What's Up, Mullah?

Even though Iran's place in the Axis of Evil is well deserved that does not mean that they are irrational wackos. There is a well-designed plan behind the abduction of the British sailors and I think it is H-Blog's job to ferret it out (because if H-Blog can't save the world, who can?). My first question is why did Iran capture Brits and not Yanks? We are the Great Satan, they should be trying to embarrass us. I think this is because the Democrats are already doing just what Iran wants...pulling out the troops. They risk creating a backlash that might force the Democrats to jump off the capitulation train. They can kill our soldiers in Iraq and still maintain their cover since there are scores of journalists in the US who say the links between Iran and Iraqi violence are as weak as the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So why risk screwing up a good thing?

But why pick the Brits? When Blair is gone so will the Brits and that will be soon. Is this just a crime of convenience? Are they looking for a short term intel boost at the expense of long term strategic advantages? Is it just a show of strength for the consumption of the turban in the street? Do they think the Brits are too weak to respond appropriately? UBlo has always had the superior strategic mind (he sleeps with a copy of The Prince under his pillow) so I hope he will step to the plate and help elucidate us.

My shot in the dark is that the Iranians think the British are the same as the rest of the EU and that they will fold up and capitulate if they are bullied. Therefore, they don't see a downside to this sad little show of force. And this plays well in the casbah which will go a long way to establishing Iran at the top of the heap of Muslim sentiment. They may not be Arabs, but they get things done. That will win hearts and minds. They know that sanctions will be toothless and even without Corrupt Kofi around to assist, they will get around them. From this perspective it seems like a pretty good move. And one the Brits should have been ready for.

ESPN jumps into Abortion debate.

On vacation but couldn't let this go.

ESPN Anchorman and Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick has introduced legislation that would pay women $500 to not have an abortion and put the baby up for adoption.

First off, I understand Rep Patrick's intentions and motivations. $500 is nothing to save a life. It also puts the onus on the pro-lifers, kind of a put-up or shut-up moment. I don't think there's anything underhanded going on, or that he's trying to be overly clever. If anything, its up-front and straight forward. Well, unless the $500 is meant to be a "gateway" to banning abortion all together. Sort of a "abortion is illegal, but you get $500" plan in the future. I'm just not there yet that that's the plan.

Anyway, I don't like it.

1. It sends a very weird message, and, in essence "values" life at $500. Some lawyer will figure this out and use it in court, either for medical malpractice, product liability, child support, abuse, etc. I'm not saying it will work, but anytime the government sets a "price" standard, it has ripple effects, I'm just trying to figure out what they might be.
   
2. It does touch on the whole "people trade" issue. Only here, the government is the broker. Again, weird.
3. Hugely, hugely expensive, which shouldn't matter, but we talk about money when it comes to health care and education so clearly, "money is no object" isn't the...objective. There's the $500 a pop, but also the cost associated with what to do with the kids next. Bluntly, white babies will go like hot cakes, but minority babies are much harder to place. I didn't see anywhere in Rep Patrick's bill for additional funding for foster care, funds to adoption agencies, or health care.
4. Which leads to, what if you know you're baby will have major medical issues or special needs? You can give the baby up for adoption, get your $500 but the state has a new ward.
   
5. Also on health care, anyone who's ever had a baby will tell you that it costs a whole lot more that $500 to have said baby. Will the state cover all cost's associated with delivery and post partum?
6. I'm sorry, but this bill just isn't very well thought out.
   

Which is why I'm nearly positive this bill was introduced to spur conversation, and not a serious attempt to pass legislation. Call it "discussion legislation." But just in case, I wanted to arm our readers with the above handy guide so they can rule the dinner debate.

Coin v. Bill 4, The Return of the President

As long time readers (Hi Ma) know, I'm a huge fan of getting rid of the dollar bill and replacing it with a dollar coin (here and here). I mean, come on "Bill" even the word is silly, degrading and shameful. Anyway, the big hang up from the public is "convenience," but we, as taxpayers, pay about $750million a year for that convenience. Any attempt to decrease government spending and rationalizing the Nation's check book should include this obvious savings. Anyway, rant, rant, rant.

The reason for this post is that I've finally found my foil. According to this Slate article by Christopher Bonanos, I'm up against the folks at

the BEP (Bureau of Engraving and Printing); Mississippi cotton farmers, whose fibers make up the 100-percent-rag currency paper; and Crane & Company, a Massachusetts paper mill known for excellent stationery and a century-old papermaking contract with the government.

Ah-HA. But I also have allies in the pro-dollar-coin lobby called the

Coin Coalition, backed by vending-machine and car-wash interests.

"The Coin Coalition," OK, so its not the X-Men and nothing exudes savvy class and sympathy like vending machine operators and car-wash joints, but hey, these are my peeps. For those of you keeping track at home, "my peeps" now include a couple hundred thousand electrical engineers (the Libertarians), bar flies (vending machine operators) and Rose Royce. I suddenly feel like Mole Man.

Anyway, I'm using the power of this blog to bring to light (ohhhh the pain) those who stand in my way. WE WILL HAVE THE DOLLAR COIN! Go my people, go forth and cling-clank.

But seriously, just take up the bills, no one will care in two years and we'll save almost $1.5 billion every two years.

Charles Barkley, cover up artist for the political stars

While Charles Barkley may or may not have a political career ahead of him, he has given politicians a gift. The "I should have read it before it came out." defense. A gift that Tom DeLay jumped on when an excerpt from his book, "No Retreat, No Surrender" (apparently the Hammer's a fan of Jean Claude Van Damme, Muscles from Sugar Land?)(Oh wait, I couldn't help but notice that the movie got 4.5 stars and the book...2.5. Where are you in your creative career when JCVD out scores you?)...anyway, where was I...oh yeah.

So TDL's on Chris Matthews when CM (I've noticed that everyone's cooler when you just use their initials) drops a reference to Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) who the book describes as "drunk with ambition." POW, no way you retreat from that? Right? Right? Come on, please Hammer don't hurt 'em. Well, maybe a tactical retreat. Looks like the Hammer pulled the nail out of the coffin and denied it, even after CM showed it to him in the book.

I guess it makes sense, I mean, congressmen are famous for not reading bills, why should anyone assume they read books.

Rove and GOP

Reading a recent post from Andrew Sullivan, got me athinkin' and I'm athinkin' that Mr Sullivan has it wrong. The general idea behind the post is that Rove may have set the GOP back with the tactics he used to get W the...well, W. Maybe so, at least judging by a recent Pew Research Poll, as the GOP is hemorrhaging voters (I don't see the poll as the be all end all, things could shift dramatically if Iraq swings around. I actually hope the poll signals the end of the "I'm a Dem/GOP until I die" mentality). Anyway, why is Mr Sullivan wrong?

Well, who said Rove was ever trying to create anything for the GOP? His job, his goal, his life was based on getting W into the White House and keeping him there. Yes, Bush is a Republican, but the job wasn't to get the GOP to upmost power and then slide W in, the goal was to get W elected now. Much like when the Colts win the Super Bowl. Colts GM Bill Polian's goal wasn't also to establish the AFC as the dominant power, he was only looking for Colts victory. Given that Rove would do just about anything, screw anyone over, lie, manipulate, whatever, I think it makes sense that he would do the same to get other Republican's to look the other way at W's transgressions, subvert their own political philosophies (small government anyone?), and generally accept the rod in order to create this notion of "Its good for the GOP" which really meant, "It's good for Bush." By using the concept of a permanent GOP majority to keep everyone in line, he kept W in the White House, which was his job.

Like a GM that does whatever it takes to win now, Rove did whatever it took, future be damned. That's his job and he did it well. Losing the second term for the greater good of the GOP was expressly not his job. Congressional Republicans took the bait and they were the ones who paid the price. Furthermore, if the trend continues they will be the ones who continue to pay the price. W is out, Rove is out, and they don't really care. If a Republican feels that Rove oversold, misold, or sold out, well, they shouldn't be shocked. Look at what the guy did to his "rivals," why should anyone think he'd be any different to his "allies." Bottom line, a wins a win, and he won.

