Moderate Mainstream

Economics

2011-12-06T18:16:00.000-08:00

When I first was introduced to economics (Micro 101) in college, my basic understanding of the economy cause me no end of trouble in class. What the professor was discussing was so far from my experience I had to wonder if economics actually had anything to do with the economy. It took years for me to understand that in fact, the two had very little in common. Like a photographer evaluating the finest detail of a picture of an elephant, the economist sees only the surface appearance.

But the human brain is an amazing machine that can take just that appearance and determine a great deal about the 'elephant'. As long as you understand the limitations of the attempt, the economist can tell you a great deal about the economy. What they can NOT do is predict, 'what the elephant will do'.

The economy is made up of every actor that participates in it. My purchases, yours, our work, our choices, each create a part of the economy and drive it. Seven billion actors, each independently, and each as a group, from family to community, to state to nation, each a separate and independent actor combine minute by minute (in our digital age -billionth of a second by billionth of a second) to create the economy.

I once described the economy as the wind. You can measure it, you can determine it's direction, force and temperature. You can even, with those measurements, predict it's future direction. But you can not turn it, stop it, move it or entice it. Like light, the wind is both wave and particle. The economy is the wind, with trees and mountains, buildings and shade and water all impacting the flow. We can catch parts in cul-de-sacs or by opening a door and make precise measurements as it flows by, but the farther from a point of measurement, the less we know about it's behavior and future.

Take 100 people from very similar soc-economic situations (income, family, education, geographic location) and give each $5000 per month to spend on all expenses. Keep careful track of the expenditures over a year, Patterns will emerge, large scale consistencies. The edges will vary but the overall picture of those 100 economic units will be fairly clearly established. Now, take a new 100 people from the same soc-economic situation and predict how they will spend $4000 or $6000 over the next year. Many of the same broad categories will emerge, but 'centers of gravity' or 'attractors' will shift.

Further, if you take 1/3 of the group from a pool of people whose income the previous years was significantly less than $5000, 1/3 whose income was significantly more than $5000 and those that have earned $5000 over several years, the ranges within categories will vary broadly. Each person, each economic unit has a different starting point, a different center of gravity.

If it seems as if I am suggesting Chaos Theory, I am.

Many Economists hate to be lumped into social science departments - their attempt to mathematically model economic behavior (they say) is a hard science, steeped in the bowels of mathematics. However, each economic unit, each individual in the experiment above will NOT spend their $5000 each month exactly the same as the previous month. Use a mathematical equation to model their behavior and the error will be all over the map. The Economist will SAY, using math to prove it, that the error is distributed in a way that is measurable. Spending will fall into clear categories but the 'error' will be 'disposable income', a catchall that will encompass so much variety that attempts to minimize it will fail any real world explanation.

Economists will bring probabilities into the calculations. Of course an economic unit will be unable to purchase a jet plane and will probably not buy a single piece of gum so the range of potential purchases will be a probability problem. As a descriptor, it works well, but not as a predictor. This is the fallacy of economics: prediction of the behavior of an economic unit is NOT the sum of the probabilities.

"Adjusting one variable and keeping all the others the same" will predict one possible outcome out of an infinite range of possibilities. A useless result.

"Past experience is not a predictor of future behavior" is exactly the only possible result of economic analysis.

Does this mean we should toss our hands up and say, can't predict future economic behavior of economic units? No. There are some specific 'rules' that economists have been able to glean from their work. Like weathermen knowing that air flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure, economic activity is greater in areas of higher monetary aggregates. Where abundance of resources exist, their value/cost is lower than in areas where the resources are scarce. Greater cost reduces usage. For our 100 people, increasing the income increases the range of possible purchases as reducing the income reduces the range of possible purchases.

These basic rules are often ignored by economists tasked with determining policies for government. What happens when economists ignore the rules and think they know how the wind blows?

A response to #occupy

2011-11-24T22:59:00.001-08:00

Survey Reveals Occupiers’Values
by Joshua Sager

A recent survey found that Boston’s occupiers share a number of common values and support several major issues, despite having a lack of centralized demands. The “Occupy Boston Issue Survey” received responses from just over 260 occupiers. The survey posed sixty questions to determine the views of occupiers on a wide variety of issues, ranging from tax policy to defense, in order to determine the aggregate opinions of the occupiers. It reached participants via email lists, Google Groups, Facebook, and Twitter. A frequent criticism of the Occupy movement is that the occupiers have expressed no central set of demands. Some critics have concluded that the lack of defined demands signifies that the protesters are not protesting anything at all. However, the survey finds that ten issues and beliefs have near-universal support among occupiers. They are:

1. Revoke corporate personhood so that corporations have no ability to interfere in elections.

Agreed. Most people associated with the Tea Party and most Conservatives agree that corporations are ‘people’ with limited lifespans, or they are not. Can’t be both. However, as long as donations are transparent, corporations have the right to be involved in their governance also.

