep through our hearts and take our messages straight to Jesus. Like the rest of you, I spent the morning in full-prostration prayer in a city park, with fireants crawling up my pant-legs and the spirit of God crawling through my soul, and I was blessed for the service I did the Lord and I know that my efforts will help save this nation from its degenerate spiral into Godlessness. It all started last night when I took the kids down to the community center for a Freedom Youth Rally where they met up with their friends and planned how they would bring the National Day of Prayer to their classmates at school the next day. We all went to dinner at Chick-fil-A, where the manager led a group prayer with his workers in English and Spanish. After dinner we headed home and worked on letters to our chosen leaders using the inspiring materials in our Adopt A Leader($6.95) packets. I put extra work into my letter for Councilwoman Stanway and the unbaptised mixed-race love child she aborted when she was in college. The courts have prohibited me from seeing her in person or calling her, but they do let me send one letter a month to her office, so I always make it a good one, full of God's thoughts on her sinfilled life. Before we went to bed it was time for South Park, so we turned off the TV and spent 10 minutes praying for Matt Stone and Trey Parker to go back to the secularist paradise of Canada. Then, after our nightly family reading of the Lausanne Covenant we rushed off to bed, because we had a busy day ahead of us. In the morning I sent the kids off to school with their official National Day of Prayer P.R.A.Y. Wristbands($1.74) and a National Day of Prayer Tote Bag($12) full of Take Ten book covers($3.29) to give to school chums who want to be able to remember the Ten Commandments in class. And don't worry, they had been fully instructed on how to bring their schoolmates to prayer and lead spontaneous and demonstrative prayer sessions during class and in the lunch room, including what to say to secular humanist teachers who tried to stop them. After the bus left I put out our official National Day of Prayer Flag($44.99) so that all of our neighbors would be called to Jesus by our example. And just to make sure no one missed the day I then put National Day of Prayer Yard Sign($8.49) in each of their yards. Before heading out for my day of prayer, I reviewed the material from my National Day of Prayer Coordinator Tools($124.95) and put on my Patriotic P.R.A.Y. Wristband($1.49). I knew turnout would be good at the prayer meeting in our local park, because last week I sent all my neighbors - except those hellbound, Spongebob-loving Johnsons on the corner - informational flyers($6.95) along with personalized letters on National Day of Prayer stationery($10.99) in official National Day of Prayer envelopes($10.99) with attractive Gold Seals($14.95) on every one. We had a great crowd, and pretty soon we were raising our hands in joy to the Lord and falling to our knees on our official National Day of Prayer Kneeling Pads($17.95), prostrating ourselves and calling on Jesus to come into the hearts of our leaders and into our schools and offices and make our nation great and Christian again just as we were when our Founding Fathers founded it, as we learned in The History of Prayer in America($12.99). God spoke to me during the rally and I wrote every word down in my Prayer Journal($6.95). After the prayer I hurried down the the State Capitol for a rally in the open-air rotunda and joined in the Bible Marathon sponsored by the Concerned Women for America. After school I picked up the kids and we headed out to the Dinner and Silent Auction hosted by Texas Disposal Systems at their Wildlife Ranch. The kids loved all the animals, and thought the flaming methane vents were 'really cool'. We went home tired but filled with the love of God, and before we went to sleep we all prayed together that we'd be able to work as hard every day of the year to bring prayer back to our schools and save the souls of all our neighbors in Christ. It was a great National Day of Prayer and another step on the path to making America God's chosen nation once again. I urge all of your to find out more about the great work of Dr. James Dobson and his wife Shirley who heads up the tax-exempt National Day of Prayer Foundation. Their efforts to bring prayer into the public schools and into our workplaces are the only thing that can save this nation. And please join us in condemning the Godless, homosexual, humanists who deny the truth of God's Love with their sick and unamerican National Day of Reason.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. - Matthew 6:5

Can Selfishness Save Society?

Thu, 04 May 2006 05:19:54 GMT
Today I did a horrible thing to my teenage daughter. I made her think. Not about her homework or anything so obvious, but about her actions and how they impacted society.

Central Texas BBQ: Rudy Mikeska's in Taylor

Thu, 04 May 2006 04:03:21 GMT
Taylor is a town known for its good barbeque. It may not be quite as renowned as Lockhart or Llano, but it has its own special character and a barbeque tradition which goes back several generations. Taylor's barbeque history intersects the legend of one of the best known families in Texas barbeque, the Mikeska brothers, six of whom have been in the barbeque business spread all over Central Texas in towns like Columbus, Smithville (now defunct), Temple, El Campo (3 locations) and with brother Rudy in Taylor. The Mikeskas have quite a reputation and a lot of press coverage going, largely driven by the charming idea of six Czech brothers cooking barbeque all over Central Texas for 40+ years - now carrying on into another generation. The problem is that despite the romance involved, it's not worth much if the barbeque doesn't live up to the reputation. Having tried three of the Mikeskas' locations I have to admit that so far the reality falls short of the legend. Rudy Mikeska's is right on Business 79 in downtown Taylor, around the corner from Taylor Cafe and on the same block with Louie Mueller's - they actually have adjoining parking lots. It's currently run by Tim Mikeska, who goes by the name Rudy, but is actually the son of the founder. He's the head of the whole ccooking clan, so you'd expect his home restaurant to be the best of the lot, but there's a lot of autonomy, so there may be a Mikeska's I haven't been to yet which is better. The menu at Rudy Mikeska's offers all the usual meats - brisket, chicken, pork ribs and sausage, plus lamb ribs and ham steaks for something more unusual. In the times I've been there they have yet to have lamb ribs available, but after two visits I've now tried everything else. The chicken if passable but a bit dry. The pork ribs have virtually no flavor and are a bit tough. The ham steaks are interesting, but are reminiscent of shoe leather with some good flavor to them. The low point of my meals there has been the brisket, which always seems to be consistently dry and overcooked. The rub is decent and mildly peppery, but the meat fails on consistency and flavor. The high point of the meats is the sausage. It's short links of coarse ground, fairly greasy meat, stuffed at Taylor Meat Market to the specifications of the original Rudy. It's pretty tasty, with a mixture of the cayenne pepper which is characteristic of Taylor sausage and a hefty extra dose of black pepper. The result is quite spicy but very good. Overall, aside from the sausage, the meats are unremarkable to poor. Not what I expected from such a legendary barbeque family. For what it's worth - and it's a secondary consideration - the sides are quite good and there's a nice variety. The German-style potatoes were not at all bad, and like the other Mikeska brothers locations they have some very nice homemade bread to go with the meat. The beans and greens were also passable. Rudy Mikeska's in Taylor isn't the worst barbeque in the area or the worst of the Mikeskas' locations I've tried. Those dubious honors go to Southside Market in Elgin and Clem Mikeska's in Temple, respectively. Mikeska's in Taylor isn't a total writeoff, it's just not up to the standards set by the other fine barbeque cooked in the area, and certainly doesn't justify the massive hype. They've got something going for them with good sides and sausage, but if the smoked meat isn't the high point of a barbeque meal, what good is it?

Saga of the EcoTruck

Wed, 03 May 2006 15:16:04 GMT
http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/

The Folly of Ideological Rigidity

Wed, 03 May 2006 15:09:10 GMT
One issue voting fails at the polls and guarantees bad government. Voting on a single issue is rather like the ideological extremism of a religious fanatic. You can't agree with every candidate on every issue, and you can't force them all to agree with you. Vote the spectrum of ideas. Fetuses may matter to you, but what kind of life are they going to have in a world destroyed by war or by ecological disaster or in a country run as a police state?

2008 Early Polls

Wed, 03 May 2006 05:48:01 GMT
http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08rep.htm McCain 25 Giuliani 23 Gingrish 7 Frist 5 Romney 4 Allen 3 Pataki 2 Hagel 1 Tancredo 1 http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/03/srlc_straw_poll_1.html Frist 36.9 Romney 14.4 Allen 10.3 McCain 4.6 Huckabee 3.8 Pataki 2.7 Brownback 1.5 Giuliani 1.1 Gingrich .9 Hagel .2 http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=12373 George Allen 22 McCain 20 Giuliani 12 Rice 10 Frist 6 Tancredo 5 Romney 5 Gingrich 5 Santorum 3 Pataki 3 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188633,00.html Young Repubs http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mbayham/2006/mb_04282.shtml Allen 18 McCain 16 Rice 13 Huckabee 9 Giuliani 8 Frist 7 Romney 7 Average McCain 18 Giuliani 15 Frist 12 Allen 11 Rice 5 Gingrich 4 Romney 4 Huckabee 3 Pataki 2 Perspective from Right bloggers: http://www.rightwingnews.com/blogsel/2008.php Wikipedia bios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_Republican_candidates_in_the_2008_U.S._presidential_election

The Gas Tax Ate My Wallet

Mon, 01 May 2006 21:11:54 GMT
US Oil consumption - 21 million barrels/day. 7.7 billion barrels per year - barrel of oil produces about 28 gallons of gas. so that's 216 billion gallons of gas consumed per year. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/08/24/opinion/op-ed/17oped24borders.txt http://www.teambio.org/2006/04/do-you-know-these-numbers/ Gas tax info http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1054.html 45.9 cents average of which 18 cents is federal http://www.ethanol.org/FAQs.htm

Economic Growth So Strong It Can't Be Ignored

Sat, 29 Apr 2006 05:01:38 GMT
When the New York Times has to reluctantly admit the existence of an economic boom, while doing everything in their power to minimize and distract from the basic facts, you know that a strong economy has really arrived. First we had unemployment reported at a 6 year nationwide low of 4.7% - well under 4% in many areas of the country. A rate so low that only two years in the last 40 have had lower unemployment. In addition, the actual rate of employment is at a record high of over 66%, a rate exceeded by only 3 years in the last 40. That's good news, but the latest reports on the economy show even more encouraging data. Job growth goes hand in hand with low unemployment, and in the first quarter of this year we've seen an unprecedented total of 590,000 new jobs added to the workforce. This continues the trend of massive job growth which has produced an impressive increase of 2.7 million new jobs since the first quarter of last year. Another bit of good news in the job sector is that the trend for hourly wages to increase which began last year has continued, with the average non-farm hourly wage up $.55 an hour from March of last year, meaning more than $1000 a year in additional earnings for the average worker. Gains were strongest for highly skilled workers, with computer manufacturing jobs increasing by $.76 an hour on average, utility workers gaining $.81 an hour, those providing professional and business services going up $.93 an hour and the big winners were those in information services who gained $1.17 an hour. Overall this is the second largest rate of wage increase in any year since records started being kept in 1964. The average rate of wage increases in the last 40 years has been $.33 per year. In the latest report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis the raw quarterly growth rate in the Gross Domestic Product for the first quarter of this year is reported at an unprecedented 8.2%. That's an incredible rate of economic growth, a full 3 points higher than the very impressive 5.2% reported in the fourth quarter of last year. Adjusted for the current value of the dollar the GDP growth was even better relative to last year, at 4.8% compared to 1.7% in the fourth quarter of 2005. This GDP surge was largely driven by consumer spending - an area which had been lagging until recently - which increased by 7.4%in the first quarter of 2006. This was largely driven by a growth in personal income which started last year with a growth rate of 9.4% in the fourth quarter of 2005 and 6.7% in the first quarter of 2006. Disposable income was up even more impressively - despite increases in housing and fuel prices - by 9.8% in the fourth quarter and 5.8% in the first quarter of this year. Business spending was up even more dramatically, although it's a smaller part of the economic picture. Spending on equipment and software was up 16.4% this quarter, the highest rate of business spending since the Tech Boom in the first quarter of 2000. While consumers are spending more, the rate of increase in consumer borrowing, which has been an ongoing concern, has slowed significantly in the first quarter of 2006. February set a record low with borrowing increasing only 1.8%. This puts the first quarter significantly below last year's average, which was historically low. Even better, credit card borrowing - the worst kind for consumers - has been held to a growth rate of only 3%, the lowest rate in 13 years. The issue of consumer debt is being hit hard by the political left, especially on Air America Radio, but the data suggests that the strong growth in employment and wages more than negates the very low rate of growth in borrowing. A positive side effect of this growth in personal income is an increase in projected income tax revenues, a trend which if it continues would have a significant impact on the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office projected a 12.6% growth in personal income tax revenues for 2006. However the rate of increase in income tax revenues for the first quarter is estimated at 17.2%. If that same trend of higher growth applies to corporate taxes and social security taxes the net result would be about an additional $100 billion to apply to the deficit, almost cutting the rate of increase in half, and leading to a balanced budget several years earlier than projected. Core inflation (not including fuel and food) is also down from the fourth quarter of last year, at 2%. That means that those workers who are earning more and spending more are not seeing prices rise as much as they had been, giving them more purchasing power. Soaring oil prices will likely have a negative impact on overall inflation during the coming year, but they may be balanced out by a projected decrease in housing costs. The economy is doing so well that the Federal Reserve is considering raising interest rates one more time to try to slow growth a little bit before laying off the rate increases for a couple of years. For a desperate attempt to put a negative spin on all of this, don't forget to check out the article in the New York Times, where they try to throw in every possible red herring to distract from the simple fact that the Bush tax cuts - focusing heavily on the middle class and the working poor - have had a remarkable impact on a failing economy, turning it around and creating a burgeoning boom. This, of course, leads to one inevitable conclusion. We absolutely must make the tax cuts permanent to continue down the road to economic prosperity.