300

Saw 300 last night. Loved it. No, it was not historically "precise," especially, especially the battle scenes. Spartans would never break rank and fight one on one like in the movie, the phalanx was life (even the phalanx depictions aren't right, the front guys used swords). And at one point Mrs Blogger leaned over and asked if "Xerxes was really a drag queen?" (which was a bummer because I was hoping she was leaning over to neck). And there's a throw away line about the Athenians being "boy lovers," when its the Spartans who, famously, took up with boys (my bet is that line's meant to counter that unpleasant fact, and throw "which Greeks slept with boys again" into the coversation). There's more, but it was a movie and movies are meant to entertain. If you want to get really historical, the Greeks were famous back in the day for taking "liberties" with actual events, soooo you could say that 300 pays homage not only to the Spartans, but to the Athenians and their theater.

300 Graphic novel was pretty good too, but the book "Gates of Fire" blows both away.

What I find really interesting is that I keep reading how this is a "Bush" movie, or that it really appeals to the "Bush" crowd. Granted, I bet that most movie reviewers are pretty liberal (read anti-war), and that most supporters of the Iraq War voted for Bush, but I'm not sure this is a good movie for Bush. Yes, it's very pro combat, its very pro leadership, and very pro fight to the end, but its also, repeatedly a conflict about reason v. mysticism aka religion. It's a very, very anti-religion movie. The Greeks mystics are deformed beyond recognition, molest young girls and are corrupt to the coin. The Persian mystic is a man who thinks himself a God and is both humiliated and defeated. Somehow Frank Miller manages to offend both the peacenicks (good for W) and the religious (bad for W). As much as this is a movie about fighting for actual freedom, its a movie about fighting religion in the name of reason. If anything its key group is the prowar, anti-religion crowd (or teen-age boys, take your pick).

Finally, Iran banned 300 from its movie houses. 3000 years later and my people are still sticking it to the Persians. OPAH!

Hop off the Bus Gus

A bus driver in the town of Basalt, CO (a town fresh off of being named one of America's to 50 places to live) kicked 13 preschoolers and three teachers off the bus. The crime, not paying the proper fare. But here's the kicker, the driver never told the teachers, instead she just radioed the police. From the article,

The bus driver refused to communicate with the teachers or to transport them, according to Soliday, and had the police called instead.

Who says small town values are dead? There are high schools with more people than Basalt's 3000ish citizens.

The good news is that the bus agency is appropriately dismayed.

"I apologize for this unpleasant, unfortunate, regrettable situation," said RFTA CEO Dan Blankenship. "We have been focusing on driver shortages, the X Games, inclement weather and whatnot and got caught flatfooted here. Based on the information currently available, I question whether the involvement of the police was either necessary or appropriate in this situation," wrote Blankenship in a letter of apology sent to the parents of the students involved. "This incident ... highlights the need for ... better trained (bus drivers) to differentiate between real emergencies that require police intervention and others that require tact and diplomacy. I will put this type of training at the top of our priorities."

Seriosly, what is wrong with some people. All that I can think of is that driver was too shy to deal with it, not wanting to be the bad gal, so she called the cops. And speaking of, I can't imagine how the poor cops felt. Generally, police thrive with outreach to the little kids, escorting them off a bus, with no real provocation, must have felt, well...wrong.

I'm not big on calling for the heads of working folks, but this lady's got of explaining to do. The way I see it, if she handles something like this so incredibly poorly, how would she handle and actual emergency? And given that her judgment is obviously flawed, should she the lives of the bus passengers be, literally, in her hands?

Playing to Type...So What

Reliability can be very reassuring. Except for a brief disorienting period when the "triangulators" were in power in the '90s the Democrats can always be counted on to lay claim to the fruits of your labors. All the progress, however slight, made by the Republicans in turning back the ever-growing tax burden will be reversed soon. And the justification will go as follows: We can't entertain tax cuts because we are so concerned about the budget deficit. Not concerned enough to decrease spending, mind you, only concerned enough to not reduce taxes. And, thus, a stereotype is, yet again, affirmed.

There is nothing here that is insightful or even controversial. It all simply serves to set up my real point. These are sad times for small government advocates. The Democrats are giving us just what we'd expect - higher taxes and no brakes on government sprawl. And the Republicans only value is that at times they seem willing to slow down this rapid government growth if only slightly. So how is a small government leaning citizen to vote? My tactic has always been to vote Republican because even though you most likely won't get the low taxes and small government that you hope for, at least there's a chance. And you know for certain that you'll get just the opposite from the Democrats. But this is not a strategy for a successful realization of my Live Free or Die Americanism. So there must be another way. Perhaps the great minds that flock to H-Blog can offer one up.

Free Speech on a roll

Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr threw out a 1998 law making it a crime to let children access objectionable material. As distasteful as it is, I agree with Judge Reed. I view this as a parental responsibility. I also like his phrasing,

Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.

Well said.

In other news, the internet may prove to be the undoing of the, I think, unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill among other First Amendment Violations. Former NC Senator and Presidential hopeful John Edwards had been dogged by an internet ad showing him primping his hair to the tune of "I Feel Pretty." And, more famously, Hillary Clinton was skewered by an ad mimicking Apple's famous "1984" Super Bowl ad, this one called "Hillary 1984" (the title also shows an awareness of how You Tube searches work, if your looking for the controversial ad, you plug "Hillary 1984" into the engine. Making that the name of the ad gets the searcher right to the spot). What makes the Hillary 1984 ad so interesting is that it was clearly pro-Obama as it had "BarakObama.com" at the end, and that it was, initially, anonymous (leading to a mini Primary Colors fad where Phil De Vellis played the part of Joe Klein) and that, by being on the internet and not TV it was unregulated. Meaning Mr De Vellis did not have to reveal himself, nor would he theoretically be restricted by the "black-out" dates before an election.

I think its interesting that the internet, with all its pipes, is touted as the hope of free people in China, Iran, Russia, etc and that it may also bring this country back to its principles.

Just Win, Baby

The Dems don't get it. There are few things as insular as national politics and the recent crop of "leaders" are going to prove that to all of us. As unpopular as the Iraq war is Americans do not like to lose. Clearly, to pull out now would be to embrace defeat and accept a loss. Why the Democrats think this is a winning policy is beyond me. They are struggling to herd their cats on this issue because the rank and file know their leadership is wrong. But as the recent despicable catering to unions showed the Dems have some debts to pay...integrity be damned. That's why they will work against American sentiment in an attempt to appease the big money of the Soros set. Its all very sad, but completely predictable. I just don't know how Nancy is going to be able to look Al in the eye the next time he comes for subsidies to keep the Raiders in the Bay area.

Now I understand why Stalin was such a big WHAM! fan

Heavy Metal does ROCK, if you have the brains to understand it. At least according to Stuart Cadwallader who authored a British study that found that "teenagers who lock themselves in their bedrooms to blast out heavy metal music may simply be trying to cope with the pressures of being gifted." And that "heavy metal fans often appreciate the "complex and sometimes political themes" of the music." Yes, the subtle geopolitical intricacies of Poison's "Talk Dirty to Me" may escape lesser minds, but I knew it was about the delicate relationship between President Reagan and Soviet Premier Gorbachev. And we all know that Warrant's "Cherry Pie" was all about growing up under the threat of nuclear annihilation.

McCain Channels Dole on HIV Protection

Presidential hopeful John McCain says he's not sure if condoms help stop the transmission of STD's. I get that he's trying real hard to be the darling of the NeoGOP and push the "abstinence is all" dogma, but if he's really not sure of condom's value in preventing STD's, then one has to wonder if he really is too out of touch with things to be President.

Or it may be that he's been pushed into the "uh-oh, the group that backs me is gonna hate the truth on this, so I better dodge/lie here" corner that claimed former Senate Majority Leader Doctor Bill "You can get AID's through tears" Frist, and former Presidential hopeful Bob "Some people say milk is bad for you" Dole.

Look, I get that running a campaign and being loyal to your donors is hard. But at some point, you have to weigh looking stupid against irking your sponsors, er...donors.

Wal-Bank Update

Wal-Mart has abandoned it's plans to run a industrial loan corporation, or "Bank" as the knee-jerks call it.

The chairman of the FDIC, Sheila Bair says the decision to withdraw the application was a "wise choice" because of emotional (controversy) not factual (how it will help/hurt anyone - and if it's better for consumers). Mind you, she's the chair of the FDIC. You would think that she'd rise above the noise of emotional controversy and focus on data.