2. Remove the “revolving doors” that contribute to the corruption of the regulatory process.

Restrictions concerning jobs people may take after government services already exist. Further, arguments that the most experienced in private sector being banned from gov work deprives gov of the best minds. In general, the Tea Party and Conservatives agree on this - however, less government also results in less opportunity for regulatory manipulation.

3. Institute a progressive tax code which both removes loopholes as well as makes the rich and corporations pay their “fair share”.

A. We already have a progressive tax code; B. Corporations pass taxes onto consumers so increasing their taxes just increases how much consumers ‘contribute’ to gov via secondary and less transparent means. Also, define ‘fair share’. The top 1% pay 45% of all income taxes now - how much more should they pay? 50%, 70%, 99%? When a top tax payer has to pay 70 or 99% of every new dollar earned, why bother earning any more?

4. Re-institute the Glass-Steagall Act and place stricter regulations on capital leveraging.

Agreed. However leveraging is only part of the problem. Derivatives were/are used to ‘hedge’ risk and attempts to regulate them as insurance failed. Further attempts to do so have met with stiff opposition in Congress by DEMOCRATS. Although Republicans also prevented meaningful reform in this area.

5. Increase the transparency and accountability of the Federal Reserve.

Agreed. Candidate and Congressman Ron Paul has made several efforts in this regard and has been prevented by both parties.

6. Institute election reform so that money can no longer be used to buy elections.

Either corporations are people or they are not. If not, then there are other alternatives to preventing them from influencing elections - HOWEVER, the right to petition the gov for redress of grievances applies to all entities and people governed.

7. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq is all but over and Afghanistan would resemble Cambodia’s killing fields if we left abruptly. Most conservatives are having a hard time continuing support for Afghanistan given how the effort is being mismanaged at this point by Washington. If the plan isn’t changed, bring them home.

8. Invest in clean energy development and increase environmental regulations.

The EPA now regulates our breathing. How far do you want it to go? Regulating our shit? Clean energy costs 5 to 10x the current cost. Without gov subsidies, ‘clean’ energy would be so uneconomical as to end virtually all economic growth. ‘Investments’ by gov have been corrupt and ‘ill-advised’ - at best.

9. End the drug war and institute rehabilitation programs for non-violent offenders.

Illegal behavior is illegal behavior. Punish the criminal. As for the drug war. Gov uses it now as a revenue source. You want bad behavior to stop, make it painful. The problem is that most people think taking ‘recreational drugs’ is ok. It’s as stupid as getting drunk, but individual rights are not ‘stupid’ safe. Do the first, screw the second.

10. Protect unions and increase worker safety protections.

Unions are parasites - if people want them, let them vote for them, without card check, with right to work laws. And public worker unions - forget about it.

What happened.....

2011-10-11T10:06:00.001-07:00

For myself and CJ and everyone that knew and loved Victoria.

In December 2007, Victoria got a little pine needle from our Christmas tree stuck in her heel. She didn't notice (diabetic neuropathy) and neither did I for couple days. It spawned an infection that destroyed her left heel. (Details of that can be found here.) When the infection spread to the extent shown in the other blog, her physical and mental state began a very slow, shallow slide. As anyone with chronic illness knows (or knows someone with one), the constant battle is mentally, physically and emotionally draining. The heel caused Victoria to lose a significant amount of mobility which also contributed to her general state.

The months leading up to December 2007 had been somewhat occupied by eye doctors trying to arrest the slide of her eyesight. Again, diabetes was the main culprit here (glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy slowly rob eyesight even though numerous interventions can slow their progress). We went to a resort in the Dells for CJs birthday and that is when the warm, moist air seemed to relieve some of the pain Victoria had started feeling in her hands the previous winter. It was back with a vengeance in the winter of 2007/2008. Rheumatoid arthritis.

Throughout 2008 Victoria fought the heel infection and her declining eyesight. Yet, she continued with her Education for Ministry classes and working with clients in the office. For much of the Spring and early Summer, we were often on an emotional rollercoaster.

CJ was approaching teenager and was doing well in school, had lots of friends and was and is, a happy kid. We kept home as normal as possible.

Because of all the medical appointments and draining nature of the recovery, Victoria's practice suffered some. We didn't see as many clients and that added some stress.

In 2007 I started working for other attorneys to supplement our income. It wasn't much but it helped. As 2008 opened, I had a couple clients that were consistent in their business that helped ours.