marijuana war

Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:38:40 GMT
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01362.html See also drugpolicy.org

My New Favorite Iraqi Blogger

Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:05:20 GMT
Sitting here in the hinterlands of America it's hard to know where to go for straight news and informed commentary on the situation in Iraq. The political pundits and journalistic talking heads are great at explaining why Neocons are evil or why Iraq is vital to our strategic interests, but they don't have the experience, the contacts or the political neutrality to present the situation from the Iraqi perspective. The answer is to go to the source and find people who have spent significant time in Iraq or even actual Iraqis. Their first-hand experience seems a lot more valuable, so for a while I've been reading Iraqi blogs. For a long time my favorite Iraqi blog has been the legendary Iraq the Model where the Fadhil brothers hold forth on all aspects of Iraqi society and politics from within the walls of Baghdad, providing personal insights and inside information you can't get anywhere else. I'm not going to abandon them, because no one can beat them as a source from inside Iraq, but I have now added Iraq Pundit to my list of must-reads. The blog is written by an Iraqi expatriate, so it can't be as strong on news direct from Iraq as ITM is. It makes up for this with incisive wit and informed, sensible commentary. It's well written, sarcastic and often quite funny, skewering the pompous punditry of self-proclaimed experts like Juan Cole and rabid anti-war leftist Helena Cobban. Of Cobban he says:
If you're not following the analyses of Iraq offered regularly by war critic Helena Cobban, then you're missing a chance to become hopelessly lost in a labyrinth of analytic lunacy. Why should you want to? Well, look at it from my point of view. Cobban's work is a tonic for me. As a Middle Easterner, I have to put up with regular deluge of lame conspiracy theories from other Middle Easterners who perceive the world as one big knot that only they can untie. That can be tiresome. Thus, I welcome lame, stupid conspiracy theories of the West, if only for the relief. True, it's mostly comic relief, but I'll take what I can get.
He then goes on to very effectively dissect the logical fallacies in one of her rambling musings about the multifarious evil deeds performed by the US in Iraq. He expertly counters her questionable logic and exposes Cobban for the half-informed partisan hack she clearly is. In analyzing a comment by Juan Cole he says:
Speaking of morally challenged hectoring, the inimitable Juan Cole has this to say about Iraqi support for the insurgents: "Too many Sunni Iraqis support them by now, and hate the US and its Iraqi allies. And, the new Iraqi military is too listless and sectarianized to make something like this work over the long term." Izzatso? Where did Prof. Cole get these insights? Do they show up along with his bill at his Ann Arbor kabob house? The central issue about insurgents is this: The terrorists kill Iraqi civilians. They kill Sunnis. They kill Shiites. They kill Christians. They kill Sabeans. They kill Kurds. They kill everybody. Bombs and bullets don't check lineage. If Iraqis who know of terrorist hideouts aren't telling the authorities, it's because they are afraid. Fear ruled us for decades and it's hard to recover from that mind-set. So my informed comment is that no, most Sunnis don't support the killing of their fellow Iraqis. And most Shiites don't support the killing of their fellow Iraqis. Most Iraqi civilians want to live normal lives without the imminent threat of random slaughter.
Once again he cuts through the rhetoric and gets to the point that terror apologists like Cole prefer to softpedal, making very clear how Cole's viewpoints are generated by his agenda, not any particular interest in facts. He gets another great shot in at Cole when he writes:
But back to Jaafari. He has his defenders, most of whom share his dreadful judgment. One of them is the notoriously misinformed Juan Cole, who today wrote this: �He maintains he was elected fair and square by his party. Hard to argue with.� Hard for Cole, perhaps, but quite easy for anyone who knows what he's talking about. Jaafari hasn't been "elected." He's been nominated to the office (by a single vote). Iraq�s parliament still has to vote on his nomination.
These are just a couple of examples of what has been showing up on his blog regularly since July of 2004. It's well worth a long, deep read. He is consistently perceptive and rational and willing to apply the hammer of truth to the sacred cow statues erected on the altars of the media and partisan politics. He also isn't hesitant about criticizing the Iraqi leadership, especially Interim President Ibrahim al-Jaafari who he sees as venal, inept and opportunistic. What's particularly refreshing is that while he's certainly not a leftist, he doesn't really have a right-wing or pro-Bush viewpoint either. It's more of a common sense, pro-Iraq perspective. He combines wit, good analytical writing and enough of a connection to Iraq to have some real understanding. The result is much more informative and enjoyable to read than the endless partisan spin being spewed out by so many bloggers and in the major media. One day reading Iraq Pundit will do more to give you an informed understanding of the situation in Iraq than you're likely to get in a year of reading the New York Times or the Washington Post, fine papers though they are in many ways.

Delphi Technique/Consensus Building

Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:47:06 GMT
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Delphi.htm http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/nov_2002/lets_stop.htm http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/~consensus.htm

Found Art: The Oaks

Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:46:53 GMT
Somewhere not far from Austin, just down the Farm-to-Market route near my house, a little roadhouse has opened up called "The Oaks". It's been open for a few weeks now, but just this past week they added this amazing sign. The place has a lot going for it, but it's going to take some more research before I can comment meaningfully on their lineup of hot Austin artists, the quality of their barbeque or the ambiance of their barroom. From what I've heard it's being run by a former manager of the legendary Contenental Club in downtown Austin, and it's got some connections to the old Armadillo World Headquarters crowd. Like I said earlier, it wasn't the marquis with the famous band names on it which caught my eye, it was this new sign with just the name of the place. It wasn't the name itself - though it's evocative - it was the way it was painted. I can't help it. I'm a font designer, and there's nothing more intriguing to me than when I see letters used in a way which could never be reproduced effectively within the constraints of a font design. The sign for "The Oaks" is a work of art which could only be done as art, not as a mechanical product of calligraphy or graphic design like a traditional font. It's a unique product of the imagination of the artist which can't be broken down into its components or adapted to any other purpose. I hear it's the work of one of the artists who did posters for The Armadillo back in the glory days - some of which rivaled the great paper from the Fillmore - and that he's going to do more cool signage to go with it, but that's not what matters. The work speaks for itself (click on it to see it in more detail), and it's nice to see every time I drive home from town.

The Protest Culture

Sat, 22 Apr 2006 07:49:50 GMT

Gas vs. Ethanol

Sat, 22 Apr 2006 07:49:22 GMT
Gas over $75 a barrel. E15 becomes mandatory Monday. E85?

conservation

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:02:11 GMT
The preservation of our natural resources is essential to the welfare of our citizens. I want to preserve the natural beauty of our nation and to provide a healthy environment for our children. This is a goal which I think all conscientious citizens should work towards. This does not mean that I support the imposition of draconian laws on individuals and businesses in the interest of unproven environmental theories, and I absolutely oppose sacrificing individual rights to intrusive federal overregulation or attempts by international special interests to impose their will on our citizens. Federal environmental legislation has been used as a tool by special interest groups to interfere with free trade and force their social agenda on local communities all over our country. Farmers and businessmen have been driven into bankruptcy, private citizens have been denied access to resources and free use of their own property, and our entire society has been burdened with the cost of whimsical and unnecessary legislation. Conservation and the environment are important, but this vital work should be in the hands of the people, not the federal government. The environmental movement has been remarkably successful in recent years. Sadly, too instead of aiming their efforts towards working directly for the good of the environment, through education and private conservation programs, they have spent most of their time and money lobbying the federal government, which has taken more money from the citizens to finance ill-conceived environmental schemes, pass invasive and destructive laws, violate property rights, all the while administering its environmental programs in its usual ham-handed and inefficient manner. If the efforts of environmentalists were turned towards improving conditions in their own communities and actually doing something about the environment rather than lobbying and scare tactics, far more could be achieved. Today we face the new threat of international special interests which are attempting to use environmental policy as a way of reshaping the world economy to their own benefit. Nations which do far more ecological damage per capita than the United States have targeted us for persecution because of our prosperity and productivity. It is that very prosperity which has given us the luxury to care so much for our environment in the past, and as we continue to prosper, our success should always carry with it an obligation to care for the land in which we live. But it remains our land and our environment and its care should remain in our hands and not be subject to the agendas of international movements who care little for our welfare or our rights.

Earth Day vs. Arbor Day

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:59:56 GMT

Of all the questions which can come before this nation, there is none which compares in importance to the great central task of leaving this land an even better land for our descendants than it is for us, and training them into a better race to inhabit the land and pass it on. Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuation of the nation. ----------- Theodore Roosevelt, 1908
Today many in the United States and around the world are observing Earth Day, a tradition which originated in 1969 as a pet project of Senator Gaylord Nelson and other early environmental activists who saw it as an opportunity to express concern over the state of the environment and in particular the threat which they felt that human use of natural resources posed to Mother Earth. It was conceived as a day of protest and demonstration, an offshoot of the student activism of the 1960s. Nelson wrote:
If we could tap into the environmental concerns of the general public and infuse the student anti-war energy into the environmental cause, we could generate a demonstration that would force this issue onto the political agenda.
The first observance in the Spring of 1970 was enormously successful, claiming 20 million marchers worldwide. It helped raise public consciousness about environmental issues and added a new and positive issue to the repertoire of the activists of the period, one which could appeal to a much broader spectrum of the public than opposition to the war or promoting various socialist causes. Earth Day became a national phenomenon, attracting activities and observances every year around the nation. It retained the character of a protest, largely promoted by the political left, with a lot of hand-wringing, anti-corporatism, scaremongering and a certain amount of luddism. In the last 37 years it has remained strong on message and protest, but weak on positive solutions. In at least one way this is unfortunate, because Earth Day has largely supplanted the older and in many ways much more positive observence of Arbor Day, the celebration of nature which I grew up with. On Arbor Day students around the nation would go out with their schoolmates and plant trees to enrich their local environment and green-up the nation. The first Arbor Day was in Nebraska in April of 1872, created by J. Sterling Morton who was distressed by the lack of trees in the plains state. Kids loved taking a day off from school to plant trees and the observance went nationwide by 1888 and continued for almost 100 years. With Earth Day and Arbor Day falling in the same month and Earth Day having a lot more political support, Arbor Day has largely fallen into obscurity. Their website has turned into a tree-marketing enterprise, hardly anyone goes out planting anymore, and I doubt most people reading this even realize that Arbor Day is next Friday. All the focus is on Earth Day. It's just too confusing to have two special days honoring nature one week apart, and Earth Day has stolen the limelight. It's a sad trend, because the difference between Earth Day and Arbor Day embodies the difference between environmentalism and conservationism. It's the difference between just complaining about the environment and actually doing something to improve it. No matter how many people go out marching with signs protesting Exxon and the Iraq War and CAFTA and all the irrelevant issues the SWP and Moveon.org brings out to make every march on every issue look the same, what are they really accomplishing beyond more of the same old empty posturing? Oh wait, all the kids at my daughter's school are wearing green for Earth Day. Boy, there's an accomplishment. I'd much rather see those kids leave their airconditioned schools and venture out into nature with their class to plant trees. Wouldn't it be nice to see the protestors put down their signs, put aside their agendas and pick up shovels and saplings and hit the roadsides and parks of every city, improving the natural environment of the communities where they live. It may be a bit more work and a bit less self-indulgent, but it sure would be nice to see people outdoors actually doing something positive. So screw Earth Day. Blow it off. Wait a week and go out and plant a tree and actually do something real for the environment on Arbor Day.

TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:53:19 GMT
Enjoy paying your taxes? Was it as fun for you as it was for me? http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1912.cfm http://www.bea.gov/bea/ARTICLES/2005/07July/0705_SPI_LEFT.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051009sp.pdf untaxed threshold http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=34 Tax poll http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12329784/

Playing Whack-a-Mole with Jesus

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:39:41 GMT
Just when you think you've killed Jesus he pops back up like the plastic rodents in a Whack-a-Mole game. The Romans and the Pharisees had the first and best crack at him, and they gave him a good whack right in the messiah, but then three days later he popped out of his cave all shiny and new and went to have a job interview with a pompous and overbearing Jew named Saul and signed him on as God's new publicist right there on the road to Damascus. The Roman Empire lasted quite a while so they had a number of good, solid whacks at God. Nero took a fine one when he chopped off Paul's head, but there were a bunch of tinhorn saints waiting in the wings and before Nero could put down the fiddle they were popping out all over the place. Diocletian did such a good job in the 4th century that his reign came to be known as the "Era of Martyrs", but then Constantine's mother came along and ruined it all by making the momma's boy play nice with Jesus so she could sell pieces of the true cross through franchises all over Europe. Attila managed to earn the title "Scourge of God", but as a nomad he lacked real staying power and his successors in the barbarian invader business had a terrible taste for decadence and tended to accept some good old Roman Jesus along with the antique indoor plumbing and yearly bread riots. All over Europe for hundreds of years every pagan kinglet found creative ways to martyr some irritating Christian missionaries. Then they found out that Jesus could cook the books and started hiring Irish monks to keep track of tax revenue and that was that. If you've ever found the Jehovah's Witnesses on your front stoop, you know that once the god-floggers get their foot in the door and their hands in your pocketbook there's no way to get rid of them. After that Jesus just wouldn't go away, like a drunken uncle passed out in the rec room. When the Enlightenment was on the horizon and waving its secularist flag, he went even further and decided to double down. Not satisfied with one monolithic church, he hedged his bets by making himself available in designer colors and doctrines under catchy brand names from Anabaptist to Zwinglian. The Englightenment philosophers tried. They tried so hard. Even when Nietsche declared:
Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? - for even Gods putrify! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!
He was a bit premature. Despite all the logic and all the science and all the empirical methodology of the great thinkers for 400 years, whittling down religion and diluting it with secularism and materialism and demands for proof, every 30 or 40 years there's some sort of revival movement. In fact, the more gains reason makes, the stronger and weirder Jesus is when he pops back up again. Excessive zeal seems to be the hallmark of new sects and movements. When they bring back Jesus they bring him back with eyes bulging and lips flecked with foam. They call down crazy bad Jesus with the fire and the brimstone and a political agenda, and each time he's crazier than the time before. This time he hates gays and abortions. Next time he might have it in for microwaves and mailmen. Look, there's Jesus again. Quick, give me the Hammer of Reason� before he gets away!

Happy Pagan Sex Day!

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:41:00 GMT
Those early Christians were some sneaky fellows. They were eager to get new recruits and expand their membership, but they had the problem of being a religion of death, sacrifice, torture and suffering. Not an easy sell to the happy pagan barbarians who filled most of Europe. So the Christians came up with this special scheme where they would steal the holidays of the local pagans and tell them that they were secretly Christian holidays and that since they were using them anyway, they might as well drop by the church for some wine and cookies. This required just a few, small accomodations. Take as an example Easter. Easter is the pagan festival of the Vernal Equinox, welcoming the start of Spring. It's all about sex, birth and growth. It's the time when animals have babies and trees and flowers come into bloom. A pretty fun time celebrated by copulating in the fields, jumping over bonfires, dressing up in scary animal masks, some naked dancing and the occasional blood sacrifice. All not very Christian. But it's not too far from the date when Jesus was crucified, so move the crucifixion festival up by two weeks (he was actually crucified in early April), and make a few small accomodations. Let them keep the pagan trappings, the eggs, the bunnies (universal symbol of fecundity - after all, who breeds better?) and even the name (Estre was a pagan fertility goddess). Oh, and since all the pagan gods get to come back from the dead in the Spring, Jesus had better get ressurected too. You thought ressurection was unique? It was all the rage in the ancient world. The Greeks had Persephone coming back from the dead. The Romans had the recently disembowled Attis popping back to life. The Vikings had Odin and Baldr both getting ressurected in the Spring. The Celts had Creudilad, Pwyll and Belenus all getting reborn or returned from the land of the dead in the Spring. It's a sort of universal religious archetype. More than almost any other holiday the Christianization of Easter really didn't stick terribly well. Even today, two millenia later, there's a lot more interest - especially among kids - in hunting for colorful fertility symbols supposedly left behind by a mystical bunny. And what gets into the minds of kids when they're little is what sticks with them as they get older. Not surpring, really. It's a lot easier to discuss bunnies and eggs with a 4 year old than to talk about torturous death, burial and ghostly remanifestations. Plus a picture of little Cindy with a crown of thorns and carrying a cross just doesn't look as good on the mantle as one where she's in a cute dress carrying a basket full of colored eggs. Though the Christians tried to take over Easter and make it their own, what they really did was to legitimize and assure the survival of a whopping big collection of pagan tradition and ritual, which works fine for me since the pagan elements which we've preserved are a lot more fun than the crucifictional alternative. So after the easter egg hunt on Sunday we're off to a local Renaissance Festival - where better to frolic with the pagans - because apparently the church pretty much says it's okay to be a pagan at least this one day of the year. As for the copulating in the fields, the bonfire jumping and the blood sacrifices - we'll just have to see how the day works out. Dave
Support this site by shopping at Amazon.com from this page.

Texas' Most Overrated Barbeque: Southside Market in Elgin

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:44:50 GMT
Southside Market in Elgin has a towering reputation as one of the best barbeque restaurants in the Southwest - it's even featured on the menu at Virgil's BBQ in New York. That reputation must have originated long ago, because I've gone there off and on for more than a decade and it's never been terribly good. I heard recently that they had gone through a shakeup in their cooking staff, so I thought I'd go by and give it another try and write a review with a relatively open mind. As a dining facility you can't fault Southside Market. It's a big building with a traditional rustic atmosphere and the pits are out back so the airconditioning doesn't have to fight the heat. Inside there's a double serving line to handle big crowds, a nice big dining area and lots of special features like an ice cream counter and a full-service butcher shop. They also have a sound system and play classic country, which is adds to the atmosphere. All in all just the right environment for great barbeque. Unfortunately the quality of the food doesn't live up to the presentation or the reputation. For this visit I took the kids with me to get a youthful perspective and I ordered a little bit of everything for us to try, but they only wanted potato chips and bread for sides and were mainly focused on the extensive selection of ice cream for after the meal. Elgin is known for its sausage, and Southside Market has signs on the outside of the building and several places inside the building declaring it the "Home of Elgin Hot Sausage". Well, Elgin sausage as a whole isn't all that great whether you get it in a store and cook it yourself or get it hot at Southside or Meyers which are the two main purveyors. Like most Elgin sausage, what Southside offers is coarse ground pork, extremely greasy, and contrary to their claims it's not spicy at all. It's boring, unappetizing sausage. Compared to the extraordinarily good hot sausage available in nearby Taylor and Lockhart it's not even worth considering and its reputation is certainly undeserved. The best items on the menu were the beef ribs and the mutton. The beef ribs had pretty good flavor. The rub was undistinguished, but the meat was tender and fairly moist. The mutton was the one item that had improved since the last time I visited. Previously it had been undercooked and extremely greasy, but this time it was much better cooked with a nice crust on it, and while it was still somewhat greasy - hard to avoid with mutton - the flavor was not bad at all. Not the best mutton ever, but a definite improvement over the last time I ate there. The brisket was somewhat less good, but passable. It was a bit kind of dry and tough, but the flavor was okay, with the same rub as the beef ribs. The pork ribs were the worst thing we tried. I can only describe them as disgusting. Not something I would ever want to put in my mouth again. They were dry and tough and vinegary tasting. To be fair, my eldest daughter found them less repellant, but she doesn't usually like pork, so perhaps that was because they didn't taste much like pork. Sadly the best part of the meal was the Blue Bell ice cream cones we got on the way out. When the best thing a barbeque joint has to offer is their mutton, which most people won't touch with a ten foot pole no matter how good it is, there's a real problem. If you're coming to Texas for the barbeque and you've heard great stories about Southside Market, don't believe them. When you get to Elgin just keep on driving down Highway 290, take a right on the old Taylor road and any barbeque you find in Taylor will beat it hands down.

The Legacy of Dan Curtis (1927-2006)

Thu, 13 Apr 2006 05:38:16 GMT
"My name is Victoria Winters..." Simple words which still send a thrill up the spines of a generation of Americans. It was the opening line of every one of 1225 episodes of Dark Shadows from 1966 to 1971, and in two movies and a short-lived primetime series in 1991. Late last month Dan Curtis, the man who brought us those words and the amazing stories which went with them, died in his Brentwood home at the age of 78. Curtis was primarily a television producer and director who started out with a successful golf program and used it as a launching point for a television production company which hit its first big success with the off-beat supernatural soap opera Dark Shadows in 1966. Every day Dark Shadows presented an installment in the story of the Collins family of Collinsport, Maine. In some ways they were your typical wealthy, troubled and scandalous soap opera family, except that their troubles were with werewolves, vampires, mad scientists, vengeful witches and time travellers. Curtis created memorable characters and had a real knack for inspired casting, including the chilling Shakespearean actor Jonathan Frid as Barnabus Collins, aging silent movie ingenue Joan Bennett as matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, former Playboy bunny Kathryn Leigh Scott as heroine Maggie Evans, beautiful European aristocrat Alexandra Moltke as Victoria Winters, the creepily sexy Lara Parker as Angelique and New England natives David Selby and Thayer David in major roles. Dark Shadows was all about atmosphere, and Curtis did a remarkable job of bringing the story of a decadent family in coastal New England to life on a very limited budget. When I was a kid in the 1960s both of my parents worked, so after a long bus ride home after school I got to spend a couple of hours in the care of a maid who had very little interest in entertaining children. I ended up seated at the TV starting at 4 o'clock, just in time for Dark Shadows, and it became an important formative influence in my youth. It was through the imagination of Dan Curtis that I was introduced to the world of horror and the supernatural, which encouraged me to seek out the sources of the ideas he was drawing on, which in those days meant becoming a very active reader, discovering Stoker, Le Fanu, de Maupassant, Poe, Dunsany, Lovecraft, Machen and the other classics of paranormal literature. Dark Shadows was the starting point for a voyage of imagination which was immensely rewarding. By modern standards Dark Shadows was crudely produced, even for a soap opera. If you watch it on DVD today it moves incredibly slowly, with contrived cliffhanger endings and choppy narrative caused by the shortness of 30 minute episodes. The acting is uneven and often hammy, under-rehearsed and filmed live with all the glitches that entails. Nonetheless, the stories are strong and the major characters, especially the cursed vampire Barnabus, are engaging and well portrayed. After the five-year run of Dark Shadows Curtis moved on to other projects. He produced a critically acclaimed series of TV movies based on classic gothic literature, including Dracula, Frankenstein, The Picture of Dorian Gray and The Turn of the Screw. He produced and directs several impressive low-budget theatrical horror films, including Trilogy of Terror and Burnt Offerings. He also created the original TV movies which were developed into the series The Night Stalker. His biggest commercial success on Television the groundbreaking miniseries The Winds of War which he followed with War and Remembrance. His greatest critical success may have been one of his last TV productions, the theatrical-quality movie The Love Letter starring Jennifer Jason Leigh and Scott Campbell. Also of note was his 1991 reimagining of Dark Shadows as a primetime series, which was quite good and more watchable for a modern audience than the original soap opera. It suffered an undeserved cancellation because of scheduling problems caused by news coverage of the first Iraq War, but is now available on DVD. Interestingly, after a 7 year retirement, Curtis reappeared as a TV director last year with two successful primetime films, Our Fathers and Saving Milly. Dan Curtis probably deserves a lot more fame than he ever achieved during his lifetime. He was a very inventive producer and writer, and a consistently good director, and no one has ever been better at depicting the stylized world of gothic horror. Curtis' influence on a generation of viewers is manifest in the enduring fan base for Dark Shadows - there are conventions all over the world and the actors still make a living by touring and signing autographs. Probably more significant is his influence on other writers, producers and directors. The most obvious tribute to Curtis on the air today is the soap opera Passions which is a watered down attempt to recreate the success of Dark Shadows. Even more interesting is the work of Shaun Cassidy, the child star turned producer/director who is responsible for Roar, American Gothic and this season's Invasion all of which seem to show the influence of Dan Curtis. Cassidy is almost exactly my age, and I bet that while his mom Shirley Jones was off filming The Partridge Family he was home like me in the afternoons watching Dark Shadows. Dan Curtis is gone, but I doubt that he will ever be forgotten. He was more than just a cult TV and movie maker. If you're too young to have experienced his best work, it's all available on DVD. Go out and rent one of the two Dark Shadows movies or the 1991 series, or spend an evening with Trilogy of Terror or The Love Letter if you prefer romance to horror. You won't regret it.