But nope. Somehow its OK for Target to have this type of banking, but not Wal-Mart. Not to be picky, but this feels like a government mandated business advantage, which, to me, is much more controversial.

Bottom line, I'm not sure the consumer won today.

Sick over sick leave

Sen Ted Kennedy is introducing legislation requiring employers to give part and full-time workers up to one week paid sick leave. This is a tough one philosophically, I get that staying home with a child is crucial. However, when Sen Kennedy says,

"As members of Congress, we don't lose our pay or risk our jobs if we stay home because of illness.

He's right, as "members of Congress," which also means, "since we're not employees of a real business." See, Congress never faces a revenue shortfall, nor does it ever face the problem of too many expenses, going out of business, not being able to produce as much because someone's out, etc. You simply cannot compare Congress to business, especially small business.

I fully get that a large percentage of working American's work paycheck to paycheck, and that missing even one lands them in financial dire straights. But I also know that more than half of all businesses fail in the first year, and that the attrition rate in the first five is horrible. Contrary to popular belief, small business' fears and concerns largely mimic employee fears and concerns. A bad revenue period can kill a business, just as losing a paycheck or two can wreck an employee's life. While sick leave is a real problem, I'm not sure that there is much the Government can do. Pushing the expense to employers, by mandate, only means that more businesses will fail, or that the reward for the risk of starting them goes down enough to slow growth, and setting arbitrary numbers, like "less than 15 employees, just means that business will slow down employee hiring to avoid a massive new expense, which only hurts employees. All of these outcomes put even more pressure on employees (less substitution, less hope, etc). If the goal is to help, you have to think through ramifications, not just do what feels good and look away.

There is a problem with sick leave in this country, but when Senator Kennedy compares his experience working in Congress to the problems with low wage employees working for small businesses, I think he's going to do more harm than good. His reference base is just a fantasy for most employees and employers.

Sports Fans Moving Down Biological Ladder

They say tragedy comes in threes. This weekend we lost Dolfan Denny and Crazy Ray. Who's next? That John 3:16 guy? No, he'll be taken up bodily at the Rapture. The Rainbow Hair guy? I'm pretty sure he was beaten to death by jealous clowns in the mid 80's. Maybe it will be that guy who puts his own name on the back of his authentic team jersey in an attempt to belong to something important. Well, I don't know who it will be but everything I know about numerology says its coming. So I'm offering a free dinner with UBlo complete with your own identity-concealing head sack (we'll even put your name on the back) to the H-Blog reader who identifies Number Three in this year's Sports Fan Death Watch. Please be advised that Jimmy Carter has agreed to certify any death reported to H-Blog to verify that the dead fan was not "assisted" in any way by the Sports Fan Death Watch contestant. So let's keep it clean this year.

Congress looks to move up the biological ladder

Congress, in a move that may signal an end to the era of the "potted plant" (I would use another analogy having to do with getting its rhymes with "halls" back but this is a family blog "Hi Ma!").

Anyway, last week congress passed three bills.

• A bill that overturns a Bush Executive Order that overturned a prior bill (stick with me) that gave Presidents 12 years to turn over all papers. W's Order allowed President's to keep their papers confidential indefinitely and, for the first time, extended "Executive Privilege" to the VP and gave him the same power. Plus, it extended the right to keep public information private to the dead through their designees. The House brought the sunshine, put the pressure on the President to prove why the papers have to be secret, plus allowed sitting President's to override former President's decision to keep papers private, and took away the VP's new superpower. Just a big chunk of Presidential Kryptonite. W threatened to veto, but the bill passed with more than enough votes to override. I'm a huge fan of this bill.
• The next bill increased protection for Whistle Blowers. Again under veto threat, can't have people letting the citizens know when the government is messing up, how unimperial. Again, passed with enough to override. Again, big fan.
• The third bill wasn't that big, but is designed to speed requests for info under the Freedom of Information Act. Still, I like it.

Overall, three good bills, all designed to give the citizen more oversight and showing signs of life from congress. Granted, none is particularly groundbreaking, but, you know, baby steps.

Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

US Rep Michael Honda (D-CA) introduced bi-partisan legislation in January that

calls on Japan to formally and unambiguously apologize and acknowledge the tragedy which the comfort women endured under its Imperial Army during World War II. Not only should Japan’s Prime Minister issue a public apology, Japan must take responsibility unequivocally.

While this was a terrible crime, it feels like a Japanese issue. Why with all that is going on in this nation, does Rep Honda feel that we have the time or inclination to demand that another nation apologize for its own history?

Especially since when it comes to slavery our nation has yet to

formally and unambiguously apologize and acknowledge the tragedy which the Africans endured under its white citizens during the first 100 years of American history. Not only should President Bush issue a public apology, America must take responsibility unequivocally.

Not only that, but can you imagine our response if Japan actually had the audacity to issue such a demand? Now imagine their response to our "demand," I mean, besides this one. Personally, if I were a Japanese PM, despite whatever diplomatic response I may give, I'd think,

"Sure, we'll apologize, again, right after you apologize for slavery, the treatment of your Native American's, Japanese Internment Camps, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc, etc, etc, and as soon as you stop officially sanctioning torture. Yup, we'll be right there."

Isn't there some saying about glass houses (besides being a great album - WWBJD?).

As a US Congressman, Rep Honda should be concerned with the needs of US citizens, here African Americans, rather than worry about the actions of another nation and whether they've sufficiently apologized. Maybe if he attacked a US apology for slavery like he is minding Japan's business. For example, I like what he did with Japanese Internment Camps, this made sense. Look, I would very much agree with Rep Honda if the practice were still going on, but since its not, we have enough going on today to keep any US Rep busy. If he has the time to really worry about these things, then maybe, just maybe he has the time to do tend to the business of the US, things like, I don't know, actually reading the USA PATRIOT ACT before voting on it.

A solution to sitting on the runway for half a day

Even with all the recent attention on Jet Blue for keeping its passengers in planes on the tarmac for up to eleven hours, airlines still can't figure out how to fix the problem. A recent storm at JFK (the same airport that gave Jet Blue fits - memo to self, avoid JFK in the winter), kept passengers stranded again, this time merely pushing the 10 hour mark.

So what's the fix? Everyone knows that once planes leave the gate, another plane is lined up for that spot, so you just can't go back to the terminal. Or can you? Why can't they use buses or other shuttles to take people off the planes and get them back to the terminal. Sure, when things get going those passengers may have to wait a little longer to get the plane back, reboard, etc, but this passengers perspective is that I'd much rather tack an extra 45 minutes on my nine hour wait if I can wait that nine hours in the terminal. Nine hours sitting on a runway is death, but nine hours forty-five minutes is livable; I can stretch my legs, get some food, lay down, and if you have a kid, you know the difference between containment in a large area and eleven hours in a chair.

The airlines have to figure out a way to get passengers off the plane. It's the one area in a basket of bad news that they can control. As it is, this stream of bad news is just killing an already fragile industry. Airlines find themselves in a business that has rising costs, increased inconvenience even getting on, and now more and more bad news and irate customers. Not exactly the best environment.

I'm hitting the Tar Baby

That's right I said it. And no, I'm not a racist. Deal.

US Senator, and Presidential hopeful John McCain became the latest person to use the words, "Tar Baby" in the correct context and have to apologize. Former MA Governor Mitt Romney was nailed in July 2006 for using regarding the Big Dig, and was told

Tar baby is a totally inappropriate phrase in the 21st century," said Larry Jones, a black Republican and civil rights activist. "He thinks he's presidential timber," Jones said. "But all he's shown us is arrogance."

Here's the thing. Racism and bigotry have divided this nation for generations. While things are better now than they ever, there is still work to be done. Tar Baby is an innocent word. It's also a great way to describe getting caught up in something that no matter how hard you try, it just gets worse (like this post). If you grew up in the south, you know the story of Br'er Rabbit and how Br'er Fox finally caught him by using a trap that was a person only made out of tar. You probably also know that Br'er Rabbit outsmarts Br'er Fox by begging the fox to not throw him in the brier patch, that would be worse than anything, of course the fox does, and then Br'er rabbit laughs and says he was raised in the brier patch, and hops away (I've always liked Br'er Rabbit, maybe more than even Bugs). Anyway, great story, great lesson, great memories of my Grandmother reading me the story.

