Hoist by their own petard

In 2004, John Kerry, a Democrat US Senator from Massachusetts, was running for President. The Governor of Massachusetts at the time was Mitt Romney, a Republican. The Democrats were worried that if Kerry won, Romney would appoint a Republican to replace him. So, they passed a law that says if a US Senate seat is vacated, the Governor can't do anything about it. A special election must be called to fill the vacancy.

Fast-forward to today. Senator Edward Kennedy's favorite bit of legislation (health care reform) is up for consideration. His health is failing fast. The Democrats have a majority in the Senate, but it's shaky, and some moderates have already bolted. His seat cannot be empty if his pet project is to pass. So he's back in Massachusetts, trying to get the lawmakers to pass a new law to get rid of the almost-new law, and allow the Governor to appoint a successor.

As the Republican House Leader, Brad Jones, puts it, "If this is going to move forward, people are going to have to explain what's changed between then and now."

(And lest anyone think I'm picking on the Democrats here, well, I am. But I know that Republicans could easily try something so blatantly underhanded and partisan. In the northeast, this is politics as usual. In most of the rest of the country, it wouldn't even cross people's minds to try something like this.)

Collegian Gets it Right!

It isn't often I read something in the KSU Collegian that's worth the time it took to read it, but today's editorial by Tim Hadachek is wonderful. In discussing the party switch by Senator Arlen Specter, Hadachek reminds both parties that nothing much will change. Specter already voted with the Democrats most of the time.

Hadachek also tells us that Specter's party switch isn't about ideology, or a perceived swing to the right in the GOP. It's all about Specter, and his reelection in 2010. Interestingly, Specter was livid in 2001 when Senator Jim Jeffords changed from Republican to Independent. That move cost Specter his chairmanship of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

The whole party switch is to preserve Specter's cushy Senate seat. Surprised?

Quoting the last paragraph of the editorial:

So Republicans can politely ask that Specter not let the door hit him on the way out. Nothing changes in the Senate -- except that another slimeball career politician will probably be reelected in 2010. But that's hardly a new development.

Read the whole column here.

Thoughts on the election

Now that B. Hussein Obama has completed his purchase of the Presidency, a few thoughts.

I was on the campus of William Jewell College yesterday. Melissa says that there must be a budget line-item in the Obama campaign's books for sidewalk chalk. Sure enough, every few feet on all the sidewalks I was on, there was another "Vote Obama" message. One said, "Want more green cars on the road?" Another, "Worried about finding a job?" And another said, "Want affordable healthcare? Vote Obama."

The problem is, that few people (and least of all college students) stop to consider the cost of those options. Putting more green cars on the road, giving people jobs, paying for healthcare ... they all seem like good ideas, but they all have a cost. By conveniently ignoring the cost, the tax-and-spenders can buy votes with promises of things, and the voters just eat it up and march in lockstep to the polls.

In some ways, the cut-taxes-and-spend crowd is worse, because they want to buy your vote from both ends: What you'll get, and it will even cost less. Every politician tells us they want to cut out the porkbarrel spending, but it's those very porky projects that buy re-election votes. If a Congressperson truly turned down everything of a porcine nature for the home state, he or she would be out of a job come the next election, no question about it.

But giving people who won't work a bunch of freebies paid for by those who will is precisely the wrong way to build or sustain a great nation. It encourages mediocrity, or worse. When asked, "What is wrong with the redistribution of wealth, which Obama talked about as far back as a 2001 interview?", Senator McCain said it very well:

That is a bold, left-wing view of how you help people that's been tried in other countries. In America, you don't take money from one group and give it to another. You create jobs, create opportunities, and give people the ability to accumulate wealth. We have Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance. But to somehow say that when "Joe the Plumber" reaches a certain income level, we're going to take money from him and give it to somebody else, that's a fundamental contradiction of what made this country the strongest and greatest nation in the world.
Business Week November 10, 2008, p.20

Religious Minorities: Muslims in Germany, Christians in Turkey

Another interesting article from the BBC:

Free to believe?

One part that I found particularly interesting is where the Catholic nun said that she has no trouble whatsoever from her Muslim neighbors. Even the mayor of the city would like to turn the church back over to the Christians, but he's prevented by the national government. One assumes that the national government is under pressure from prominent religious figures (what the media likes to call "extremists").

It's a sobering lesson, when we think about the pressures that are exerted on our government by extremists ... and not just those of a religious nature. Do we forgive it when we agree with those exerting the pressure? Should we?

Surprise, surprise!

A story on page one of the October 23rd issue of the Manhattan Free Press says Hawaii is ending it's child health care plan after only seven months. Seems the do-gooders there had decided that the state should buy health insurance for any kid whose parents weren't paying for health insurance.

A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

Duh. Did anyone seriously expect people to keep paying for something the state was giving away?