Burglary, Child Sex, Arson - All OK in Britain Under New Rules

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 05:33:50 GMT
While violent crime is on the rise in Britain, the police have decided to throw in the towel and give up on arresting and punishing most criminals. Under new guidelines issued to police by the Home Office, crimes which do not result in personal injury or death should now be dealt with not by arrest and punishment, but with the issuance of a 'caution', a criminal citation only slightly worse than a traffic ticket. While a 'caution' does give the recipient a criminal record, he is not required to go before a judge or a jury, and receives neither fine nor prison sentence for his crime. Essentially by pleading guilty he is let off with a warning and no punishment at all. Under this new rule cautions will be issued for drug possession or sale, sex with a minor, arson, burglary, assault, mugging, auto theft and a variety of other crimes which had previously been considered jailable offenses. This new policy has apparently been developed as a result of excessive demand on the courts and prison overcrowding. Concern over these problems has already led to the controversial release of many violent criminals from prison after serving only a fraction of their sentence, including rapists and killers given life sentences released in as little as 15 months. Under the new Home Office rules you would basically have to kill someone or cause them serious bodily injury to go to prison. Of course, just to own a gun for home defense is still a serious crime, but with gun violence up more than any other single form of crime, no measures are being considered to allow citizens to defend themselves and their property, despite desperate cries for firearm legalization from threatened citizens. The Home Office has previously tried to conceal the growing crime problem in Britain, which is admittedly still not on the same scale as the dramatic rise in crime in other parts of Europe. They have switched from reporting actual crimes to tracking crime based on surveys of the public, leading to confusion and distortion of crime trends over the last decade. This has created a deceptive impression that crime is stable, when certain types of crime which are no longer being tracked as closely are rising substantially, including all forms of property crime. The new crime protocols are clearly intended to try to free the courts to deal with violent crime, which makes a certain amount of sense. Yet they do not take into consideration the fact that property crimes, such as burglary of homes and vehicles and robbery of individuals, often involve the threat of violence and can turn into violent incidents very easily. Under these new rules there is virtually nothng to discourage a career criminal from breaking into your home and taking your property or stopping you on the street and taking your wallet - threatening you or even assaulting you if you don't cooperate. Thanks to the Bureaucrats of the Home Office, Britons - who were already disarmed and at the mercy of criminals - can no longer even look to the justice system for any kind of protection. Britain has been made a nation of victims through the weakness and of their own government.

The Final Solution for Illegal Immigration

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:44:46 GMT
Today the United States faces many threats

Massachusetts Healthcare Disaster

Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:11:29 GMT
If you believe there's a healthcare crisis in America you'd probably like to see something done about it. You'd probably like to see everyone insured in some way so that if they get sick or injured they won't be a burden on society. Sounds like a good idea, right? The objective of health coverage for all is certainly desirable. But what if the cost is the destruction of small businesses, disaster for working families, and massive tax increases for everyone? $300 per worker for small businesses for mandatory insurance $300 insurance required for individuals earning $30000 or more State subsidizes insurance for those under $30K. http://www3.whdh.com:80/news/articles/local/BO17524/ http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060404_152510.htm http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5330854

Why the GOP Will Continue to Win the Independent Vote and Thus Win Elections

Sun, 09 Apr 2006 01:55:59 GMT

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. -- George Washington, Farewell Address
With a couple of big elections coming up in the near future, everyone is wondering whether the shortcomings of the Bush administration are enough to drive voters away and give the Democrats a chance to regain power. As with every election, victory largely comes down to who can win over the independent voters who make up about a third of the electorate. As elected officials from both parties underperform and disappoint the voters the number of independents has been growing as disaffected members drift away from the parties. These alienated voters are the key to winning more and more elections. While both parties can count on their partisans fairly reliably, the independents can go either way so most campaign efforts are directed at winning them over. Although their core constituency is slightly smaller, in recent elections the Republicans have won over more of the independent vote and that has given them victory after victory. To reverse that trend the Democrats need to find a way to appeal to those independents more than the Republicans do. As has been demonstrated again and again since campaigns started heavily 'going negative' in the 1980s, voters find it a lot easier to focus on the negative than the positive. It's easier to win votes by smearing your opponent than by promoting your own ideas and it's easier to lose an election by committing a faux pas than it is to win an election by doing good works. In this negative atmosphere both parties tend to be judged by their most extreme elements. And both parties certainly contain some wacky extremists whose views are shared by only a fraction of their own party, much less the general population. Independents are mostly relatively moderate politically, so they often face the unpleasant challenge of figuring out which party's radicals hold positions they find least unacceptable. It is this dynamic which has paid off for the Republicans and will likely continue to do so in the future unless the Democrats find some way to control or eliminate their ideologically unappealing fringe. The problem for the Democrats is that the key to the independent voter is that they tend to vote based on their obvious self-interest. They're alienated from politics, hostile to government and to both parties and they mostly want to be left alone. They vote their pocketbooks, on the basis of their family's welfare and on what is likely to be best for their friends and neighbors. You might call them selfish, but basically they're realists who know that the best kind of government is one which does the least harm. They've gone beyond expecting a government which looks out for their interests and are willing to settle for a government which isn't trying to screw them at every turn. Independent voters want to protect their interests and protect their rights. They know that the activist extremes of the two major parties have agendas which involve whittling away their rights in all sorts of areas, in service of religious, moral and political ideologies. They also understand that the parties have to cater to these extremes in order to turn out reliable, core votes. But above all, they have a simple agenda of their own. They want to be left alone and to protect their families, their property and their wallets. In picking how they will vote independents have to decide which party's extreme agitators are more threatening to them. This is where the Republicans tend to win out. While the radicals of both parties want to limit liberty and impose intrusive restrictions on people to further their marginal causes, the general threat level of the Republican extremists is more acceptable, however reprehensible their specific issue positions may be. Most of the ways that extreme Republican factions want to persecute people and take away their rights apply primarily to small groups who are relatively politically unpopular and to rights which many people see as being of secondary importance. In contrast, the radical elements of the Democratic party tend to promote policies which impact very fundamental rights and which would affect much larger portions of the population. In grade-school terms, the Republicans are like playground bullies who are going to take lunch money away from the whiney unpopular child who picks his nose in class, while the Democrats are the crusading parent who wants to ban recess for everyone because someone could get hurt on the playground. The main bugaboo of the Republican party is the religious right. They're mostly out to get homosexuals and to ban abortion. Both of these issues target relatively small and unpopular segments of the population. Homosexuals are everywhere, but they're less than 10% of the population and they're out of the mainstream by definition. They are seen as alien, threatening and objects of derision by a lot of people, even though they may know better. Everyone knows that unplanned pregnancies are a problem, but underlying the surface sympathy is a resentment of the mother and a condemnation of the presumed promiscuousness which created the situation. Again, women seeking abortions are a small and powerless group and one which doesn't evoke a lot of genuine sympathy. In both of these examples most independent voters can easily say "what do I care, I'm not gay and I'm not going to get knocked up with an unwanted baby." The same holds true with the issues of the extreme 'law and order' Republicans. Most people don't plan to commit a murder so they don't mind the death penalty. Most look down on drug users so they put up with the War on Drugs. Most can even look at infringements of privacy rights under the 4th Amendment and not worry because they aren't criminals or terrorists and therefore have nothing to hide. Restrictions on social service programs are an acceptable evil because those people should work harder and provide for thesmelves. This attitude even extends to some degree to situations like the War in Iraq. It mostly afflicts people in a foreign country, and a very small number of US soldiers who volunteered to be there in the first place. In all these cases the independent, self-centered voter can frown and say "What does it matter to me? I'm not really directly hurt by any of this." The independent voter may not like any of these programs. They may be nominally pro-gay and pro-choice and anti-war and pro-drugs, etc. But when it comes down to making a choice most of them ultimately decide that if it doesn't hurt them directly it's an acceptable compromise. In contrast, the more radical elements of the democratic party promote policies which independent voters find much more generally threatening. These are generally political objectives which go against the three most basic rights of life, liberty and property and which apply to the majority of people in the society. Social reformers on the left want to implement 'economic justice', which to the independent voter means higher taxes to pay for more social welfare programs. That hits most voting citizens directly in the wallet. They aren't targeting some small and isolated group. They're threatening to take money away from everyone and give it to someone less deserving. That's...

Why the GOP Will Continue to Win the Moderate Vote Every Time

Sun, 09 Apr 2006 01:55:36 GMT

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. -- George Washington, Farewell Address
With a couple of big elections coming up everyone is wondering whether the shortcomings of the Bush administration are enough to drive voters away and give the Democrats a chance to regain power. As with every election, victory largely comes down to who can win over the independent voters who make up about a third of the electorate. As elected officials from both parties underperform and disappoint the voters the number of independents has been growing as disaffected members drift away from the parties. These alienated voters are the key to winning more and more elections. While both parties can count on their partisans fairly reliably, the independents can go either way so most campaign efforts are directed at winning them over. Although their core constituency is slightly smaller, in recent elections the Republicans have won over more of the independent vote and that has given them victory after victory. To reverse that trend the Democrats need to find a way to appeal to those independents more than the Republicans do. As has been proven again and again since campaigns started heavily 'going negative' in the 1980s, voters find it a lot easier to focus on the negative than the positive. It's easier to win votes by smearing your opponent than by promoting your own ideas and it's easier to lose an election by committing a faux pas than it is to win an election by doing good works. In this negative atmosphere both parties tend to be judged by their most extreme elements. And both parties certainly contain some wacky extremists whose views are shared by only a fraction of their own party, much less the general population. Independents are mostly relatively moderate politically, so they often face the unpleasant challenge of figuring out which party's radicals hold positions they find least unacceptable.