Then some evil pricks decided to use "Tar Baby" in a derogatory way, in essence stealing a great story, a great lesson and great memories. The way I see it, one way to beat racism is to reclaim our words. To take back what is ours. To take back our innocence. If we continue to give the word negative meaning, the racists continue to define who we are and how we communicate. The racists continue to win. Screw that. I use Tar Baby all the time, and I've never once directed it at an African American.

Said anther way, take the word "doorknob." The word is prominently displayed at any Home Depot or Lowes in America. Nothing offensive about it. If I'm talking about a doorknob in a conversation and I say, "I need to fix my doorknob" no one gets offended. If however, I say, "Muscles for Justice isn't very smart, he's a real doorknob," then I've just offended him. But no one in their right mind would go around trying to ban the use of the word "doorknob."

I'm not sorry for using "Tar Baby," I am sorry that the word is offensive and no one is looking to render it inoffensive. It will be a small step, but when Tar Baby is uttered correctly in a sentence, and no one is offended, good will have reclaimed a small bit of land from evil.

Clinton Takes a Stand

A very brave stand to not take a stand. Wow do I miss the Clintons.

While running for President, Hill answered the question, "Do you agree with General Pace that homosexuality is 'immoral,'" she answered, and I'm not making this up,

Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude.

Now that's the kind of decisiveness I'm looking for in a President. Never mind that as a sitting US Senator, she's the one deciding these things with her direct vote. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is actually for her to decide.

Which is why this whole episode is a great example of why I can't vote for her. I get that this is a thorny question for any democrat (the GOP has this one all wrapped up, "Yes."), and yes, Obama handled with a dodge, but at least he didn't defer his personal morality code to "others." This is where her political instincts let her down. By not wanting to offend a group of voters (a group, by the way, that she has no chance with), she instead told all voters that her personal morality code is defined by others (insert "Wait, the Clinton's have a morality code?" joke here). What kind of leadership is that? So if others decide its immoral, she'll say it is. What if they change their mind? Actually, for that, see below.

Not everything needs to be politically perfect. Take a stand. HRC spends a lot of time with Gay and Lesbian groups, winning awards, giving speeches, etc. When the time came for her to take a risk and stand up for them, she didn't merely dodge the question, she sold them out. Much like Bill semi-famously did when he told Gore to sell them out during the 2000 election. What's even more peculiar is that HRC supports gay civil unions and homosexual adoption. How can she support these things if she's not even sure about the morality of homosexuality in the first place? HRC is playing the gays like the GOP is playing the social conservatives. Lots of voice when on comfortable ground, little action.

The thing with HRC that's becoming more apparent is that she has no core beliefs. She was pro-gay marriage amendment (in 2006) when it was a real hot issue with the voters, like she was for the war when it was a hot issue. As polling for both of those declined, guess what, so did her support.

Speaking of polling, HRC amended her "my moral code is in the hands of others" reply the next day (sorry this was a two day post). But even here, she lacked the courage to just say, "Homosexuality is not immoral."

“I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive (because it was). My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don’t ask, don’t tell policy (see, I focused attention on it by not mentioning it directly, and instead saying that "others" should decide the morality issues). I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner’s (remember, he's a REPUBLICAN - Ahhhhh John Warner, my GOP security blanket) statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe (now that "others" have told me so).”

Even on gay rights issues the Democratic Presidential front runner can only act when she has cover from the GOP. How can I trust her to lead America? Why can't any credible Democrat take a stand...on anything?

It's just sooooo frustrating. One party takes lots of stands almost none of them I agree with (gays are evil, the President should be king, citizens have no rights to privacy, everyone should live as we want them to, etc), the other takes almost never takes a stand, which I don't agree with.

Is There a High Road?

No doubt the completely legal firing of government attorneys will keep the beltway crowd all a twitter for the next several weeks. And why wouldn't it? Washington and those who write about it are no more sophisticated than those who worship the other cult of celebrity that festers out on the west coast. Burying Anna Nicole is equal in significance to firing government workers who serve at the pleasure of the administration. And both feed the same base impulse for gossip and titillation that fills empty lives with meaning.

That people make the insignificant significant is not the main problem here. The attitude of political gossip hounds who look down their noses at the tabloids is even more repugnant for its blatant hypocrisy. Washington's sophisticated conceit is such a sham and such a shame. I believe the business of the people should be conducted in a way that elevates it above the common. The emphasis on the fact that we are all equally fallible which was paraded about most recently in the defense of Bill Clinton has taken the pressure off of leadership. And that notion (obviously not invented for the Clinton scandals) serves to lower the entire political process from honorable public service to wretched self service.

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe there was ever a golden age of high minded political behavior, although I'd love to be proved wrong there. However, that does not mean that we shouldn't be striving for it or measuring our political system against it in an effort to elevate all those involved. From the belief that our elected leaders should not be held to a higher standard than the rest of us flows the ugly tabloid sensationalism that one expects to see in the ugly little world of celebrity. No one expects a movie star to behave in an honorable fashion, and so they don't. It's time we expect more from our political culture and hold it accountable when it falls short.

Sometimes lawyers make good points

"My question is, if he fired the guy who fired us, why is he standing by the dismissals?"

Fired Seattle AG John McKay regarding US AG Alberto Gonzales' handling of both the AG firing and his firing of Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson.

Of course McKay is famous for his great quotes. One of the all time best from his days as Head Coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers when asked about his team after another loss,

"What do you think about your team's execution?"
McKay responded, "I'm all for it!"

KISS in The Buff

From Wizard :

Is it true that KISS deposited their blood in the ink at the production plant for the 1977 Marvel comic?

Gene Simmons: That’s true. We all flew up in a DC-3, by the way. And Stan Lee was with us and we were in full KISS makeup, and we arrived and went to the printing plant in Buffalo. We literally had doctors draw blood out of our veins and poured it into the red ink, so there were, in fact, KISS comics that came out with our DNA.

SAS-ssy Idea

It's not every day that one gets the chance to acknowledge a good idea out of the Airline Industry, but today's that day.

Swedish Airline SAS has introduced a new option for its customers, a way to offset their personal carbon emissions while flying. I'm not going to go into the pros and cons of carbon offsetting, its just too...offsetting, nor global warming. What I like about SAS' strategy is that it gives the consumer an option, and an easy one at that, while minimizing business risk.

One of the frustrating things about trying to do anything environmental in the market place is that when polled people say they will spend extra to save mother earth but when it comes time to pay, they revert back to whatever's cheapest (organic food defies this trend as it continues to be the only agricultural area with growth). So when businesses take on the added expense to get the "environmental" tag or service they loses customers and/or don't grow as planned. SAS' strategy counters the poll/reality dilemma. Had they imposed the fee on all customers in a bid to be the "environmental airline," history says they would have gotten destroyed in the market. However, SAS did the smart thing and offered "environmental flights" as an easy upgrade. They can continue to compete on price for those who want it, and they offer a more expensive carbon offset for those who want it. Bottom line, SAS doesn't take any risk while giving customers who want the environmental option easy access to the service and they get the "green" mantle. All upside, no downside.

A really solid way to handle a new product, especially a tricky green one.

Another victory in the drug war

I know I'll sleep better tonight knowing that a scum-bag like Angel Raich is off the streets.

Gone-zales

Looks like AG Alberto Gonzales is in trouble, and maybe even from the GOP. Before getting to the meat of this post (USA PATRIOT and the Potted Plants), I'm a bit confused by AG Gonzales' statements in his press brief on March 13th. In one part he says,

I believe in accountability. Like every CEO of every major organization, I am responsible for what happens at the Department of Justice. I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here, to assess accountability, and to make improvements so that the mistakes in this instance do not occur again in the future.

But at the end he says,

I stand by the decision. Again, all political appointees can be removed by the President of the United States for any reason. I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision. Thank you very much.

I'm just confused. If mistakes were made, but the decisions were the right ones, then what were the mistakes?

He also adds,

I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here, to assess accountability, and to make improvements so that the mistakes in this instance do not occur again in the future.

Good to know that he and OJ are out looking for the real killers.