2008 was the year of her last big case in the office. It was a custody case where the in the military father was being denied visitation by a mother that moved 20 times in 4 years and kept changing the schools of their ADHD son. Trial was a 2 day affair that meant 20 hour days leading upto, and during for both of us. Although it didn't end after 2 days, we were both exhausted. Sometime in the fall, she had a TIA (a mini-stroke). She recovered after a day or so, but it suggested that years of high blood pressure and diabetes were taking a toll not just on eyes but other things as well.

Let me give you a number: creatin is a measure of kidney function. Everyone loses some function as they get older, but when numbers fall below 40, doctors start getting concerned. Under 20 and they start planning for eventual failure. Victoria was about 21-22 in 2008 but that had fallen to about 18 by early 2009. She started being followed by nephrology (kidney docs) at a clinic we went to monthly.

2008 became 2009 and it was clear the heel was going to take much longer to heal than expected. We settled down into some routines but there was no plateau, no leveling off. Her health and business continued a very slow, but steady decline.

From February to June of 2009, my business income actually was about equal to the law office at it's average. It meant Victoria could retire. She was mentally and physically exhausted. She wanted to move to California where the warmer weather would be easier on her arthritis. I argued against it saying we couldn't just up and leave - her practice, the house, CJ just starting her freshman year in high school....we did get a realtor in and it was clear the housing bust had made it to Madison. We owed more than the house was worth. We tried to sell her practice but one deal after another fell through. Victoria was committed to moving to California and we all agreed to it come the summer. Neither I nor CJ was happy about moving during high school.

2009 saw some additional issues with Victoria's eyes and in October she had a victritomy (left eye): they take the fluid out of the eye and replace it with saline - this helps clear up a lot of debris that forms from the retinopathy. She was one of the 1% that had a bad reaction and the next couple days were very painful as they got the pressure in the eye balanced. If you have ever had a poke in the eye, think of that pain lasting for hours and hours.

Something new happened. CJ went with Sue on a camping trip. She had done so the previous year and they both enjoyed it. It was a really hot couple of days but they were going up to Devil's Lake and it would be a little cooler there. On the 2nd day they returned early because CJ had a severe allergic reaction to....the sun. CJ's carefree days in the sun were over. Even 30 minutes exposure led to hives on the exposed skin.

As we approached the 2nd anniversary of the pine needle, Victoria's emotional state was beginning to show the toll. She didn't like the constant medical appointments, the hobbling on the encased foot and she wanted to FEEL better. Business was off noticeably in part because I was not spending a lot of time marketing her practice. Between her care, and my business, I was tired. But my business was making up most of the difference. Most being the operative word. Little cracks were showing.

Into 2010: In February, Victoria was scheduled to have a victritomy in the right eye. After the issues with the first, we tried to minimize the chances of a repeat result...and failed. Although the correction was done within a day, she still experienced significant pain. In April, a new eye doctor on the scene would tell her that the damage to her optic nerves meant further surgeries to her eyes would not significantly improve her vision. She had cataracts removed and for the rest of her days, would use a high powered magnifying glass (8x, then 10x) to read basically one word at a time.

In April we took 6 days of CJs spring break and went to Califoria. CJ was terrified of being in a place where it was sunny 340 days of the year. But she had learned many precautions and was diligent about them. We left on Saturday but by Wednesday, CJ said that she loved California and she could deal with the sun issues. That Saturday we spent 3 hours on the Beach before returning home. We were all committed to moving.

We saw Victoria's team of doctors in May for final prescription refills, suggestions and tests. Victoria's creatin was 15, her eyes were stable and the heel wound, although still open was continuing to close. June was a nightmare between trying to pack, garage sales and trying to still sell the law practice. Our original plan was to leave June 30th, but that got pushed back til mid July. We met with a couple much like us, attorney and life partner that worked with him and agreed they would take over the office (but not buy). Getting them up to speed, working on my business (which was busy) and Victoria's care turned that 6 weeks of June into July into a hectic and crazy time. (I could write 100 pages of the things that were going on those few weeks and I might yet have to....)

We left on July 19th and drove down to my parents in Chicago. We left such a mess in Madison. Victoria had a bladder infection and we had to stop often and her mobility, an issue for the past couple years, started to haunt us. CJ and I had to empty the moving trailer and completely repack it at my parents house to get a better distribution. We left in the afternoon of the 20th but only averaged 90 minutes of driving before Victoria had to have a restroom break. That went on for the next 4 days as we traveled, every 90 minutes or so a bathroom break and every other stop we got gas. Fortunately, the AC worked as it was close to 100 degrees most days.

We arrived on Monday very early (Jul 26th) and slept until mid-day. We started looking for a place to live that afternoon. On Tuesday Victoria did not feel well and on Wednesday she didn't want to go out and slept most of the day. NOW, I know she had a stroke. And by Sunday, Aug 1, she was in the hospital. That story and the next 2 months can be read about here.