The Strategies for 2006

Sun, 09 Apr 2006 01:37:03 GMT
When a political party is approaching a major off-year election where a lot of seats in the House, Senate and various Governors Mansions are at stake, it needs a strategy. It's a lot different from a presidential campaign where there's a dominant figure who sets the agenda and who has a staff to work out a strategy and then lets all the smaller candidates ride his coattails. Republicans running blacks: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/republicans-make-black-history.html http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060227/27repub.htm?track=rss http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/politics/01repubs.html?ex=1277870400&en=b287a05620efe0c7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Democrats running veterans - 56 so far http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/candidates/ http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?page=article&id=6531 http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/02/military_veteran_candidates_in.html Ohio democratic party dumps pro-military veteran Paul Hackett because he's not black http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200602%5CPOL20060214c.html Hackett gets revenge on Sherrod Brown for dirty tricks http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/DustinHawkins/2006/02/24/187646.html Maryland Senator race to replace Sarbanes who retired Lt. Gov Michael Steele black running for Reps. Ben Cardin (white) beats Kweisi Mfume (black) 36%-26% in dem primary Ohio Gov Ken Blackwell www.kenblackwell.com leading by 10 in primary for May 2 Likely vs. Ted Strickland not a vet Pennsylvania Gov. Lynn Swann (R) challenging Dem gov Ed Rendell http://www.swannforgovernor.com/ Steelers wide receiver in 70s Other Rep candidates dropped out when he declared Hidden issue - lots and lots of pro life dems running, and some of the vets are damned conservative. More repub vets running than media is saying many primaries still to be resolved Reps have more vets already in office There are 109 veterans in the House, 69 are Republicans (63 percent). Of the 30 military veterans in the Senate, 17 of whom are Republicans (57 percent). Of the 21 House members who are retiring or seeking other office, six are military veterans. Among the four retiring senators, only Independent James M. Jeffords of Vermont served in the military. (link) Repus running almost as many new vets as dems Rahm Emanuel head of the DCCC may be undermining the same veterans he recruited in the first place because they don't fit his far left agenda well enough. He is believed to be behind screwing up primary bids of Tim Dunn in NC as well as Hackett and Eric Massa in NY Good Black Rep info group http://www.meckgop.com/timeline.html more good links Republican and Black - US News and World Repot Republicans Train Black Candidates - BlackCollegeReview Newsweek audio on black candidates

questionaire

Thu, 06 Apr 2006 05:00:07 GMT
Soap Comparison Questionaire Which Smells Better? (circle one on each line) Frog or Turtle Rosebud or Rose Bloom Which Smells Stronger? (circle one on each line) Frog or Turtle Rosebud or Rose Bloom Which Looks More Attractive? (circle one on each line) Frog or Turtle Rosebud or Rose Bloom Which Do You Prefer Overall? (circle one on each line) Frog or Turtle Rosebud or Rose Bloom

The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get ... Even Richer?

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 14:41:47 GMT

In our industrial and social system, the interests of all men are so closely intertwined that in the immense majority of cases a straight dealing man who by his efficiency, by his ingenuity and industry, benefits himself, must also benefit others. Theodore Roosevelt
There continues to be a great deal of muttering from the left and alarmism in the media about a trend towards growing 'income inequality' between the rich and poor in America. Most of this originates in a series of studies by Isaac Shapiro at a left-wing think tank, the Center for Budget Policy Priorities, which has as its main objective fighting any tax reductions and redistributing income from the rich to the government. Shapiro's work is mainly analysis of figures on household income from the Congressional Budget Office, which show a historic trend of income increasing in all income groups, but by a larger percentage in the higher income groups than the lower ones. Income is normally broken down into quintiles, and between 1979 and 2002, Shapiro shows a 5% rate of income increase for the bottom quintile compared to a 48% growth in income for the top quintile. Basically his figures show that the more you earn, the more your earnings increased during that period. Shapiro's conclusions seem alarming. Though everyone gained in income, the gains for the rich are so dramatically higher than for the poor that one has to be concerned. Of course, this analysis of income for huge income groups rather than individuals, and over a period of 23 years, is ridiculously simplistic and overlooks key, obvious factors which definitively invalidate it, especially as an argument against tax cuts. First off, it's a gross analysis over a long period of time, and it's also based on data which is several years old. It doesn't include the most recent data, and by taking so many years together it overlooks year-to-year trends in income growth which are very significant. If you examine the trends on a yearly basis what immediately leaps out is that the greatest growth in income disparity happened not in recent years as Shapiro implies and as the media has made an issue of, but in the very beginning of the period, in the 1980s, when taxes were at a historically very high level and economic growth was slow. In the 15-year period from 1979 to 1994 the bottom quintile gained only 2% while the top quintile gained 28%. The next 6 years - the time of the high-tech boom - showed the greatest economic growth and saw the poor gain 8.1% and the top quintile gain 12.7%, much closer together. The most recent era - the Bush era of recession and tax cuts - also shows slowing growth in disparity than the 80s and early 90s, with both rich and poor losing income. The bottom quintile is down 8.5% in the last 5 years, and the top quintile is down 3.3% in the last 5 years, again a relatively close ratio. Overall during the 23 year span the ratio of income growth between the rich and poor is 9.6:1, but in the first 2/3 of the period, from 1979 to 1994, that ratio was 14:1 and, in the last 5 years, it was only 2.6:1. So the trend that everyone is alarmed about is actually a trend which has been declining in recent years and is only looks like a dramatic trend because of the rate of growth in wealth disparity in the beginning of the period studied. What those who are alarmed about income disparity have latched onto is the single biggest comparison between rich and poor over 23 years, but because of how Shapiro presents the data, most who have looked at the issue miss the fact that the rate of growth in disparity is decreasing rather than increasing. The rich are actually getting rich less quickly relative to the poor than they were 20 years ago. The next problem with the analysis of this data is that it is looking at statistical groups rather than changes in the income of individuals over the period studied. What it completely ignores is the fact that the people in the bottom quintile in 1979 are not the same people who are there 20 years later. The reality is that most of the bottom quintile is made up of the elderly, recent immigrants, and young people just entering the work force. The last two groups move up in income rapidly and are overwhelmingly not in the bottom quintile after only a few years have passed while the first group die off also leaving the bottom quintile. A study by the House of Representatives shows that the bottom quintile has the highest level of upward mobility of any group. In a 10-year period, 86% of the people in that quintile will have moved up one or more income brackets. What's more, the top quintile has the highest level of downward mobility. In a typical 10-year period, 35% of the people in the top quintile will have dropped down at least one bracket. Factoring in economic mobility totally destroys the Shapiro thesis that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Let's assume that people in the top and bottom quintiles only rose or dropped one quintile in income over the 23 year period studied, which is ridiculously conservative. Based on the percentages who moved up and down, that means that, on average, the 86% of the poor who moved up actually increased their income by 274%, while 35% of the rich decreased their income by 46%. So using those figures you can adjust Shapiro's percentages for upward and downward economic mobility and you end up with the poor gaining 236% on average, and the rich actually 27% on average. That's pretty damned far from the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Everyone is getting richer, and as a percentage the poor are probably rising farther and faster than anyone. When people look at data they usually see what they want to see. In the world of groups like the CBPP, groups matter more than individuals so the upward movement of individuals is less important than the fact that 18-year olds working at MacDonalds aren't earning much more now than similar first-time workers were 20 years ago. Never mind that the 18-year old they looked at 20 years ago is now earning 3 times as much and in some entirely different profession. ---- There are some other good sources for analysis of this subject. Take a look at the overview of income mobility from Daniel Drezner, and the article from March 23rd on Economic Trends. The Heartland Institute also has a look at the subject from a different perspective, and another good article can be found at the Heritage Foundation. Those last two are right-wing think tanks as suspect as the CBPP in their own way, so look at the original data for yourself and draw your own conclusions. For the source data on income growth during this period, take a look at the tables in this Census Bureau PDF, and for trends in income mobility look at this House of Representatives Joint Economic Study.

The Right Brothers Strike Back

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:31:45 GMT
Have you ever wished your favorite indy rock bands were just a little more right wing? Tired of annoying socialistic lyrics attached to the post-punk chords of bands like Green Day? Wish you could find some songs praising President Bush, opposing abortion and bashing Hollywood? Well, you don't have to be an American idiot anymore. Now you can listen to The Right Brothers. The Right Brothers are two guitar-slinging brothers from Nashville plus a drummer, who've combined engaging pop-punk riffs with lyrics straight out of American Spectator. Their current single is Bush Was Right, an upbeat song which crows the successes of the Bush administration and has an amusing repeated chord sequence which sounds rather like a guitar saying "nyah nyah nyah." It's a cleverly written and catchy song, if a bit derivative of Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire and Bowling for Soup's Ohio. But for the content it's the kind of song which could actually get airplay. They've even got a pretty well produced video for the song, though I don't think you can expect to see it on Fuse any time soon. The song has also been picked up to be used in a TV ad to run on Fox News by RightMarch - coals to Newcastle, perhaps. Another recent release, which I think is actually a better and more original song is What About the Issues?, a response to the hatemail they've been getting about their music. It's available on their website as a free download. No video for it, but it pretty much speaks for itself. They actually have videos for a half-dozen songs, plus a total of more than 20 songs in release. They hit on virtually every topic of current politics, with titles like Tolerate This, Trickle Down, The Illegals, I Want to Live and This Ain't Your Daddy's Party. They've got songs about immigration (several, in fact), the Iraq War, abortion, racial profiling and tax cuts. Some of the songs have more of a country or folk feel to them, but the guitar work is universally good and the vocals are clear and easy to understand, if not always brilliantly originally written. Not surprisingly, they've stirred up a little controversy, with attacks starting to spread on the left-wing blogosphere. The tag line on their website is "the truth disguised as music," and it's clear that to a large extent the music here is secondary to the message, which is not to say that the music isn't sometimes pretty good as well. Whether the approach of recording nothing but right-wing political songs is hearfelt or pure marketing is a valid question. The topics are too perfectly picked and the music in some ways too well tailored to a pop audience for me to feel that it's completely authentic. I'd believe them more if the songs were more personal and more original. A right-wing Billy Bragg would be a lot more believable than what sounds like a group of skilled musicians tailoring their music to a receptive and untapped potential audience. The fact that they switch styles from punk-pop to pure country so easily suggests an artificiality which I find suspicious. On the other hand, they're not Paul Shanklin, though they are occasionally pretty amusing in songs like The Waffle House. They lack his glibness and they've got a certain earnestness, almost like a particularly dogmatic right-wing blog expressing itself musically. There's also something sneakily subversive about their use of the same font to make their initials TRB look like the TNR used by The New Republic until fairly recently. The marketing aspect of their efforts is interesting. Although they have two CDs and a DVD of professionally produced work available, I wasn't surprised to find them missing from iTunes. As a rule it hasn't been terribly easy for independent artists to break onto - doubly so for a right-wing political novelty act, I imagine. To compensate they have a very professionally done website where you can do a quick and easy purchase and download of any of their songs, videos or CDs using PayPal. You can also order physical products, including some combo packs with multiple copies of their CDs to give to any left-wing friends you might want to annoy. The Right Brothers are not the greatest new thing in music, though many of their songs are quite listenable. They're good, skilled musicians and decent songwriters, but that's not enough in the crowded musical marketplace - that's why American Idol can find contestants. They've chosen to target a niche market, and use that to lever themselves to greater prominence through controversy and partisan loyalty. It's not a bad idea. They have apparently sold quite substantial numbers of their most popular songs at 99 cents each, cutting out the various middlemen of the record industry in the process. Other niche music like Christian rock has occasionally produced bands and songs which have crossed over into the mainstream. so who's to say there isn't room for The Right Brothers in the mix as well.

immigration bills

Sun, 02 Apr 2006 08:11:38 GMT
Frist Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02454: McCain Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.01033: Looks like McCain bill is dead, but Frist bill is being amended with many features of McCain bill. See all amendments here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S52665 including amnesty, guest worker and a passle of pork. Paul strikes back http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:41:./temp/~bdsrSa:@@@X

Illegal Immigration: Should the Punishment Fit the Crime?