From what I can gather, the decision to fire the state AG's was a fall back from firing all of them. Why the move to fire any of them? Best guesses are that the White House was moving to take advantage of a USA PATRIOT ACT provision that allows the Pres to nominate new AG's for indefinite terms while avoiding the "Advise and Consent" clause of that pesky ol' US Constitution. The kicker is that the new power came in the USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005. That's right, this is the improved version of the USA PATRIOT ACT. Yup, congress neutered itself even more in 2005. What's Potted Plant to do? Just a suggestion, but a potted plat becomes a man when it acts. Scrap the USA PATRIOT ACT, an act that clearly no one has full read, no one fully understands, and an act that clearly has provisions in it that have nothing to do with terrorism, and strip congress of its constitutional authority. Pass a series of bills, succinctly written with well defined purposes.

As always, when you give someone lots of power, you can't be surprised when they use it. Checks and Balances is the cornerstone of our system of Government. The way it's been destroyed is not only criminal, I think its treasonous.

Living Up to Expectations

Tax and Spend, the mascots of the Democratic Party, are limbering up for their somersault and back flip routine. The left is proposing budget increases of up to 5% and continuing to stand in the way of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I love it when a stereotype is affirmed...twice. If only the Republicans could have lived up to their fiscal reputation while they wielded power. They never would have lost it.

"A man has a right to criticize anyone else when he has a better way."

The vaccine Scandal that never should have happened

New Mexico is the latest state to jump into the HPV vaccine controversy, the controversy that never should have happened. While the H-Blog has covered the political side before, this post's topic is the question, "What the hell was Merk thinking?"

They had a vaccine...against cancer. People will buy Guaradasil (the product name) guaranteed. All they had to do was sit back and collect the money a lot of money. But for some reason they decided to go out and demand the money. A decision I just don't understand. Yes, there was a competing product (Cervarix) coming down the pipe, but that product was coming behind the scenes lobby campaign or not. The best way to jump ahead of the competition would be to take an alternative route.

If Merck had announced that they had a vaccine against cervical cancer, and said "We're working with the American Cancer Society, x, y, z, other charities and a, b, c foundations to provide the vaccine free to under-privileged girls in America" they would have received some badly needed great free press, done extremely well in the public's view, promoted the vaccine for paying customers, and probably had better results on the mandatory vaccine front. You know some politician, somewhere would have said, "Hey this is great, lets make it mandatory." Merk could have played the white night the whole way through. The really weird part is that Merk knows this. They're still riding the great publicity they got when they gave away the cure for River Blindness. It's in every pr piece the release, and I think the CEO is required to discuss it in every interview.

I tried to research the number of immediate customers (middle school girls and up) that national passage of the mandatory vaccine would have created but couldn't find any usable data. I couldn't even find something to extrapolate so I can't calculate how much the number of girls times $600 that this would create in revenue, but I assume its a lot (I figure its this kind of quality research that keeps people coming back to the H-blog) and its also recurring as new girls become eligible every year. My guess is that Merk knows, saw the size of the market, saw that Cervarix is coming and wanted to get a jump on solidifying their share of the market. The problem is that they went about the exact wrong way. Now they find themselves embroiled in a lobbying scandal, they've slowed down progress on the school requirement, slowed down uptake of their drug due to all the bad press, allowed Cervarix even more time to come to market and compete, and just generally made a mess. Had they worked with a few charities and foundations, they would have had great press, got the name out, solidified the market, created the momentum for mandatory vaccination, and froze Cervarix out because they couldn't hope to recapture that moment.

I honestly think that Merk's handling of Guardasil will be a case study in business school for years to come. Not only that, but Merk has to be freaked that Cervarix will figure out the "charity" angle and completely destroy Guardasil in the market.

Nicely played.

PS. In writing this I noticed that the American Cancer Society has been oddly quiet on this front. It seems like a cancer vaccine would be something that they would be all over. Not just them, but any charity or foundation concerned with cancer or health in general. Why hasn't someone started giving this away? Why hasn't someone tried to raise a ton of money to give the drug to poor people? Its just sitting there as a great fund raising, name raising opportunity. Maybe Merk is so poisonous right now no one wants the association?

Bite Someone Else's Hand

You could almost respect the opinions of those throughout the world who spew all their frustrations at the US. Almost. Right up until the point when they present their begging bowls and admit that they have no solutions, only complaints.

It makes perfect sense to hate the Yankees when every year they beat your team (and everyone else's). To root against them with all your might is almost a requirement for every other team's fans. And to use that as motivation to get even better so you can unseat them is one of the most admirable drivers of human behavior. However, once you show up at Yankee Stadium and demand that they send their coaches to improve your players and spend their championship winnings to improve your team's position you've admitted to being a loser...and from then on you will always be a loser.

A man has a right to criticize anyone else when he has a better way. And if he thinks one way is evil he has a moral duty to disassociate himself with it. But when the little countries of the world surround the American limo and jockey for the best positions in line to get their handouts they don't reveal their bankruptcy until they huddle in the alley devouring their charity and bemoaning how evil the people in that limo are.

Mexico says they don't want to lose vital, working citizens to immigration yet condemn the wall. Europe slashes military budgets to just above zero and then complains about American unilateralism. Chavez calls Bush a fascist and warmonger (to many cheers) as he steals industries and starts his military build up. And "leaders" like John Kerry say we need to change our ways so these same people won't criticize us any more.

In a room full of madmen, the sane guy will be the least popular.

Is Congress a "Potted Plant?"

Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) made the following statement about Congress,

"We are not a potted plant watching the administration function, we are part of the decision-making process"

Proving once again, that when you have to tell people you're important, you're not. A little history.

In 2002 Congress passed HJ 114 and SJ 45, or as their collectively known, the "Congress is a potted plant" bills. See these were the bills that gave W unobstructed ability to do whatever he feels necessary as long as its a "national security" issue. And what are the parameters of national security? Let's take a look at the docs. "National security" is hereby defined to include the pursuit (by military force and invasion) of "international peace and security", and such interests will now include the entire "Persian Gulf region."

So Rep Lantos, Congress is, in fact, a potted plant. Like the old saying, if it sits and does nothing like a plant and if its as smart as a plant, its a plant. Your a plant. You gave up all your rights to advise, consent, shape, command, etc when you passed those bills. My bet is that, like the Patriot Act, few in congress actually read the bills (absolutely kills me), but someone wrote them, and whoever did (I'm looking at you White House) knew what was in them.

I'm pretty sure SOH Nancy Pelosi didn't read them. She keeps running around saying,

"I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

The way I read the above bills, he does. See Iran lies within the area called "The Persian Gulf" and W has unfettered authority to do whatever in that region. I get that US high schoolers are famous for not knowing geography and low reading scores, but I expect better from the SOH. Maybe no president before could go into Iran without explicit congressional consent, but no president before was lucky enough to have a congress filled with one group of people who put party above all and would never dream of countering W, and another who were so incompetent and afraid that they would never dream of countering W. And as I pointed out in earlier post, it will take 2/3 votes to over-ride W's veto of any bill taking this authority away.

To make matters worse for the dems, if possible, is that every week or so they get all vocal about taking control, setting time-lines, linking progress, holding back money, limiting W's ability to go into Iran, and every week they back off all that and just pass the bill the White House wants. It seems like the only courage they have is the courage to continually go through this humiliating song and dance.

The latest retreat, where the dems stripped a bill of language requiring W to come to congress before attacking Iran sums up how confused they are about what W can and can't do given previous bills.

One, if, as Pelosi asserts, W doesn't have the authority to act without congress' consent, why was this language even necessary? Second, its yet another example of the Dems talking tough, then retreating when it looks like it won't be a cake walk. So either Pelosi is running around trying to sound like her congress is relevant when it isn't, or she enjoys pulling tough sounding provisions out of bills, maybe even both. I dunno, maybe she likes looking weak and uniformed to the American public and to the White House. Bottom line, the Democratically controlled congress has yet to put any pressure on either its Republican members or the White House. When the GOP had control they did a masterful job of putting pressure on the dems, and the dems always caved. Maybe my conservative friends are right. Maybe the dems have no guts. They didn't have the guts to stand up to GOP pressure when they were the minority, and they haven't shown the guts to withstand any pressure from the GOP now that the dems are the majority. It just looks like anything that resembles a "stumbling block" causes the dems to retreat.