Is Bush to blame?

In this week's Manhattan Free Press, publisher Jon Brake says:

For those who want to blame President George Bush for the market problems:
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
NY Times Article: Sept. 30, 1999

The fact is that no President is responsible for the mess. It's been coming for a long time, and is exacerbated by pressures like the above from various Administrations, Congresses, and shareholders. Blaming George W. Bush (Or Bill Clinton, for that matter) is akin to blaming Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression. Many factors, the majority of which were out of his control, came together to cause the problem on his watch.

Still, there is a good reason why Harry Truman had a sign on his desk stating, "The buck stops here." We humans have a tendency to need someone onto which to pin ultimate blame. Bush will be blamed for this one, even though it's the product of many decades of bad policy-making from members of both parties.

Computer questions and answers

Q: What should you do when you get an e-mail titled "Pictures of Sarah Palin nude!"?
A: Whatever you do, don't open it! It could contain a particularly bad virus.

Q: What should you do when you get an e-mail titled "Pictures of Hillary Clinton nude!"?
A: Whatever you do, don't open it! It could contain pictures of Hillary Clinton nude.

The UK's view of our elections

I love to read the BBC News ... and other foreign news outlets. They have such an interesting view of us.

Today's take on last night's speech by Hillary Clinton at the Democrats' convention is a lot of fun to read. Here are some relevant quotes:

After all, the winds of change should be blowing against the Republicans and their president. But, everywhere you look in Denver, you find nail-biting delegates, nervous surrogates, defensive campaign staffers.

The rest of the world thinks that Mr Obama will be America's 44th president but, at home, the Democrats are the worried party.

To some extent, this is their traditional role. Like Woody Allen in one of his earlier movies, the Democrats excel at fretting, agonising, navel gazing and over-analysing.

The opinion polls, which have Mr Obama and his Republican rival John McCain neck-and-neck, prove that they have reason to worry.

The senator from Illinois has had an arid summer. He needs to have a bountiful harvest season.

But the other reason for anxiety is the Lady who broods in the wings. Of late, Hillary and Bill Clinton have not uttered a single public word of apostasy. They are toeing the line, gritting their teeth and swallowing their pride.

They are also economical with their enthusiasm. I am told that senior Clinton people aren't even sticking around for Obama's big stadium speech on Thursday. This is damning with faint praise.

And what has to be my favorite quote:

If Barack Obama wins the 2008 election, this will be remembered as a gracious salute from a defeated rival; if he loses and Republican John McCain gets the White House, then we might just see it as the first speech of Campaign 2012.

Read the article here.

No Concrete Proof ...

Scientists in Sweden are reluctant to say that there's any proof that Global Warming (at least on the scale the popular culture believes) is even occurring, let alone that humans are somehow causing it.

Click here to read the article.

Mitt Romney's Top 10 list

Mitt Romney's Top 10 List of reasons for quitting the race for US President, as he gave them at yesterday's Radio and Television Correspondents Association annual awards dinner:

10. There weren't as many Osmonds as I had thought.

9. I got tired of the corkscrew landings under sniper fire.

8. As a life-long hunter, I didn't want to miss the start of varmint season.

7. There wasn't room in the campaign for two Christian leaders.

6. Word leaked out that nobody had bothered to search my passport files.

5. I'd rather get fat, grow a beard, and try for the Nobel Prize.

4. I wanted to finally take off the dark suit and tie and kick back, in a light-colored suit and tie.

3. Once my wife Ann realized I couldn't win, my fund-raising dried up.

2. I took a bad fall at a campaign rally and broke my hair.

1. There was a flaw in our campaign theory that as Utah goes, so goes the nation.



Source: Deseret News website, which cites youtube.com as their source.

Why I'm not running with Ryun

One of the darkest days in recent history was in 2006, when the 2nd District of Kansas elected Nancy Boyda to the US House of Representatives. Fortunately, we get a chance to undo mistakes like that every two years. When I heard that Jim Ryun was planning to run against her this year, I immediately put what little support I can offer behind him. Of course, my main consideration was that anybody was better than Boyda, and Ryun hadn't done anything too offensive in his years in the House.

At a recent meeting of Pottawatomie County Republicans, I got a chance to listen to Ryun give a talk, and also to his Republican challenger, Lynn Jenkins. After the meeting, I saw that she was between conversations, so I went up and introduced myself. I told her that I was mainly interested in defeating Boyda, but I wanted to know what differentiated her from Ryun. Her answer, from long practice answering the same question, was concise, well thought out, and made a lot of sense. I hope I do her justice when I try to put the gist of it in here.