One of the things that started happening was Victoria's constipation (normal with people on pain meds) seemed to cause her stomach to not clear quickly. She could eat and stuff would still be in her stomach 24-36 hours later. She would usually be sick after 36 hours and it would repeat a couple weeks later. This was happening a lot during the fall and winter but had been tapering off as this year wore on.

In April, near the end of the month, Victoria was having trouble breathing and we called the paramedics. They saw a small abnormality on her EKG and took her to the trauma hospital instead of the local one near home. Tests determined she did not have a cardiac event, and that the abnormality was probably anxiety brought on by a little fluid in the lungs making it hard to breathe. She stayed in the hospital for a couple days and came home.

Throughout the last year, there were times when Victoria was very depressed. She did not like dialysis, she did not like how she had to live her life (not able to do much for herself - she hated the commode that sat next to her chair in the living room and she hated feeling sick so often). She often said she did not want to keep living her life like this. And it was hard for her, and CJ and I. Her health was a daily issue and while our expenses were lower here, my business has been slower this year than last also. It has been a struggle. Which made Victoria feel worse because she was not contributing but also costing us. We had good days and bad, but she always came back to "this is not how I want to live my life".

Friday, Sept 23rd.
Victoria was not feeling well so she did not want to go to dialysis. We didn't go.

Sunday, September 25th.
Quiet weekend, Badgers won on Saturday. Victoria developed a little cough...more like a clearing of the throat, but as the day went on, it got worse. One of her little vices was cough drops...she liked to suck on them. The doctor and pharmacist didn't see a problem as they had less sugar than hard candy. I asked if she was still using them, she said yes. By evening it was a full cough. By 11pm she said she was having trouble breathing. We tried some things (like inhaler for her asthma) but at about Midnight we called for the paramedics.

Monday, Sept 26th.
There was fluid in her lungs, not a lot, but she had a temp and doctors were concerned it might be pneumonia. But the other thing concerned them A LOT. Her potassium was 7.9 This is a dangerous, even lethal level. Potassium helps the body's electrical system/muscles operate. Too little, a serious problem also that she had last October, is bad, too much and the heart and other muscles can just stop without warning. They gave her meds to bring it down fast (which she threw up) and admitted her. Every doctor and nurse for the next two days yelled at both of us for her not doing dialysis on Friday. They did dialysis on Monday and her potassium got back down into normal range.

Tuesday, Sept 27.
Another dialysis treatment and no sign of pneumonia. Victoria wanted to go home, I wanted to take her. Doctors practically begged for her to stay one more day for another dialysis treatment. I agreed, Victoria resigned herself.

Wednesday, Sept 28.
They wanted to discharge her and have her go to the clinic for dialysis. We said no, do it in the hospital, that's what they wanted. They set dialysis for late in the evening, we said no, Victoria got discharged and we went home.

Friday, Sept 30.
At dialysis, Victoria's heart rate was around 50. This is significantly lower than usual (normally around 100). I noted it. The rest was uneventful. Badgers won on Saturday - she watched the whole game without falling asleep.

Monday, Oct 3.
Over the weekend, her heart rate stayed around 50 and again in dialysis it stayed there. Blood pressure did it's usual up/down/up/crash/up during dialysis. The crashes we tried to limit and generally they were not bad (a reading under 100/60).

Tuesday, Oct 4.
Appointment with podiatrist for the first time. He removed the callous and scab from Victoria's heel and for the first time in 3 yrs, 9 months, the heel was healed. The damage would be forever and she would need special shoe for it, but we had reached the end of that tunnel. I had CJ take pictures and emailed it to friends and family. Victoria was not happy, she wanted to be normal again.

Wednesday, Oct 5.
Dialysis. Heart rate now occasionally dipping into the 40s....48,49. I am concerned. After two years close to a 100 - and being worried about the stress that was causing, the reverse was happening and I liked it even less. Dialysis techs and nurses are also now concerned. She is scheduled to see her regular/primary doctor on Thursday, we'd bring it up with him.

Thursday, Oct 6.
Appointment with primary doctor. He listens to everything we tell him. He listens to Victoria's chest. He is concerned that she might have bacterial endocarditis. It is an infection of the heart caused by dental surgery. Yep. Victoria had two teeth pulled in July and it might have gotten into her bloodstream. The doctor wanted Victoria to have an echo-cardiogram done to check and he called a local cardiac clinic to get us in right away. We left to that appointment.

When we got there about 10 minutes later, we were told we'd have to wait about 2.5 hours. Victoria, hating every second she was in her wheelchair said no and said we were to go home. Which after a little argument from me, we did. I didn't push too much, I hoped at home she'd reconsider and I could get her in on Tuesday. Her heart rate was now consistently in the upper 40s, 46-48.