Maybe Lantos is right. Maybe the dems aren't a potted plant, a potted plant can at least get in the way occasionally. The dems are more like mice. Just scrambling to stay alive, nibbling the left-overs in the pantry, and running whenever something enters the room.

"Will someone please think of the children?" - Helen Lovejoy

A CO bill requiring helmets for all minors on motorcycles passed the state House, but is stalled in the Senate. Apparently it was all set to go until some Dems unexpectedly voted against it. Obviously they hail from the "Children Haters" bloc of the Democratic Party (we already know that the GOP hates children, so this is nothing new from them).

Before getting worked up over the political meaning of the bill, I keep looking for actual stats on non-helmeted kids and their injuries. Honestly, as near as I can tell the only kids affected would be kids who don't have mother's and who's father's are idiots. Because no way, no how does Mrs. Unknown Blogger let me ever, ever take Unknown Blogger Jr. for a ride on a motorcycle if he's not wearing a helmet. Period. And if I did, I'd need a helmet to reenter the house. Not only that, but every motorist I passed would give me a major stink eye for blazing down the highway with a helmetless Jr on the back of my ride. You just couldn't pull this off. Which leads me to the question, just how many kids would this this bill really affect? Usually in these types of bills you get things like, "Passing this legislation will help save the lives of the 1000 kids who show up in Colorado emergency rooms each day for not wearing a helmet while riding on the back of a motorcycle." But we're not getting that, we're getting much vaguer comments like this one from Sen. Peter Groff (D-Denver)

The issue here is the safety of kids. We have a responsibility to save them. Yes, it's an inconvenience on the family, but the issue is it will save lives."

No mention of how many, how often, or how anything. A Rocky Mountain News editorial gives lots of stats on general motorcycle incidents, but nothing on children in motorcycle accidents, especially non-helmeted ones. You'd think the editorial board would at least get to the meat of the matter. Score another one for shoddy journalism.

I get the feeling this bill is like passing the "Protecting Children from Martians Act of 2007" or passing a law banning letting children play in the middle of highways with magnets. Both are no brainers on as far as protecting the children, but are they necessary?

By the way, I'm nominating Helen Lovejoy as the official spokesperson and symbol of the Nanny State. Way to go Mrs. Lovejoy and congratulations.

College Text Rally

The high cost's of college text books is starting to get some press. Makes sense, as college tuitions continue to rise (maybe past their value), all expenses are going to come under fire.

Now having not one, not two, but three degrees (AA, BS, MBA-Suck on that Albert Einstein with your puny two degrees, and neither of them even American. Your not a "genius" until your an American Certified Genius Al), I'm somewhat of an expert on college matters. Some of this is just economics, not a lot of demand, so each book is expensive to make. Not only that but demand is forced and the demander isn't constrained by cost. A Professor can dictate to the class what books to buy without feeling the pain themselves. Which is why many books are bought and little used in class (man that used to tick me off). Students do have options though. You can buy used, or do like I did which is borrow heavily from other classmates and read their books, or, if I'm being honest, not buy the book and fake it (this works better in the "soft" sciences, Poly Sci for example where most of the exam comes from lectures), and I also dipped into the "black market," where you bought the book of another student directly, bypassing the bookstore. Always like to stick it to the man.

However, most of these "options" come about later in your school career, Freshmen take the economic hit squarely on the chin.

But I also don't think that regulation is the answer. Of the ideas discussed in the article, the ones I liked best were

• give students itemized cost information before they register for a class (Personal fave. Most market orientated as it gives the student the full cost up front, and puts pressure on the professor to bring down costs. Always a fan of public disclosure and information)
  
• require that bundled material also be available as individual pieces. (Another solid market approach)
  
• school-run book-rental services as a cheaper alternative (I'd prefer the private market handle this, but its a start)
• And of course, doing away with sales taxes on textbooks

In any case, books are the least of the issue when it comes to higher education. However, I like anything that brings the market closer to college. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that some states will enact "caps" or other mechanical means of bringing down prices which will only increase cost in states that don't, which means the Feds will eventually get involved, which means I'll have to write another post on this topic, "College Text Rally II, this time is educational!"

The Union's weird move in Denver

The AFL-CIO has issued a public challenge to both Colorado and the DNC, and if it doesn't get it's way, it says it will "strongly urge the Democratic Party to relocate the convention." As you can imagine this news sent Colorado democrats scurrying to make the union happy.

Real quick hullabaloo background here.

Anyway, the Denver Post's update outlines Colorado Democrat's rapid response to union Demands. Democratic Governor Bill Ritter, the man who vetoed the bill the AFL-CIO's all panty bundled about, is in full panic mode. Say's his spokesman, "The governor understands that the AFL-CIO and other labor organizations are upset. He welcomes the dialogue." While, CO House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D-Denver) said he would rather spend the rest of the session "focusing on issues of common ground, like education and health care." The way they're bowing to union pressure is just embarrassing.

Which begs the question, "What exactly is the union doing?" I've been sitting on this post trying to figure out the union's goal. Having a public fit makes no sense. There's no way, zero, that the Dems can bow to the union after this public calling out, as doing do would kill them in 2008. Not only that, but the Dems best chance for victory lies in making inroads int he west. Bowing to union pressure and reneging on the decision to have the convention in Denver would set them back years, if not decades. Not only that, but the Dems are poised to retake the White House, why rock the boat now? As for the Dems, their only hope to avoid directly letting the union down is for CO to capitulate, which just isn't going to happen. This isn't Michigan, it's not like there's a huge union base in CO that will rally around the call. Not only that, but a Democratic Governor vetoed the bill. Plus, people in the west just don't like other people telling them what to do, know your audience. Maybe they wanted to create media around the veto of the bill, but one, CO's moved on and didn't really care the first time around. Two, by putting itself in the position of inevitable failure, the AFL-CIO, already struggling, looks weaker and comes off even worse. The union's best chance on all this was to work behind the scenes, maybe get some kind of concession about using union labor on the convention, or some kind of assurance that the bill will be re-introduced so that the union can put together another, better, campaign to get it passed. But now that this is public, everyone is forced to dig in their heels. The DNC and CO have the hand here, and they'll use it. The union is the weak link, and they'll be broken (good thing there's no union prohibition against mixed metaphors).

But this "public pressure" tactic reflects the union's longing for yesteryear, when they could dictate policy. In order to survive, the union's must accept that they just aren't the player they used to be, work the margins, get subtle, get better at "behind the scenes" negotiations, and make themselves powerful by aiding, not threatening Democratic initiatives. They did a great job getting rid of private ballots, and had the chance to build on that. Instead, they fell back into their hamfisted ways with CO and are getting publicly spanked.

Creepy Idea of the Year Award Nominee

South Carolina Sen. Ralph Anderson (D) is pushing legislation offering it's prisoners the chance to reduce their jail time? How you ask? All they have to do is give up an organ or two. The value of the organ? 180 days. The extra creepy part? The rest of the SC gang is all for it. This bill could pass, the only hang up is a Federal Law that prohibits "valuable consideration" for your organs.

I'm honestly too disturbed by this to offer up any snarky comments. I would love to pull some of the quotes and have fun with them, but this whole concept is so creepy that I just can't come up with anything.

DC's gotta gun (bwahamp-a-bwamp)

A US Appeals court struck down, 2-1, a Washington D.C. law banning the personal ownership of handguns (at least if it's kept in the home).

First, to this I say, "Hoooray."

Now on to the article. First, this is going to be a major blow the to DC's tourism industry. Because, since the law went into affect in 1976, if there's one place in the country synonymous with "safety" it's Washington DC. I mean, I can't even remember the last time I heard about gun related violence in the nation's capital. I can't imagine what overturning this wildly successful law will mean. And here, gentle reader, is where I have to admit I was wrong. IAfter doing a little research it appears that DC is not the crime free utopia I imagined (for if it was illegal to own a handgun, how could there be any crime?) First I checked here for yearly crime stats for DC and was shocked to see that violent crime in 2005 was about the same per capita as violent crime in 1976 (it has been much worse over the interim, but never really better), not only that but DC is the 16th most dangerous city in 2005. But wiht handguns are illegal to have in the home, why didn't crime go away? Man was I ever wrong.