Mainly, she said, we've had two schools of thought for the last few decades. The Democrats want to tax us more and spend more. The Republicans want to tax us less and spend more. Neither scenario is workable, as evidenced by our huge national debt and continued deficit spending. Jenkins is a CPA, and has been an excellent State Treasurer as far as I can tell. As a CPA, however, she realizes that the cycle of spending cannot continue. She wants to cut taxes and reduce spending, something that is unthinkable in Washington.

If she's elected, she won't last long. People (read: voters) love politicians who bring home the pork. Nonetheless, I'm supporting Lynn Jenkins for 2nd District US House of Representatives. I hope all my readers (both of them) will give her a good look and see if you don't agree.

Curses! Foiled again!

After months of saying, "This one ... no, that one ... no, the other one", I had finally come to a decision on who I would caucus for at the upcoming Republican shindig. I was honestly almost down to the "Eeeny, meeny, miney, moe" stage. Finally, last night, I decided that my choice had to be Mitt Romney.

Now comes news that Mr. Romney has dropped out of the Presidential campaign today.

Now what? My choices are down to Paul, Huckabee, and McCain ... unless I'm missing someone.

Paul is easy. I feel exactly like the editor of Go! Twenty-four/Seven who wrote, in this week's issue, "Ron Paul: Has some good ideas; is crazy as a loon."

I have some serious reservations about John McCain. And after reading what James Dobson had to say about him, my reservations are even stronger. But I'm not sure I can see myself caucusing for Mike Huckabee.

Well, back to the old "Eeny, meeny, miney, moe," I guess.

Pick a President like you'd pick a CEO

In the latest issue of Business Week (Feb. 4, 2008), Jack and Suzy Welch answer a question from a reader (page 88) asking, "What caracteristics would you say are most important when choosing a company CEO or the next U.S. President?"

They have long advocated six key business leadership characteristics, and they apply them to the problem of picking a CIC instead of a CEO. Most telling to me was the first one:

Take authenticity, the foremost quality business leaders must possess. It's equally crucial for a President, and for the same reason: trust. When President is trying to promote a major initiative or lead through a crisis, the nation can't be embroiled in a debate about his or her sincerity.

Well, there goes Hillary ... wiped off my list (still!).

Now I just have to look for that quality (and the other five) in the pool of candidates that are left. We're down to seven serious contenders now, and I honestly can't say I like any of them. I fully expect to enter the polling booth this November with my nose held, and vote more against one than for the other. I still haven't made up my mind which corner I'll stand in come caucus day ... and it's coming up quickly!

Nancy Boyda spouts off again

An article in today's Topeka Capital-Journal tells how the National Guard at Forbes Field in Topeka has a dozen old jet airplanes (they'll turn 50 years old next month) that nobody flies anymore. In fact, there's nobody certified to fly the planes. They have been superseded by newer planes, and they're in the way. Unfortunately, an obscure little phrase in an old Federal law that will not allow the planes to be decommissioned without Congressional approval. As if that's not bad enough, the law requires that these planes be maintained, so somebody has to go out every week and start them up and tow them around so the tires don't get flat spots. The National Guard estimates that it costs $1.1 million a year to do this. And it's the same story at many other bases in the country. Total hit to our taxpayer wallets: $229 million annually.

Here's the article (at least until the C-J takes it down).

Enter Nancy Boyda. She says she wants to get that law off the books, and I have to agree with her (There's a first time for everything!). Her quote:

I believe that military leaders, not politicians, should decide when equipment has become hopelessly outdated.

One has to wonder if she believes that military leaders and not politicians should decide on the best course of action in Iraq?

I'd give a left lugnut to see her face if someone asked her that!

Nancy Boyda shows her true stripes

Nancy Boyda and the Democrats took over Congress promising to do things differently, better. Did any of us believe it for a moment? Well, apparently the thousands of people who voted for her did. But she's a tax-and-spend Democrat, like they all are. And she's been caught. You have to read the story the story to believe it...

But it gets worse! Turns out she originally asked for FAR, FAR more money than the $100,000! Like $1,800,000. For a project that doesn't have a budget, a plan, or anything. She just asked for money (my money! your money!) because "the mayor of Lansing asked for it." Here's that story.

We can be thankful that US Representatives are elected every 2 years. It won't be long until we can have Jim Ryun back where he belongs ... in the US House of Representatives.

More views on the US election

The BBC's Matt Frei always provides an interesting perspective on our political system, written to those who don't understand it. His latest post is here.

A couple of posts back he took a look at NASCAR and the election, so adding another American phenomenon that his readers don't understand well. It's here. Good reading, as always.

Dr. Dobson heads down a dangerous path

I could hardly believe it when I first heard it, but now Dr. James Dobson (founder of Focus on the Family has published his 2008 Presidential election plans in the New York Times.

Basically, he says that if the nominee from the Republican and Democrat parties are both not perfectly pro-life and pro-family, he'll vote for someone else. Can he not see that there are worse possibilities than having a President who doesn't line up squarely with one's position on a few issues? How about having one who lines up exactly opposite one's positions on a lot of issues?