Friday, Oct 7.
Victoria woke up and said she wanted the echo. I called and the earliest they could get her in was Tuesday the 11th. She said no because we had a followup with the podiatrist on Thursday and she hated monday dialysis, tues doctor appt, wed dialysis, thur doctor appt, friday dialysis. So the echo was schedule for Oct 18th. Long delay. We went to dialysis and her nephrologist was there for his regular weekly visit. He listened to heart and said, after dialysis, he wanted her to go to the ER and have an EKG. The echo would be good, but he wanted to know what was going on in the heart. We finished dialysis and CJ was just getting out of school. So we picked her up and took her home, then went to the Urgent Care.

I thought urgent care instead of the ER because if it were just the bacterial infection, they could give her the antibiotics without all the push for doing it in-patient (getting admitted into the hospital...which of course she hates). Urgent care put her on the EKG and called for paramedics 15 seconds later. They took her next door to the hospital about 15 minutes later.

Lots of discussions, lots of sitting and waiting. Victoria wanted to go home. I said we need to wait til they decide about the pacemaker. The doctor at Urgent Care told me what they saw that concerned them:
It is called a third degree block. The top part of the heart was no longer talking to the bottom part. The two parts were running independently. The natural beat of the lower part of the heart is around 40bpm, this is why the heart was slowing down. The natural rhythm of the heart was 'disassociating', they were getting slowly out of sync. We are talking about milliseconds here. But at this point, it had apparently been over a week that the block was there. THAT was a problem. the correction was simple: a pacemaker. No open heart surgery, no general anesthesia.
Victoria was very scared of it all. I said, if there is an easy problem with the heart, this is it. Heart rate 45-47.

Saturday, Oct 8.

I got to the hospital early (8am) after leaving late(2am). Victoria said she didn't expect me til later. I said I was up and no reason not to come right away. We sat and talked about normal stuff. Couple jokes and smiles. Some seriousness when her anxiety would increase or she got quiet. Cardiologist came by and said that the pacemaker was necessary and that they were getting a team into the hospital - they didn't want to wait. The surgery would be much sooner than later. About an hour later they moved her to ICU for prep and closer monitoring. Heart rate was consistently 42-44.

ICU nurse Ed and Lisa. Ed was the primary. Nice guy. We continued much the same was as earlier. Banter, talking, holding each other's hand. It was a good day. About Noon the surgeon that was going to do the surgery came in. Okay guy. Nothing extra-ordinary. Basically gave us a rundown of what would happen. 1 1/2 to 2 hours, no complications expected except the catheter for dialysis is close to where the pacemaker will go...he didn't expect any problems. Off he went. More general talk. Ed said we made quite a pair. I said:
"We are a royal pain in the ass. She's the royal, and I'm the pain in the ass."
Victoria said, "Right, Queen Victoria."

She got a little quiet and again said she was scared. We talked for a minute and Ed interjected that the surgery would be no problem but that they had everything they needed if something went wrong. I said, "Wait a second...Victoria is a DNR."

He paused and looked at Victoria who said 'With qualifications'. That was not how they had her in the computer...they had her as full code. "Absolutely not." Victoria said.

He said he had to change it in the computer, but that he needed Victoria to talk to the doctor about it. He got the doctor on the phone and Victoria reiterated, no machines, no intubation. That is how I understood her wishes and she clearly stated them to the doctor. The conversation ended and the changes were made in the computer. About 20 minutes later, they took us to the OR. (just across the hall from the ICU. The waiting area is at the front of a long hall (50') that ends at the OR. After giving her a kiss and saying I'd be waiting, she said she wanted me to be the first person she saw after. I said I would and she was wheeled down the hall. I took a nap shortly after that.

Sometime later...don't know how long, the doctor and Lisa came out to say the surgery went well, pretty much as expected. A slight issue with one lead being near the dialysis cat but he didn't think it would be a problem long term. That she was starting to come off the local and she was anxious and upset. I said we had not had a chance to give her Xanax before surgery so he said he'd give her something to help and that they would be done in 15-20 minutes and she'd be brought out to ICU then. He and Lisa walked back down the hall.

Not 30 seconds later, over the hospital PA, "Code Blue, OR Colorado. Code Blue, OR Colorado. All teams, Code Blue" Within a minute people started coming in at a run and down the hall to the OR. About two minutes later Lisa came out of the OR at a run, with the cardiologist 10 ft behind running. As she came up I asked if it was Victoria and she just nodded. The doctor arrived and said:
"We need to intubate her now or she dies."

......

I don't want to make this decision. Please no I don't want to make it.

......

"I can't. I can't do that to her. No."
"you've got to understand we have to"
"no."
"I'll go put her on a bag and give you a minute or two, but we need to..." as he ran back down the hall, Lisa right behind.