On to the judges. All three were appointed by Republicans, but the dissenter, Karen Henderson had this to say,

because the capital district isn't a state, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to it.

Now, I'm no Constitutional scholar (but I play one on the blogosphere), but I always thought it applied to the people, not the states. Using Judge Henderson's logic DC residents have no constitutional protections what-so-ever. Seriously, she's a judge.

Also, and just to demonstrate that "Judicial Activism" has no real meaning, and is really just clever code for "I disagree with the judges decision" Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said "is judicial activism at its worst.'' Then adds, "Two federal judges have negated the democratically expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia." You can bet that if the court ruled in favor of the law that NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam would have said the same thing. In fact, here's my handy reference card for judicial decisions.

If the court agrees with you, say, "We think the court made the right decision.'' For color add, "It's good to see the courts make a reasoned decision that sticks to the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers."

If the court disagrees with you , say, "This is judicial activism at its worst." For color add, "This is another case of renegade judges using forcing their political agenda on the people, with total disregard for the the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers."

Bottom line? In my humble opinion the USC was helped out today, and the Second Amendment may be on the path towards a comeback. It was a good day.

Dems learn a lesson in politics

They want desperately to gain authority on Iraq, the problem is they can't. They've tried non-binding resolutions which failed, and now they're looking to put some kind of timetable on the war, and pull in some of W's powers. But political reality is stuffing them. Say's Hill,

"It's a very frustrating time right now. We still don't have the votes."

And that's just for the 60 needed to bring it to the floor, when W veto's that sucker, they'll need 66.

So what's the lesson? It's much, much harder to undo a law you don't like than to let it pass in the first place. Too many people feel that its OK if a bad law passes because you can just change, but they don't understand the math. It takes 51 to pass a law without real opposition. It takes 60 to pass it with opposition, and 66 to pass it with a veto. Said differently, something that barely squeaks by and passes with a marginal vote of 1 (51) needs 9 more votes to undo, or 15 with a veto (you have to garner 30% more votes to override a veto) its just not that easy, and is hugely important in political strategy. The extra vote hurdle is why you have to fight bad laws in the beginning, before the hurdle of the extra votes kicks in. If the Dem's had the moxie they could have worked to keep the War powers provisions where they belong, with Congress, and they could now be acting on both their promises and the peoples expectations. But that would have required making a stand, which just isn't their strong suit.

As it stands, their earlier cowardice is leading to their current impotence.

Secret, Secret, the State's got a Secret.

Been following the legal case of Khaled el-Masri, a Lebanese born German citizen, and former terrorist suspect. He claims he was,

snatched while on a trip in Macedonia, taken to Afghanistan, jailed, beaten and harassed before being set free without charge after five months.

His request?

explanation and an apology from the United States for his detention, as well as 75,000 dollars in damages.

So he files suit, goes before a Judge, the Defense (the US Government) tells judge, "Hey we'd looooove to stand trial for all this, but unfortunately we can't. See we have this stupid 'state secret' problem. Man we hate that thing, its suuuuch a hassle. Anyway, can't help you, gotta go. Let's do lunch sometime."

Mr. Masri appealed. Defense comes in, says "State Secret" which is apparently Latin for "Screw off" and the appeal was denied. Also, in the appeal we find out that he was "sodomized with an object" while in custody, and while I'm sure that great fun was had by all, that seems like torture to me.

Let's review. A man was taken into custody, denied Habeus Corpus, denied access to a lawyer, taken to a foreign nation and tortured (which is expressly against US law), loses five months of his life (and I know how I felt when I lost 90 minutes of my life when I saw Date Movie), and is then told, "thank you for traveling with the CIA, go home now." Why? Prevailing guess is that his name is similar to someone else's, namely suspected terrorist Khalid al-Masri (wrong vowel leads to hurt bowel?).

The point isn't to rail against arresting an innocent man, it happens every day, and is just part of the legal/investigative process. The problem is that Mr Masri's wild ride was entirely avoidable. If he had the rights of habeas corpus, and the right to an attorney the mistake could have been caught early, avoiding trauma to Mr Masri and embarrassment to the US Government. Somehow habeas corpus and legal representation have come to mean support for the terrorists as opposed to support for the American way. Great marketing that, but entirely wrong.

CO gets tough on Drunk Drivers

CO State Rep Joell Judd (D-Denver) is introducing a new bill aimed at increasing the penalty for Drunk Driving. His bill would

• Mandatory revocation of driver's license for anyone convicted of vehicular homicide or vehicular assault.

• Revocation for one year for first violation, four years for second offense and six years for third DUI offense.

• Revocation for two years for first offense, six years for the second offense and eight years for the third offense, if the driver refuses to take a blood-alcohol-content test.

Here's my bias alert. I despise drunk driving. You can drink yourself stupid and I won't think a bad thing about you, but when you get behind the wheel you become a real problem. I have no issue with taking someones privilege to drive. Yes it sucks, but you made your decision when you got behind the wheel. So I favor this bill, and here's some more reasons why.

One, again driving is a privilege. Abusing it sends you to the bus. Don't want to ride the bus, don't be an idiot. Just like if you're an idiot at the mall, they ban you for life.

Two, this bill doesn't set up more random checks or any other mechanism/idea that infringes on the rights of ordinary citizens. The way I read it, the only way for the penalty to occur is upon conviction.

Three, it doesn't increase jail time or fines. It goes after the problem, driving. I prefer laws like this.

Now what I don't like. I assume that if you're busted the state takes the car. Don't like that, but it is an assumption.

Two, I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion of the breathalyser in the car. I get that using it is voluntary (but how voluntary is it really?) but I don't like where the concept could lead. I'd rather leave that door closed. Just come up with a penalty and go with it.

Just a quick aside, if I were Rep Judd, I would have reworded it to read that the penalty was two years/six/eight unless the individual elects to take the breathalyser route. Thus it would appear that rather than increasing the punishment for opting out of the breathalyser, you could instead decrease the punishment through your actions. Sort of like time off for good behavior.

McCain gets wasted

Appearing on The Late Show with David Letterman (or Daaaavid Leeeetterman) AZ Senator and Presidential hopeful John McCain did his best Joe "Stumble out of the Gate" Biden impression and said,

"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be. We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."

And the frenzy began. First Karen Finney of the DNC said "you take that back," then IL Senator and Presidential hopeful smelled cover for his earlier use of "wasted" and drew a quick analogy,

"As somebody who had the same phrase in a speech, I think nobody would question Senator McCain's dedication to our veterans. We have a duty to make sure that we are honoring their sacrifice by giving them missions in which they can succeed ... I'm positive that was the intent in which he meant it. It was the same intent I had when I made my statement."

And then let out a long sigh and said, "Well at least that's behind me."

And then McCain restated, subbed in "sacrifice," let out a long sigh and said, "Well at least that's behind me."

Personally, I think the "wasted" ruckus, whenever it occurs, typifies the emotional nature of the war. We can't "quit" or the lives of all those soldiers will be "wasted." But here's my thing, only in the rarest of circumstances is a soldiers life actually "wasted," and I honestly don't see that scenario in Iraq, yet. I just don't buy that the definition of "wasted" is dying without "victory." Taken down to the battle level, if your platoon fails to take a hill does it mean that all those who died in the effort had their lives "wasted?" If the next platoon succeeds, did those who died give their lives "heroically?" It doesn't make sense. If we pull out of Iraq tomorrow, I will never accept or tolerate the notion that any soldier's life was "wasted." However, if we stay just because we can't stomach leaving, then that creates a scenario where lives are "wasted."

Look, I disagree with W on most points, but I do believe that he thinks he's right. To me that supersedes the concept of "waste." Being innocently wrong cannot be the determining factor anymore than winning or losing. If that's the case then all leaders would be paralyzed by the fear of being wrong and "wasting" lives. Soldiers are expected to give their lives when their country calls them to action. There's no "if the country is correct and we win" clause. However, accepting the responsibility of calling US soldiers into action also entails the responsibility to bring them back when the call is over. Being unwilling to admit that a goal is unreachable, no longer "correct," politically damaging, whatever is a violation of that responsibility. Dying for political cover is not part of the call.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but it is certainly possible. What I don't see is any discussion about what's going on, what the goal is, what the cost is likely to be, etc. The war is just too emotional. Take the surge. What's the goal of the surge? Is it to decrease violence? If so, what are the parameters? Is it to have a stable democracy? Again, what does that mean? Is it to stay until the Iraqi's can police and defend themselves? OK, show me a goal, not a philosophical one, but a real one. What crime rate does that mean, for example. is the goal of the surge just to calm things down enough that we can begin a safe and orderly withdrawal then let's discuss it. Is the surge meant to bring in enough troops to enforce partition? Keep that one secret. Is the surge meant as a staging ground to attack Iran. Definitely keep that one a secret. Bottom line, I'm cool with a surge, but if the purpose is as vague and moving as the reason for the war in the first place, then I have serious reservations. As it stands, I'm not sure what the reason is beyond "Just do something."