Sat, 01 Apr 2006 04:04:41 GMT
Illegally crossing the border into the United States is a crime. No question about it. Those who do it are criminals and they ought to be punished. But how bad is their crime and what is an appropriate punishment?
"My object all sublime I shall achieve in time To let the punishment fit the crime The punishment fit the crime; And make each prisoner pent Unwillingly represent A source of innocent merriment! Of innocent merriment!" - W. S. Gilbert in The Mikado
Yet it's also true that there are a lot of activities which have been criminalized by all sorts of state and federal laws in America. Most of these crimes have strictly defined punishments, and even in some cases mandatory sentencing rules. Some crimes are dealt with through a cursory, almost meaningless, fine while others have more severe penalties - even death. Laws define which crimes we consider most heinous and punish most severely and which ones we punish lightly or in a mostly symbolic way based on how much harm the crime does and how much it is reviled by society.
"It is not, what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice, tell me I ought to do." - Edmund Burke
Some of these crimes weren't crimes in the past and some activities which used to be crimes are legal today. There was a time when you couldn't drink alcohol but you could legally smoke marijuana. In an even earlier era you could own slaves but if you were a woman you couldn't own real estate. Not so long ago here in Texas you could be hanged for being caught with a concealed set of wire cutters and yet you could shoot an armed man in the street and stand a fair chance of doing no time in jail. In all of these cases our modern laws are the exact opposite of what they were only a few generations ago. If you go even farther back in time the differences in what is a crime and what is not a crime become even more pronounced. The same is true from culture to culture in our contemporary world. In some parts of the world currently getting a lot of attention you can beat your wife to death and invite the relatives to help and get away with it, but if you change religion it's off with your head.
"It is the business of the legislature to follow the spirit of the nation, when it is not contrary to the principles of government; for we do nothing so well as when we act with freedom, and follow the bent of our natural genius." - Montesquieu
So law and the definition of what is a crime and how it should be punished are a mutable product of the mores of society and the priorities of the people and their government at that particular time. This is generally less true of certain basic absolutes like the rights to life, liberty and property - especially in any relatively egalitarian society - but even those fundamental rights have been legislated out of existence far too often. The same is true of punishment. Different crimes have been deemed more serious than others in different eras and cultures and different approaches to punishment have been applied. In Anglo-Saxon England almost any crime could be punished with a fine of some sort, including murder in many instances. The only crimes considered too serious for Wergeld were crimes against the state and the punishment for them was usually exile. In other times and places execution has applied to almost any crime, and corporal punishment including flogging, branding and maiming were considered appropriate for relatively minor offenses. Today we've rejected most of those extreme punishments and we express belief in the idea that there should be a relationship between the severity of a crime and the severity of the punishment for it, but some of the punishments set by society and government don't really meet an objective standard for proportionality to the true seriousness of the crime they apply to. It may not be as bad as it once was, but when politics plays a role there's room for a lot of inconsistency.
"Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered." - Aristotle
Now all of a sudden people have noticed that there are a hell of a lot of illegal immigrants in the United States, something they've been turning a blind eye to for 30 years because having them here was expedient.
"As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry" - Herbert Spencer
Cries are going out from the 'Fortress America' wing of the Republican party that the McCain-Kennedy version of the immigration reform bill is too soft on immigrants, doesn't protect America enough and (gasp) amounts to amnesty for the illegal immigrants who have broken our sacred laws and are dreaded criminals within our borders. The latest version which was modified by Bill Frist and others to have some stronger provisions in it is still under fire for being too soft on these vicious criminals and essentially granting them amnesty.
"As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry" - Herbert Spencer
First off, forget the idea that illegal immigrants as a group are criminals in the regular sense of the word. It should never be inherently criminal just to pursue gainful employment in a legal job which does not harm other people. If they did the same jobs on the other side of the border they would not be criminals. The only thing that makes them criminals is the act of crossing an arbitrary line on a map. That suggests that the law does not conform to common sense or to nature, because it is the nature of humanity to pursue employment wherever it is available and to strive to advance themselves.
"It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive." - Earl Warren
The key factor in assessing the criminality of illegal immigration or any other crime is the amount of harm which it causes to others. Murdering someone obviously hurts them and society about as much as any crime can, so it should received the most extreme punishment. Illegally immigrating, on the other hand, does no direct physical harm to anyone and benefits society by providing a willing...

Saddam's Documents Being Translated

Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:03:15 GMT
Recently the Pentagon released thousands of untranslated documents captured in the fall of Baghdad. Only a smattering were ever translated and released. Many more remain in Arabic and contain surprisingly significant revelations about the nature and status of Saddam's WMD program and relationship with terrorists. A volunteer civilian translator named Joseph Shahda is working on translating them into English and the things he's finding are remarkable. If you bought into the 'Bush Lied' disinformation this may shock you. There's a nice interview with Shahda plus links to his first set of translations in an article by PatFish over on Blogcritics. Dave

Justice, Amnesty and Immigration

Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:11:51 GMT
"It is not, what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice, tell me I ought to do." - Edmund Burke "Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered." - Aristotle "It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive." - Earl Warren "It is the business of the legislature to follow the spirit of the nation, when it is not contrary to the principles of government; for we do nothing so well as when we act with freedom, and follow the bent of our natural genius." - Montesquieu "All punishment which is not derived from necessity is tyrannical." - Montesquieu "No human laws are of any validity if contrary to the law of nature" - Blackstone "As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry" - Herbert Spencer Cries are going out from the 'Fortress America' wing of the Republican party that the McCain-Kennedy version of the immigration reform bill is too soft on immigrants, doesn't protect America enough and (gasp) amounts to amnesty for the illegal immigrants who have broken our sacred laws and are dreaded criminals within our borders. The latest version which was modified by Bill Frist and others to have some stronger provisions in it is still under fire for being too soft on these vicious criminals and essentially granting them amnesty. First off, I reject the idea that illegal immigrants as a group are criminals in the regular sense of the word. It should never be criminal to pursue gainful employment in a legal job which does not harm other people. If they did the same jobs on the other side of the border they would not be criminals. The only thing that makes them criminals is an arbitrary line drawn on a map. That suggests that the law does not confirm to common sense or to nature, because it is the nature of people to pursue employment wherever it is available.

I dreamed I was the Antichrist

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:24:47 GMT
When I was younger, much younger, I used to love to sleep because I had serial dreams. It's a rarish phenomenon when your dreams all string together into a coherent narrative. This is very cool when you're 16 and the dreams are an ongoing adventure saga in which you're the hero. As I got older the serial dreams became more infrequent, or perhaps I remembered my dreams less well so I didn't notice them happening. Well, now they're back and I'm remembering them. You tend to remember dreams in which you play the central role in an ongoing saga where you're the Antichrist. Until now all of my serial dreams had been pleasant experiences. Now I'm learning what it's like to have serial nightmares. Not the super scary kind of nightmares where you're physically threatened, but the creepy unnatural and unpleasantly prophetic kind. They don't exactly scare me, they just make me really nervous and glad they're only dreams. Like any dreams, it's hard to remember all of the details when I wake up. I just know that there was an author of popular apocalyptic novels - played by the late Marlon Brando in the dream - who in his final book revealing the identity of the Antichrist, describes the character in such a way that the only person the description could possibly apply to is me. Key to this are the events of a previous dream in which I travel from the top of a tall office building into a mysterious world which I later learn is part of heaven. There I fight and kill what I find out much later is an angel. From my perspectives the angels I encounter there are monstrous, inhuman creatures of no fixed form, which change from stags to pigs to something vaguely human, constantly shifting their shape. They are incommunicative, hostile and seemingly aggressive towards me. The one I kill has attacked me, or so I believe, and I kill it in self defense, but that is apparently what marks me as the Antichrist. The dream series does have its strange and surrealistic turns. Most notably that by the end of the lastest dream I'm preparing to reluctantly sue all sorts of people for declaring me to be the Antichrist, including the author of the book and a local baker, though I can't remember or figure out why the baker deserves to be sued. He's apparently also being sued by a bunch of little children over the same issue, which makes it even stranger. On the upside, if there is one to being the Antichrist, I'm apparently the nicest Antichrist you can imagine. In addition to killing an angel in a previous dream I save the life of one in the latest dream and actually manage to communicate with them which ultimately gets me the unreassuring explanation that it doesn't matter that I've lived a good life and done good works, predestination still makes me the Antichrist. The really frustrating aspect of the latest dream is that it consists mostly of going around trying to convince people I'm not the Antichrist while knowing that according to predestination I'm the Antichrist no matter how hard I try not to be. Apparently there's no conscientious objector status for Antichrists.

La Reconquista Takes to the Streets

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:06:53 GMT
Way back kin 1847 we fought a war with Mexico and General Winfield "Old Fuss and Feathers" Scott and the redoubtable General Zachary Taylor won handily and we conquered the country and their government went into exile. A very sharp guy named Nicholas Trist negotiated with their exiled government for more than a year, offering them money and trade deals and debt forgiveness if they'd just come back and resume control of their huge, wretched country full of peasants. All we wanted was to keep the nice northern parts like California and Texas where a bunch of Anglos had settled along with Mexico's politically persecuted intellectuals who had been exiled to the borderlands. Eventually a treaty was worked out and everyone was happy... Well, everyone except for the people in Mexico, and apparently Mexicans have a long, long memory. From that time forward a combination myth, philosophy and political movement too vague to hang your hat directly on, but very real nonetheless, has existed in Mexico called "La Reconquista". The name is borrowed from the Christian reconquest of Spain from the Moors and it is the idea that someday Mexico would seize its lost northern territories back from the United States. To Pancho Villa that meant an excuse for raping and pillaging in border towns while pretending to be a patriot, but more recently and more practically in the minds of activits, it has meant the reconquest of those territories not through warfare but through gradual infiltration and cultural domination. The operating principle is actually remarkably similar to the one used to take those territories from Mexico in the first place. Anglo-Americans moved into Mexican-ruled Texas and California - often illegally - and then when there were enough of them settled in, they began complaining about the inefficient, corrupt and abusive Mexican government and calling on the United States to come save them, which the US government eagerly did. In the same way, you now have Mexicans flooding over the border to settle in the southwestern states, and once their numbers are large enough their activist spokesmen can feel justified in demanding rights and power from the US government, hoping to win control of those states by the pure influence of their numbers. We saw this demonstrated over the weekend in the nationwide marches of hundreds of thousands - perhaps as many as a million - illegal immigrants and their supporters in major cities, especially in the southwest. In the face of efforts in Congress to define the status of illegal immigrants and set a viable policy for dealing with them in the future, they came out and showed their strength by filling the streets and demanding fair treatment - in effect demanding that the success of "La Reconquista" be recognized. To be fair, most of these marchers were not actually lllegal immigrants. Most illegals don't give a damn about the political ideology of a 150 year old vendetta. They want to work hard, send money home to their families and not do something dumb like marching around with a sign so they get deported. The crowds at the marches were hispanic activists from groups like the National Council of La Raza, well-meaning hispanics of legal status, and the usual core of extreme left crazies who will show up at any march carrying a completely inappropriate sign promoting their personal pet cause. Nonetheless, with a generously estimated 500,000 turning out in Los Angeles, it looked pretty impressive on the news. At issue are two bills in the Congress and local legislation in states like Arizona and Georgia which are designed to control immigration and the status of immigrants and set policy for future border crossings. In the House of Representatives Senator James Sensenbrenner has proposed a bill (HR 4437) which would make illegal immigration a felony, increase the power of local law enforcement in apprehending illegals, and build a 700 mile long fence to help control the border. Particularly controversial are provisions which would make it a crime to provide assistance or even charity to illegal immigrants, and would bar them from any kind of state medical or charitable assistance. The law would even require charitable aid workers to turn in immigrants or face felony charges themselves. There's no question that something needs to be done, and taking a firmer line on immigration isn't a bad idea. But this bill is truly draconian, and would potentially end up with so many people arrested that we'd end up spending ridiculous amounts of money feeding and housing enormous numbers of detained illegals, mounting countless costly trials and putting a lot of relatively innocent people under threat of felony convictions. To its credit, a great deal of what's in this bill really isn't directed at Mexican illegals who want to work. It pays a lot of attention to filling weaknesses in border and port security in defense against potential terrorism. It also has strong provisions against criminal gangs. So there are some desirable if rather hardline ideas in the bill. Perhaps its largest shortcoming is that it is all enforement with no provisions at all for any kind of guest worker program. It is this bill which most of the protestors are reacting to, despite the fact that there is limited support for it in the Senate and its companion bill S. 2454 may not even get out of committee. The answer to this bill from moderates in the Senate is the McCain-Kennedy Bill (S.1033) and its equivalent in the House (HR 2330). This bill has major support in the Senate from important figures, but much weaker support in the House. Nonetheless it looks a lot more likely to actually pass both houses than the more radical Sensenbrenner bill. This bill is much weaker and vaguer on enforcement and lacks some of the extreme measures to punish employers and aid workers, though it does have provisions to limit access to medical care and charity programs. It's also a lot less focused on issues of crime and homeland security. It also offers what is effectively amnesty to those currently in the country illegally if they fulfill certain requirements, pass a security check and pay a hefty fine. On the plus side, it does include rudimentary provisions for a guest worker program as well as expanding the availability of visas and the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this bill is its call for various reforms in land ownership rights and economic structure within Mexico to try to create a better environment there to help keep their workers at home. In general this bill is seen as much more appealing by those who favor immigration, but there is a lot of concern over the general amnesty and lack of strong enforcement provisions. If the process works the way it should the best parts of these bills will be combined together into something acceptable in the House and Senate committees and a workable joint bill will be produced. A combination of the border security and anti-crime elements of the Sensenbrenner bill and the guest worker program of the McCain-Kennedy bill with some of the more extreme punitive elements taken out would progably be ideal. The McCain-Kennedy bill is vague and not terribly thorough. Despite the rather unappealing ideas it contains, the Sensenbrenner bill is remarkably clear and well written and would make a good starting point. It could provide the framework for the final bill....