A minute later (could have been 2 or 3) another nurse came out and said that she was not stabilizing and that I could come in if I wanted. I said yes and walked down with her to the OR.

There were like 20 people in the room and about 5 or so around her head working. The cardiologist came back to me and said he didn't know what went wrong, everything seemed to be ok, but as soon as he got back she stopped breathing. Respiratory was working with a mask and bag and trying to get air into her lungs which unexpectedly were full of fluid. They had not been at the beginning of surgery as they had a chest xray from right as they started and they were clean. Dialysis had been called and were on their way to try and get some fluid off. She had started breathing again, but she was struggling. The heart was beating (duh...it had a mechanical stimulator planted in her chest to make SURE it was beating). The cardiologist again said she needed to be on the ventilator and again, I said no. Clearly enough that everyone heard. The look they exchanged was clear, this wasn't going to work. They continued as I got on the phone and called CJ. I told her to get a ride immediately to the hospital, come to the ER and I'd get someone to meet her and bring her to the OR.

I went back into the OR and they all stopped and looked at me. The cardiologist said, "we have to put her on the machine, nothing else is going to work".
I said no.
They went back to work.

.......

I was not matter of fact. I was crying. I was beyond upset. I was offered tissue, water, consolation I took none of it. I repeated several...a lot of times, that I could not do it to her, that was not what she wanted, that I couldn't. For most of what follows, I spent crying at some level....

.......

She was breathing but they were supporting her. They were trying to rouse her. I came to her side and while they continued their efforts while I tried to talk to her. Her sats (oxygen in the blood) were fluctuating widely. Blood pressure was ok but they couldn't get enough oxygen in. They wanted to move her back to ICU and as they were getting her moved I said 'Open your eyes and look at me you bitch' to which she opened her eye and moved her head towards me. A little 'yea' from a couple people and I said 'we are going back to the room'

We got back to her room in the ICU and they put a C-PAP mask on her face to force air into her lungs. She was more aware and trying to talk. I tried to understand, but 'hurt' came through. The mask was on tight and she tried to take it off twice, I told her it was 'not a machine', it was just a mask and she had to leave it on. She said no and I ignored it. She asked why her arm wouldn't move and I said it was tied down so she didn't lift it up and disturb the pacemaker, she said no it hurt and I tried to move her a little off that side to give it a little room. At this point CJ had arrived and I told Victoria I was going to bring her in, she said no, but I ignored that too. I went out to meet her and talk to her. We talked and I said it was bad and that a lot of things were going on but that I wanted her in there. That she could stay out if she wanted, she said no and we went back in.

By this time the 'head respiratory critical care doctor dude' came in and wanted to know 'her history', why she was at the hospital.

.....

Yea, I got time for this, I need to tell you whats going on? what the hell you got these 20 OTHER PEOPLE doing???

......

I started the story with low heart rate and friday. The cardiologist chimed in with 'we don't know what caused her to crash and that surgery had gone well....'

......

Yep, by this time I was getting tired of said cardiologist with his protestations the surgery went well but the patient DIED shit....

......

I got back next to Victoria who had settled down some but was trying say something. She said 'hurts' and tried to point to her chest(?) or shoulder and said where was she, I said in the hospital room and that they were trying to get oxygen into her; she said hurt again and then she threw up. I got my arm under her and lifted her to a sitting position with my right arm while ripping the C-PAP mask off with my left. She threw up all over the pacemaker wound dressings and arm with IV connections. It was green and smelly and it had a couple peas in it. Peas? She hates peas. How could she have peas? I let her lean back and the 'head dude' said he wanted to talk to me outside the room. I had CJ come stand next to Victoria and I walked out.

He said the throwing up was confirmation of what he thought happened:

Victoria spent the entire surgery flat on her back. As they were finishing, she threw up but because of her position, instead of out, it went into her lungs. The peas said the stomach was full of Thursday and Friday. It was the most acidic, vile, rotting crap you could imagine, poured right down into her lungs. Battery acid or bleach would have done less damage. The lungs were full not of fluid but bile and stomach crap and it would have been destroying tissue from the second it got in there. She need the ventilator now but he couldn't say that even that would delay things more than a day or so. And even if they could get her stabilized, it would be months and months of hard recovery, all the time on the ventilator. Otherwise, all they could do would be to make her comfortable.

I said no. Make her comfortable. I went back into the room. I talked to her and she said 'not my life', which I understood to mean this was not the life she wanted to live. I said it was ok. No more fighting. No more fighting. It's ok. We're done. You're done, you don't have to fight anymore. No more pain. Just go to sleep and it'll be ok. She said ok, sleep and her face relaxed and she leaned back and closed her eyes.