If the decision is that building a stable Iraq is just too much, then bring the troops home. I won't hold it against anyone and I'll never accept that lives were "wasted." Leaders have to have the ability to try noble actions, but they must also have the nobility to end them. Courage to start, courage to stop.

PS. I get that this is a fairly rambling post, but whatever...

Why any border fence will fail.

The Denver Post just ran an article on the Border Fence and given the last post on the H-Blog, I thought I'd comment.

The article shows the flaws in the border fence, either as the GOP favored physical wall or the Dem favored high-tech wall. Basically for the GOP wall, you can ask any prison warden how effective walls are without people manning them. For the Dems, this ain't a movie, technology just isn't there yet, and yet may be a looooong time coming.

But what's staggering is the cost, $7.6 billion (initial cost, I've seen nothing on recurring expenses, improvements, maintenance, etc), and no one in their right mind thinks that that cost is anywhere close to the real cost (if it's ever built, I'm thinking at least $20 bln).

The solution to the illegal immigrant debate isn't a wall of any kind. It may make people think that somethings being done, but in reality its the ultimate red herring. As the wall fails to "fix" the illegal immigrant problem, the solution will inevitably become to keep "fixing" the wall. The solution is political, economic. and legal. Allow more legal immigrants, focus on the big ticket offenders, work to get Mexico more economically viable (pie in the sky I know), and figure out what kind of crime illegal immigration really is and enforce it accordingly. Is someone coming to America and working as a dishwasher the equivalent of murder? Kidnapping? Grand Larceny? Petty Theft? Jaywalking? Seriously. We keep hearing that illegal immigration is bad, and we're clearly ready to spend billions, but what kind of crime is it? How does should it rank on our enforcement priority given the damage it causes? This is one topic I've heard nothing about, and to me, its kind of key.

Bottom line, of all the really stupid ideas I've heard recently, the wall is, by far, the most stupiderist. Really expensive and totally worthless.

CO puts farmers between immigrants and inmates

Colorado passed one of the toughest illegal immigrant bills in the nation last year. Which received many "huzzah's" from immigration hardliners nationwide. Even better, it like it worked, illegal immigrants fled the state (and maybe some legal ones too). Now the hard-liners song, "For Colorado's a jolly good fellow..." Two for two and on a roll. Now the stage is set for the final piece of the theory to be proven. With all those jobs that illegal immigrants took in agriculture that US citizens are pining away for available, citizens surely rushed in to fill the void. Right? Right?

Mmmmm, not so much. It looks like no one wanted those jobs after all, and crops rotted because there was no one to work the fields. Maybe as Meatloaf sang, "Two out of three ain't bad."

In any case, now CO farmers need a solution. And the survey says...Prison labor! That will get those fields tended to. Plus $.60 an hour (plus no unions!) can't beat that. But wait, wasn't that the problem to start with? How can any American, no matter how desperate work for $.60 an hour? I mean you'd have to force someone to work at those wages.

Which makes one wonder how serious the argument that illegal immigrants take jobs because they work at lower wages really is. I mean, if the solution is to use people who will work for less than 10% of the new minimum wage (at gunpoint), how does that help American workers get those jobs?

Two final points.

One. The "illegal immigrants take jobs argument" is false for roughly the same reasons as the minimum wage concept doesn't really help. The jobs II's (I squared?) take are jobs no one wants. These are the true "entry level" gigs. There are no third generation manual laborers. Sucking out supply won't bring in new American workers because there are no American workers looking to do the work. The jobs that are filled by II's can't pay more because the end product can't charge more, there's no way to pass on the increased cost. In fact, in most cases prices are going down. Get rid of labor supply and the industry just goes away, jobs are lost, product is lost, revenue is lost, and taxes are lost. Look at CO. The answer to this new supply of jobs is not a rush of labor, its Prison Labor. Doesn't this demonstrate anything? Bottom line, hardliners create lots of loses but no gains. Brilliant! But typical of government.

Two. When listening to the debate its important to look at who's talking (but not look who's talking too-terrible movie). Farmers and the like are very much against the hardliners. Makes sense, their livelihood, their homes, their land and homes depend on this supply of labor. Everyone wants to keep US agriculture alive, II's are the way, much better than subsidies. But who's arguing against? There's no group, American's Who Want to Work Crazy Hard for Low Wages (or AWWWCHLW-bless you), debating the point. Its politicians looking to gain points with the electorate. Or better put, people who have nothing at stake trying to gain favor from other people who have nothing at stake. No politician or voter against II's really touch the issue (nanny's exempted). The people who do touch this issue are uniformly against this new dance craze.

Beware politician's who smell votes...

Just Pathetic

The dems are in the process of paying back their supporters with the coin of public power. Despite what the lovely and talented UBlo would say, I know full well that both parties do this. I also know full well the only remedy is a vastly weaker government that doesn't have enough power to sell to make corruption worth any one's while. But on to the article...

The author said the "house OKs bill easing union organizing" and goes on to say that the bill makes it easier to form unions against the "companies' wishes". That's a nice, simple description making it clear that Robin Hood just took from the rich and gave to the poor. Too bad this framing of the story is bogus. What the house really did was remove a protection from workers who don't want to organize. I hope this isn't news to any of our sophisticated readers, but unions can be pretty ugly in their tactics. Intimidation is very often part and parcel of the union-forming process. An excellent solution to this is a secret ballot to determine if a shop will unionize. No one can intimidate you if they can't know how you voted. Well, the Democrats just took this protection away from the working man and their comrade in the press (Mr. Jim Abrams) just spun the story to say that the Party of the Working Man stuck it to the company and not the workers. With this kind of blatant, cynical pandering going on at all levels of government, I'm surprised anyone votes.

That's soooooo gay!

California (surprise!) student Rebekah Rice got a "note to her file" (I have to say, I didn't think "files" really existed, I thought they were some kind of educational boogieman) for saying, in response to something that insulted her religion, "That's so gay." Here's how it went down,

When a few classmates razzed Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, "Do you have 10 moms?" she shot back: "That's so gay."

And bammo, a trip to the man, a note to her permanent record, and a lawsuit. But here's what the article missed. Notice that the other kids were teasing her about her religious beliefs, and yet, according to the article, nothing, not one thing, happened to them. So rather than discuss the negatives of "that's so gay," which Jordan Lorence sums up nicely.

"That's so gay" carries a negative meaning and said he would not want his children to say it. But he said formal discipline is not the answer. Reasonable people should say, `Let's put a stop to this kind of search-and-destroy mission by school officials for everything that is politically incorrect.

Can't argue with that. The article also quotes Eliza Byard of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network

As odd or funny as the phrase sounds, imagine what it feels like to be in a setting where you consistently hear it used to describe something undesirable or stupid, and it also refers to you.

Agreed. But imagine sitting in a class where people say to you things like "Do you have 10 mommies?" I don't think that made Rebekah feel great and mighty. Look, I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, but the article plays up the harm that "gay" causes and never mentions the harm caused by religious insults while only briefly noting that the parents figured out the double standard (I know Stalin, its MSNBC, but still) yet never develops why that's OK or not OK.

Schools have a tough job. Bullying is a real problem, but driving out free speech isn't going to help. Kids will find other words and ways to get their message across. It seems like a teacher saying, "enough you two" would have gone a lot farther than the heavy-handed approach used. Also, why not take the extra step of pulling the kids aside, letting them know that teasing someone about their religion is unacceptable, and that "that's so gay" is hurtful. In any case, this rush to punishment, which is ironically fostered and pushed by the conservatives, isn't the right approach.