Bio Draft

Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:46:57 GMT
Dave Nalle was born in 1959 in Beirut, Lebanon while his parents were serving in the diplomatic service. His early childhood was spent all over the Middle East in countries like Syria, Iran and Jordan. When he was 6 his family returned for two tours of duty in Washington DC before being sent abroad again. During his early teens they lived in England and ultimately in the Soviet Union. Dave was educated at American and British schools overseas, eventually completing high school at St. Albans School in Washington DC. From there he went to Franklin and Marshall College where he earned degrees in English and History. At F&M he headed the student chapter of Students for a Libertarian Society and worked as a regional organizer for the Ed Clark presidential campaign in 1980. During and after college Dave had a variety of political staff jobs in Washington, including working for Al Gore at the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future as a newsletter editor, as a fundraiser at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and as publications director for Students for a Libertarian Society, where he wrote for and edited Liberty magazine. In 1982 Dave moved to Texas to attend graduate school at the University of Texas. After earning his Master's Degree in History, he began to teach at Austin Community College, during which time he completed work on his Ph.D. At the same time, Dave augmented his income writing, working in magazine editing and doing freelance graphic and publication design. This work and his graduate research on historical calligraphy eventually led to an interest in digital type design, particularly in the area of antique type and fonts based on historical hand lettering. In 1989 Dave founded The Scriptorium, a small company which produces original type designs and markets graphic design resources. Some of his early typeface designs were remarkably successful as shareware, and with the advent of the world wide web The Scriptorium has become a solidly profitable small business, selling fonts and other digital design resources worldwide to many major advertisers, designers and publishers. If you pick up a book, a video, a CD or a magazine, there's an ever-increasing chance you'll find one of his font designs lurking somewhere on it. Some of his coups include the selection of his fonts for a Disney theme park in Japan and as the official fonts for all the merchandising for the Lord of the Rings movies. Dave married Patricia Fitch, a native Texan, in 1989 and they have two daughters spaced 10 years apart. They have always lived in east Austin, mostly in the French Place neighborhood but have now moved a bit farther east and away from town to a 5.25 acre country home on the border between Austin and Manor. Dave spends most of his time working on new font designs, but he continues to teach a few history courses at ACC. He plays tennis and disc golf, and takes an active interest in political and educational issues. What's Next, Editor/Columnist (1980) Liberty, Executive Editor (1981-1982) AFPF News, Managing Editor (1992-1998) Abyss Magazine, Editor (1979-1990) Thrust, Columnist (1982-1984) Renaissance, Columnist (1993-1995) Whole Earth Magazine, Guest Editor (2004) Blogcritics, Politics Editor (2005-2006) Writing Experience Political Commentary in What's Next, Liberty, The Daily Texan. Fiction and Poetry in Dragontales, Eldritch Tales, Sorcerer's Apprentice, Dragon, Space and Time, Night Voyages, others. Reviews and Commentary in Thrust, Renaissance, Different Worlds, Dragon, Spacegamer, Over 1000 reviews and articles published Over 30 short stories pub>

Was Bush Right About Iraq, Al Qaeda and WMDs?

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:21:53 GMT

Documents of the former Iraqi government which were recently released by the US Government include unexpected revelations about events in Iraq prior to the US-led invasion. These documents are addressed in an ABC News report released this week. Fulfilling the lowered expectations many have developed for the major media, the story is titled Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the US War Plan?, emphasizing a document about the Russian ambassador involved in the oil for food scandal leaking some fairly obvious information about US invasion strategy to the Hussein regime. An interesting story, but it ought to take a back seat to some of the other documents, especially those which provide definitive evidence that Saddam was hiding WMD information from UN inspectors and that he had in fact been in communication with Osama bin Laden and worked in cooperation with Al Qaeda in the past. For three years the media and the left have been trying to discredit some of the claims that led up to the Iraq war, especially the presence of ongoing WMD development and the idea that there were connections between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda. Now those disinformation campaigns seem to be falling apart and these documents add to the growing body of evidence that the Bush administration was far closer to the mark than it has been given credit for in its concerns about Saddam's Iraq. The ABC report confirms that the documents show that Saddam's government was in communication with Al Qaeda and with Osama bin Laden through intermediaries, and that they had discussed support for terrorism and 'joint operations' against common enemies like Saudi Arabia and the United States. The report says in part:

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation."

Perhaps even more significantly, the documents confirm the fact that Iraq continued to possess and develop WMDs far past the period in the early 1990s when they had supposedly destroyed their checmical and biological agents, and that they carried on an ongoing campaign to conceal information about their WMD capabilities and research from the United Nations inspectors. In one of the documents procedures are outlined for concealing WMD information including:

Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.)

and

Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored.

This fits closely with a previous ABC Nightline report on a series of audio tapes from meetings of Hussein and his advisors in which methods which had been used to conceal WMDs from inspectors were discussed. Even more disturbing confirmation of the continued existence of WMDs which originated in Iraq can be found in a little-reported incident from April of 2004 in which Jordanian Special Forces seized three trucks carrying 20,000 tons of chemical weapons intended for use in a massive Al Qaeda attack against Jordanian intelligence headquarters. According to a CNN report:

A Jordanian government scientist said the plot had been carefully worked out, with just the right amount of explosives to spread the deadly cloud without diminishing the effects of the chemicals. The blast would not burn up the poisonous chemicals but instead produce a toxic cloud, the scientist said, possibly spreading for a mile, maybe more.

The contents of the trucks appear to have been mostly caustic and explosive chemicals, plus Vx nerve gas which was produced by the Iraqi WMD program. This clearly confirms the claims of General Sada that Iraqi WMDs in Syria are being held there for the use of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Reports also indicate that Syria is relocating some of the Iraqi WMDs to Sudan for their protection in the event of a US attack on Syria. This confirmation of the presence of ongoing WMD research in Iraq leads directly into recent revelations about the relocation of Iraqi WMD technology and materials to Syria. Sources in Israeli intelligence, retired Israeli general Moshe Yaloon and most significantly former Iraqi Air Force general Georges Sada have all stated that WMD raw materials, facilities and research were relocated to Syria in the weeks before the US invasion. Sada was in command of the military unit whose planes transported much of the WMD equipment to Syria. This matches information gathered by UN Inspectors and revealed by former inspector David Kay in an interview where he said WMDs had been moved to Syria:

We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons, but we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.

Other sources confirm both the WMD data and the links between the Hussein regime and terrorist groups. Some of the most significant evidence is found in a set of captured Iraqi intelligence documents. These detail ongoing Iraqi support for a wide range of terrorist organizations and operations, including attacks agaisnt US forces in Somalia and US civilians throughout the middle east. They also document the acquisition of WMD materials as late as the fall of 2000 when Iraq purchased active anthrax cells, mustard gas and WMD handling equipment. This is years after the WMD programs were supposed to have been shut down. What's remarkable about all of this is how little coverage it's getting in the day to day media and how little impact it is having on the endless debate over the war. It appears that all of our worst fears about Iraq's WMD program and their ties to Al Qaeda are turning out to be true, yet the dominant refrain on the subject remains the clearly disproven claim that the President lied to push us into the war. Even worse, the Iraqi WMDs seem to still be in play...

Islamic Injustice: The Case of Abdul Rahman

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:05:43 GMT

A question asked of President Bush at a Town Hall Meeting in West Virginia on Wednesday has focused public attention on the plight of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan on trial for the crime of 'rejecting Islam'. The 41 year old Afghan has been an aid worker liaison working with Christian missionary groups assisting Afghan refugees in Pakistan for almost 2 decades. As a result of his contacts with these groups he converted to Christianity from Islam 16 years ago. This had not been raised as an issue until this year, because he was living in Pakistan. Things changed when he returned to Afghanistan with the downfall of the Taliban regime. He recently divorced his wife, and and her family raised the issue of his religion as grounds for denying him custody of their children. From there the extremely conservative Islamic court in Afghanistan picked up the case and brought charges against Rahman. Under current Afghan law when the existing civil codes don't preclude it Islamic Sharia law can be applied. In this case the punishment for conversion from Islam under that law is death, derived from Mohammed's statement "If anyone changes his religion, kill him". This is the penalty which head Judge Ansarullah Mawlazezadah is pursuing in this case, despite the fact that it appears to be contrary to the post-Taliban constituton of Afghanistan which says that in keeping with the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights "everyone has the right to freedom of thought (and) to change his religion or belief." Mawlazezadeh maintaints that "Islam is a religion of tolerance." So tolerant that he is willing to grant mercy if Rahman voluntarily converts back to Islam. Rahman's defence has identified a different tactic in the face of undeniable evidence that Rahman is a Christian - he was arrested in possession of a Bible. They are planning to argue that Rahman was insane at the time of his conversion and remains mentally unfit to stand trial. This despite the fact that in interviews he seems to be articulate and quite clear about his beliefs. Their position appears to be that in Afghanistan only a madman would admit to converting to Christianity given the risk of execution. The Bush administration and other western governments and human rights groups have spoken out strongly on the Rahman case. On Wednesday President Bush stated:

We have got influence in Afghanistan and we are going to use it to remind them that there are universal values. It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another ... We can solve this problem by working closely with the government that we've got contacts with -- and will. We'll deal with this issue diplomatically and remind people that there is something as universal as being able to choose religion.

Meanwhile, as the Rahman case proceeds towards trial, nearby Iran continues to set the standard for Islamic justice, executioning men, women and children for crimes like blasphemy, adultery, prostitution and homosexuality. The extraordinary application of Sharia law in the Rahman case raises the question of what removing the Taliban regime has really accomplished if the more balanced justice of the new Afghan constituton is being ignored and law no better than that in the most extreme fundamentalist Islamic states continues to be enforced. For More Information on this issue see: Human Rights Watch, JihadWatch.org, ABC News, Afghan Times

Bush Talks with the People - and They're a Bit Scary

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:50:06 GMT

Yes, President Bush does eventually 'get it'. He may have been aloof and indifferent to the press and the public for most of his administration, but now with the lowest ratings of his time in office - not Truman low, but damned low - he's doing his best to make up for it by going out in public and letting everyone and anyone ask him questions, not just the press but the common rabble as well. Just this week he's answered more questions than he usually does in a year, and his honesty and candor have been kind of endearing. In the past Bush has come under criticism for staging town hall meetings where the attendees are coached and where those who might ask troubling questions are kept out. Now that he's a lame duck with nothing to do but save his personna for posterity, Bush has decided that he can let it all hang out, be himself and take on all comers. His critics have always said that Bush is weak when he talks off the cuff, but my belief going back to when he was governor of Texas has always been that while he may not always have all the facts at his command, he is at his most engaging when he is just shooting the bull in an informal exchange which lets his personality come through more. Plus he really doesn't read speeches or canned answers all that well anyway. This more open format makes for some lively exchanges and really lets Bush shine, but it also makes me wish they were still screening the questioners, because apparently randomly selected Americans are a pack of babbling lunatics most of whom seem to be looking for free advertising time on C-Span. In three days he's made three question and answer appearances; one in Cleveland, one with the White House press, and today one in West Virginia. The press conference was jocular and informative, except when Helen Thomas bleated something that sounded a bit like "waaaar is baaaad". The West Virginia event was short, relaxed and seemed to have an audience filled mostly with school children asking hardball questions like "Do you like living in the White House." Cleveland was where the real fun was, with all the crazies coming out to the City Club to share their concerns. The dominant style of question was the rambling biography in search of an actual question, where someone stands up and then decides to tell their whole life story, plug their business or their cause, and then usually forgets to even ask a question. The best examples of this come from Cleveland. It's hard to beat the guy from the Hungarian-American society who decided to recite most of the history of Hungary for the last 50 years, invite Bush to a party and then never actually ask a question. Or his soul-brother who used to train Ernie Shavers and is now working with contractors in Mississippi, but also doesn't actually have a question. The Cleveland event was clearly the least controlled of the events and was full of questions like this. Who cares what the president has to say, he's only there so you can plug your pet projects, after all. But the great question which really defined the week was the opening question in Cleveland, which was a shout out to tinfoil-hatted glue-sniffers living in their mom's basements all over the nation.