They put a regular air mask on and everyone else left the room. CJ and I stood with her and I told her she was going to leave soon. Her breathing got slower and harder. After about 5-10(?) minutes, Victoria stopped breathing for about a minute and a half...her lips went white and I opened an eye and it didn't move or change. She started breathing again, very labored, for about 2 minutes, then stopped again. I said to CJ she was gone and we kissed her and went and sat at the foot of the bed in a large chair. Ed continued to hold her arm and said she still had a pulse. She didn't breathe but once or twice again and after about 10 minutes, he asked the dialysis tech to check for a pulse. There was none. It was about 6:40pm.

.......

Not so much then, but later...how could it have been so late. It seemed like less than an hour passed from the Code Blue to the end...

......

They let us stay. We left after about 10 minutes after I asked if CJ wanted to stay or go somewhere to just talk or be with each other. She said, the beach? We left and made it to the beach, Torrey Pines - a favorite of Victoria's that she and I had been to just a month or so ago to watch the sunset- to watch the sunset. We stayed and talked a little for about 30 minutes then went back to the hospital so I could collect Victoria's things and say goodbye.

One of the OR nurses (who kept trying to give me tissue or water) caught me in the hall - it was clear SHE'D been crying. She said they wanted to say thank you to me for standing up for Victoria. For respecting her wishes when everyone and everything demanded otherwise. I said "sometimes doing the right thing, hurts a lot...thank you" and I left.

We went home, CJ ate a little something, and then we both went to bed.

God I miss her. I have said "it was the wrong decision for CJ, it was the wrong decision for me, but it was the right decision for Victoria" and in the end, I told her it would always be her choice.

I don't second guess. Victoria made thousands, millions of decisions over many years that led up to that point on Saturday. I only made sure that the last one was listened to...by everyone...including me.

She is the love of my life. The mother to our daughter. I love her. And, I know she loved me and CJ. The pain and suffering of the last year are done and she doesn't have to face more. That is my comfort.

One day, one hour at a time....

September 11, 2001, In memoriam: Barbara (Bobbi) Arestegui

2011-09-09T22:01:00.000-07:00

Posted Annually on 9/11 since 2006

September 11, 2001, 7:59am, United Flight 11 leaves Boston's Logan airport.

In just a few short minutes, Barbara (Bobbi) Arestegui, 38, of Marstons Mills, Massachusetts would be one of the first casualties of that day. Assigned to the First Class cabin, Bobbi and fellow attendant Karen Martin were attacked shortly after takeoff.

In less than 40 minutes, the rest of the crew and passengers of Flight 11 died in the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

There are no public posts from friends or family on Bobbi. Two stories were published about her and her boyfriend Wayne. From them, the information below is shared.

"The first thing I noticed, of course, was that she is absolutely beautiful," he said. "We had a nice talk, probably for about 15 minutes. I asked her if it would be possible to get her phone number."

She told him sternly: "No, I don't give out my home number."

Wayne shrugged his shoulders and walked away, thinking: I gave it my best shot. She stopped him with one word.

"But," she said.
He turned.
"I'll give it to you."

She was living in Washington, D.C., the middle of five girls from a California family with Spanish Basque roots. Two of the girls would join the tight-knit community of flight attendants.

Her typical schedule was three or four days on followed by three or four days home.

She turned their house into a cozy retreat with a garden out back. They made a habit of walking the cranberry bogs, picking blueberries and having breakfast at the Mills Restaurant. She loved to cook - she dreamed of attending culinary school.

Bobbi picked up three stray and abused cats: Olive, Bruiser and Pumpkin. She'd loved animals since she was a kid in Hawthorne, a suburb of Los Angeles.

"She was a gentle person, yet tough when she needed to be," said Rosie Arestegui, who gave her daughter Barbara the nickname Bobbi. "She knew her job so well. She could do two or three people's work, plus hers, and it would be done perfectly."

Colleagues of Bobbi repeated that praise when Wayne met them in Boston on Friday. He talked with more than 50 people who knew his girlfriend through work. They remembered her as energetic; a huge heart in a 5-foot-3-inch frame.

Bobbi was not scheduled to work Flight 11 that day. But she had accepted extra flights; she was saving up her earned vacation to take a trip with Wayne at the end of September.

She got up about 2:30 that morning and within a few hours was out the door.

"Usually she wakes me up when she leaves. She didn't wake me up this time," he said.

But she did keep another of their rituals: At 6:45 a.m., he got a phone call from the airport.

"She told me that she was just about to board. She was waiting for them to finish cleaning the plane," he said. "She was in a wonderful mood, better than normal."