Let's suppose that Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton are the nominees. So Rudy doesn't match Dr. Dobson point-for-point on abortion and family issues. He doesn't match me point-for-point, either. But refusing to vote for him simply gives her another vote. We must not allow her to become President, for that would be a far, far worse thing for this country than nearly any other alternative I can think of.

You can read Dr. Dobson's editorial here.

The real betrayers

Those foaming-at-the-mouth whiners at moveon.org published a newspaper ad the other day calling General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General of the Multi-National Foce-Iraq, "General Betray-us". They basically accused him of lying. More than that, they implicitly accused the whole military of lying. President Bush, for all his faults, called this one correctly when he said it was "disgusting". Agree with the President or the Democrats, agree with the war or disagree ... there's no reason to call into question the integrity or honesty of our military leaders without cause. Just because what they report isn't what you want to hear doesn't make them dishonest.

So, today, the US Senate considered an amendment to a bill. That amendment was "To express the sense of the Senate that [Petraeus] deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces." Pretty cut-and-dried, right? Doesn't matter which side of the debate you fall on, surely you could support this one, right? Anyone who doesn't agree with this one is a traitor to the United States of America, right?

OK, here's the list, in all it's glory:

Akaka, Hawaii
Bingaman, New Mexico
Boxer, California
Brown, Ohio
Byrd, West Virginia
Clinton, New York
Dodd, Connecticut
Durbin, Illinois
Feingold, Wisconsin
Harkin, Iowa
Inouye, Hawaii
Kennedy, Massachusetts
Kerry, Massachusetts
Lautenberg, New Jersey
Levin, Michigan
Menendez, New Jersey
Murray, Washington
Reed, Rhode Island
Reid, Nevada
Rockefeller, West Virginia
Sanders, Vermont
Schumer, New York
Stabenow, Michigan
Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Wyden, Oregon

Notice the names of a few candidates for President in that list of traitors? Now, here's the real kicker: Mr. Biden of Delaware and Mr. Obama of Illinois simply failed to vote. They knew they couldn't go on record voting against this amendment, but they are so under the thumb of moveon.org that they couldn't vote for it. So skipping the vote saves their political careers for both the election and for the rabid left-wingnuts.

My respect for Ms. Clinton couldn't get any lower (except for that respect I have for a mastermind of crime ... how does she manage to get away with it, time after time?). But any shred of respect I had for the others on that list (Obama and Biden included) is now gone.

Don't Vote!

I've often said that these "Get out the vote" campaigns are a bad idea. If people care enough, and are educated enough, they'll vote. Those who don't care, don't vote, and that's a good thing.

So I was pleased to find this site:



You take a 30-question quiz, and it tells you whether you should consider voting or not, based on your cultural literacy.

I'll be honest, I didn't score very well. For one thing, it must be aimed at people who get their news from TV. The questions are simply a photograph of a person, and you are asked who it is and what his or her position is. It's multiple choice, so that helps. But to be honest, someone like me who gets most of his news from the websites (BBC, Google News, Deseret Morning News) hasn't got much of a chance. I know who Ehud Olmert is, but I don't know that I've ever seen a picture of him. Same with Mahmoud Amadinejad, Robert Gates, Nancy Pelosi. Actually, I got Pelosi wrong ... I mixed her up with Dianne Feinstein. I know who they both are, and I know the difference, but I couldn't tell you which one is which from a photograph.

They also put in some ringers. There were pictures of Paris Hilton and some other pop culture figures. I had no clue. I honestly think it was the first time I had seen a picture of Paris Hilton, and I didn't even know it was her until it gave me the answers at the end. As I was going through, I got a little mad ... after all, what does knowing who Paris Hilton is have to do with being able to vote? Turns out they've thought of that. If you get that one right, you get one point. It's nine points for knowing who Condoleezza Rice is, and ten for knowing George W. Bush.

And I found one mistake: It shows Tony Blair as the Prime Minister of the UK. It does say that the test was last updated in January, so it's almost forgivable, but they really ought to get their act together.

Anyway, if you watch a lot of TV, take the quiz. If you don't get your news from TV, take it anyway, but don't worry too much about the score.

Whither the Environmentalists?

While I was enjoying the fireworks last Wednesday, I noticed how much smoke was in the air. It occured to me that the people of Wamego probably produced more air pollution in the first few days of July than they do during the entire remainder of the year. Perhaps not quite that much, but certainly there was a lot of it. Multiply that by cities and towns all over the country, and our pollution/particulate footprint for those few days was enormous.

Where were the environmentalists who are usually crying on TV about how dangerous humans are to the planet? Where was Al Gore -- watching fireworks somewhere?