Thank you for coming to Cleveland, Mr. President, and to the City Club. My question is that author and former Nixon administration official Kevin Phillips, in his latest book, American Theocracy, discusses what has been called radical Christianity and its growing involvement into government and politics. He makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?

The best part is that last sentence, which seems to presuppose that most people actually do think the Iraq war is a sign of the apocalypse and challenges Bush to deny this obvious truth. Bush was a bit flabbergasted, replying with:

The answer is -- I haven't really thought of it that way. (Laughter.) Here's how I think of it. The first I've heard of that, by the way. I guess I'm more of a practical fellow.

He recovered quickly and went to a fairly standard explanation of why he believes in the War on Terror, but he was clearly rattled. This isn't exactly the kind of question you expect anyone not dressed in a trashbag belted with a piece of old rope to ask. Of course, based on some of what you read in the blogosphere this may be one of the burning questions of the day. There are more than a few people who are convinced that the War on Terror is a front for protecting the investment of the Apocalypticons in the state of Israel, whose continued existence is vital to the summoning of the messiah. That being the case, it's kind of reassuring to see Bush actually do a double take when the question is asked, confirming that he thinks the idea is just as crazy as the rest of us 'practical fellows' do. Now I'm worrying a lot less about the apocalypse, but just a little bit more about the peculiar thought processes of Americans who get a chance to ask the President a question.

Bollocks! My iPod's on Shuffle!

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:22:10 GMT

Sometimes I think my iPod is possessed by a nefarious artificial intelligence. It's got 1000 songs on it, but when I put it on shuffle it still manages to come up with a sequence of songs which I have a hard time believing is random. I find myself wondering if it's trying to make some sort of point or express a musical opinion. Today it brought me a tour through my musical past with glimpses of the punk era from the very start before punk was really identified as a movement to the last revival of punk in the 1990s, and just to prove that it was indeed random it threw in the best versions of three of the most covered songs ever. And interesting retrospective and an enjoyable listen as well. So once again, I put the iPod on shuffle and hit play, and this is what it came up with.

The Best of Creedence Clearwater Revival
Creedence Clearwater Revival

Song #1 Midnight Special Words and Music by Leadbelly Performed by Credence Clearwater Revival Arguably the best of CCR's covers of old blues songs, combining the evocative lyrics and catchy tune of Leadbelly's oft-recorded original with their clear, clean presentation for a result which is original. In the process it almost completely loses the sad, blues character of the original and becomes bizarrely upbeat, though it will always have a bit of an ominous feel for me because of its use in John Landis' American Werewolf in London. But all in all one of the most successful reimaginings of a blues classic into a rock classic 40 years later, and damned hard not to sing along with even now when the song is almost 70 years old.

The Best of The Dubliners
The Dubliners

Song #2 Rare Old Mountain Dew Words by Edward Harrigan, Music by Phil O'Neill Performed by The Pogues and The Dubliners A classic Irish street ballad dating back at least to the early 19th century, redone by the best of the traditional Irish bands and the best of the Irish punk bands. They alternate verses and surprisingly Shane McGowan is almost comprehensible when he sings his parts. It's a cheery tune, not nearly as morose as it could be, lifted up by the silly repetition of "skiddery ai, dum dum diddle diddle ay" in the chorus, which would make any song hard to take seriously.

Never Mind the Bollocks
The Sex Pistols

Song #3 God Save the Queen Words & Music by The Sex Pistols Performed by The Sex Pistols The Sex Pistols' second single, delayed for release so it could coincide with the Queen's Silver Jubilee and renamed for the occasion. It's quintessential Sex Pistols, with grinding guitar, random screaming and lyrics which include inexplicable pauses to fit the meter and strange forced rhymes, but it somehow all comes together into a punk classic. Being musically retarded and a freshman at a small college in central Pennsylvania's Amish country I didn't actually hear the song until about a year after it was released and by that time it certainly seemed to fit the nihilistic context of the times for America as well as it did for Britain, though I sort of wished we had a queen to rail against since Jimmy Carter just seemed too harmless to hate. "no future, no future, no future..."

Aural Sculpture
The Stranglers

Song #4 Under the Name of Spain Words & Music by The Stranglers Performed by The Stranglers I don't know why this song is on my iPod. I never particularly liked it. I can only think that I put it on the iPod in order to keep "Bring on the Nubiles" and "Nice N' Sleazy" company. It's the biggest hit The Stranglers had, and it's catchier than most of their droning and tedious later output. I guess it's about the last song they did which preserved any shreds of the punk spirit which characterized their early releases. I think Aural Sculpture was their third or fourth album, and by that time I'd lose interest in their music, only to rediscover this song playing on MTV which pretty much damned it forever, given the trend towards playing awful crap which characterized MTV in those days - though they at least still played music back then. I might delete it from the iPod, but not tonight, because the random shuffle has already moved...

A Good Read for St. Paddy's Day: The Sister Fidelma Mysteries

Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:45:29 GMT

Peter Beresford Ellis is much more than just a mystery writer. He's a historian, a bard, a practicing druid and one of the great champions of Celtic language and culture. While maintaining an active academic career and producing numerous historical texts on the history of the Irish and other Celtic groups, he began a modest second career as a writer of horror and fantasy in the 1970s, writing under the name Peter Tremayne. He stuck with that pseudonym in the 1980s when he branched out into writing historical mysteries set in ancient Ireland, and there he found his first major commercial success as a writer. The series of novels centers on the character of Sister Fidelma, a young religieuse from the monastery of St. Brigid of Kildare who is also a Dalaigh of the Irish Brehon court, a position which combines elements of lawyer, investigator and advocate and which carries with it considerable respect and social status within that society. The stories take place during the 7th century, a time when conflict was brewing between the Irish version of Christianity and the version promoted by the increasingly powerful Roman church. The Irish had been the first to convert much of Western Europe and had an ancient tradition going back to the time of the apostles, entirely separate from the Petrine tradition in Rome, with different rituals and practices much more akin to those of the early church and heavily influenced by the Hellenistic culture of the early Christian era. The rivalry between the two churches is a recurring theme in the novels, as is the unique character of Irish culture in that era, which was much more literate, politically sophisticated and egalitarian in many ways than most of 'dark age' Europe. Against this background of religious strife and the cultural struggle between Irish intellectualism and the dynamic aggressiveness of the dominant European tribes like the Saxons and Franks, Sister Fidelma finds herself in tense situations where she has to use her wits, her deductive abilities and her knowledge of both law and human nature to solve mysteries on whose outcome the fate of peoples and nations often rests. In this she is aided by the somewhat headstrong, but very able Saxon monk Brother Eadulf with whom she develops a close personal relationship. The historical element in these novels is very strong, in the tradition of Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, and Tremayne goes into great detail on the unique institutions of this transitional period, the specifics of the cultures and societies, and the personalities of historical characters who play roles in the stories. You learn a lot of things you might never have suspected about life in the 'dark ages', such as the surprisingly high legal status of women in Ireland, the fact that in that era both the Roman and Irish churches allowed priests and monastics to marry, and the common existence of religious communities where men and women lived together, often cohabiting and even raising children while in holy orders. As mysteries the books are challenging, as history they are informative, and as little bits of human melodrama they are engaging. To date Tremayne has written 15 volumes in the series. That seems like a great many books, but they are relatively short compared to most modern novels, and rarely seem to fall into formula in the way that so many mystery series tend to. I'm not going to go into detail on every book here, because it would be excessive and because I have yet to finish the series myself, but I'll mention a few highlights. Absolution by Murder is the first book in the series, and it has a particularly engaging historical setting, because it takes place at the Synod of Whitby, one of the most important councils of the early Medieval church, where representatives of the Irish church and the Roman church met under the sponsorship of King Oswy of Northumbria to try to find common ground and determine the shape of Christian faith in Europe from that point forward. This is also the book in which Fidelma meets Brother Eadulf. Shroud for the Archbishop stands out because in this story Fidelma visits Rome as part of an official delegation and there is some interesting historical exploration of Rome during the time of the early Papacy. It's not the strongest story in the series, but the context is intriguing. Suffer Little Children has one of the most convoluted plots and lots of detail on the regional and dynastic rivalries in Ireland. It's the first of the novels set primarily in Ireland, and explores more of Fidelma's family background. It's also significant for featuring Fidelma pretty much on her own with Eadulf hardly in the book at all. The Leper's Bell is the latest novel in the series, and has just been released in paperback. It's a very action-oriented entry in the series, centering around the kidnapping of Fidelma and Eadulf's infant son from her brother's court (he's the King of Mumman), and her desperate efforts to rescue the baby. The books, in chronological order if you want to read them that way, are: Shroud for the Archbishop, Suffer Little Children, The Subtle Serpent, The Spider's Web, Valley of the Shadow, The Monk Who Vanished, Act of Mercy, Hemlock at Vespers, Our Lady of Darkness, Smoke in the Wind, The Haunted Abbot, Badgers' Moon, Whispers of the Dead, The Leper's Bell.

Tell Your Congressman to Vote "YES" for Free Speech on the Internet

Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:42:21 GMT

Tomorrow afternoon the House of Representatives is set to vote on the Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606) which will protect the right of bloggers, online journalists and those posting to newsgroups and forums to continue to express their political opinions freely. This bill was introduced in response to the Federal Court's decision to extend the provisions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act to the internet. This will have the effect of drastically restricting free political speech on the internet and treat it as if it was political advertising, potentially requiring bloggers to register as PACs, file large amounts of paperwork, or pay substantial fines. At the very least you would be prohibited from posting about politics or sending emails about political issues for as much as 60 days before an election. McCain-Feingold is a disaster which will ultimately be struck down by the Supreme Court, but until that happens this act now in Congress is an essential short-term way to protect your rights to free speech. The more we let them restrict our free speech, the more the entrenched establishment of career politicians can use their position of advantage to block any political change and hold on to power. This will destroy the power of modern grass-roots campaigning through the internet. This is the brief letter I sent to my Congressman, Mike McCaul:

Dear Rep. McCaul: I wanted to take a moment to urge you to vote in support of HR 1606 which I believe comes up for a vote tomorrow. This is the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" which is designed to prevent the stifling of free speech rights on the internet which may result from the restrictions of the McCain-Feingold act. Those of us who use the internet to express our opinions and ideas deserve to do so with the same freedom we would have if we were discussing politics in our local bar or coffee shop with our friends. The Constitution guarantees the right to speak freely on the streetcorner, in our homes and in print. That right should not be restricted on the internet to serve ill-considered ideas of 'political fairness'. It's never fair to take free speech away from the people. Dave Nalle

To send an email to your own representative just go to the www.house.gov and use the form they provide. To get more info on this topic, visit the Liberty Committee website. To hear the counter-argument from the voice of the elite, check out the editorial in today's New York Times. There's not much time to act. The bill will be voted on tomorrow afternoon, so send your email or make a phonecall tonight or tomorrow to tell your representative to do his job and protect your rights and vote "yes" on for online freedom of speech. Iran and China have a policy of silencing bloggers to protect the state. Do you think we ought to follow their example here in America?