To view other sites honoring those that died on 9/11

Links:
http://www.september11victims.com/september11Victims/VictimInfo.asp?ID=3
http://www.flightattendants.org/Memorials/AA_FA_Barbara_Arestegui.htm
http://www.inmemoriamonline.net/Profiles/Folders/A_Folder/Arestegui_Barbara-(AA11).html
http://www.capecodonline.com/special/terror/changessubtle11.htm

Burning Korans

2011-04-05T14:13:00.000-07:00

I am tired of the 'we can't burn Korans because it will put troops in harms way' bullshit. Yes General, that includes you.

Children learn one of two things by age three - that temper tantrums work and it get's them what they want or that a tantrum brings down the wrath of god and isn't worth the effort. People might say that is fine for two year olds, but we are talking about adults. Really? Ya think?

Islam has learned that if they threaten riots, murder and mayhem if they are insulted in any way, the rest of the PLANET puts their tail between their legs and sucks their manhood deep into their bowels. So, what we have is an entire religion of hundreds of millions that have taught the rest of the planet to do whatever they say is ok or risk riots and murder. Islam has learned temper tantrums WORK.

That lesson has to be unlearned and the only way it happens is to punish Islam every time they try it. It didn't have to be this way, but the West abdicated it's responsibility to be mature adults and instead gave into the tantrums.

So General, every time a Koran is burned and Moslems in your area of control throw a temper tantrum, it is up to you to apply the punishment. And for every so called adult that just wants to keep enabling the Moslems, I hope you don't have children because your example will do them no good.

Time for humanity to grow up and inform, directly with words AND DEEDS that tantrums will not be tolerated. Islam may THINK it is the sole and future way for all humanity, but it needs to learn it is not the center of the Universe and all should bow before it.

I am tired of the enablers. Tired of the excuse makers. Tired of those that say WE must adjust our behaviors because some unhinged, fanatical "two year olds" demand it.

In Memoriam

2011-03-25T06:35:00.001-07:00

My brother died December 14, 2005. I wrote what follows in the middle of the night two days later. It is very raw, somewhat profane. If you had ever met him, you would understand that profanity was a virtue with him. Regardless, I still have a hard time READING it...he would have been 50 today.

A Failure of Expectations

It wasn't long after Billy was born that my parents knew something was wrong, it would take years to pin it down, but even then, it wasn't right.

I remember sitting in the back of the station wagon on the street or parking lot outside Michael Reese Hospital while Mom and Dad visited Billy. I can't pin down in my mind when that was, but I think it was when Billy was 4 or 5...it might have been one year either way. But the result of that stay was the beginning of Billy failing to live up to the expectations put on him by others. The doctors said, 30 would be a miracle, and that he would spend much of his last years in a wheel chair. They had found we carried a rare genetic condition, though they didn't know they were talking about the wrong one. See, they had never met a McCallister / Coyle combination before.

Every year for vacation we went camping. God we were merciless to Billy. No excuses, get off your ass and do it. Kids can push really hard, often too hard. It would have been easy to break the spirit of a kid that just couldn't, but that damn McCallister / Coyle combination was a bitch. Around the time Billy was 10 or so, it could have been a couple years later, I don't measure time well with our family, we took a vacation and we brought a wheelchair for Billy. It was the year of the Mammoth Cave trip. I only had one short conversation with Billy about that trip, and it was soon afterwards....he HATED that damn wheelchair. Said it was the first time he ever felt like a cripple and he would be damned if he would ever use one again. It was the first time he said fuck you to expectations.

Billy was a son of a bitch. He could be such a pain in the ass. He drove everyone nuts. And, he was the first of us kids to clearly provoke another McCallister/Coyle trait. Loyalty. People defended Billy. It wasn't pity, though I thought so at the time...give me a break, I was young and stupid then. Being a friend of Billy had a cost, you couldn't look down at him, he wouldn't accept it and he was quick to point it out. I saw it played out with Susie and Patty Shaw. Don't fuck with Billy or you risked their wrath.

It didn't stop there. When Billy started working, he pissed off people. He always put down that he was disabled on applications. Somehow, it always seemed to be forgotten. He would work his ass off and people would be pissed because he was showing them up. Eventually he would hit a wall and when he said he could not do something (usually the hardest piece of crap work they could find) they would look at him like he was from another planet...then he would remind them. Usually, that was when things changed.

Billy wanted to travel. He found out that if he worked for an airline, he could do lots of traveling, cheap. It took awhile, but he got a job at the airport working for a company that worked for the airlines. McCallister / Coyle trait - perseverance. We just don't give up. It took a couple of years, but Billy finally got a job at United. They really didn't have a choice. He had the recommendation of just about every supervisor in the place. Another bunch of years saying fuck you to expectations.

He worked too hard. He got too much work done. He made friends in all the wrong places...the people that cared. He was into his 20's. He played golf, how? The doctors couldn't explain it. He bowled, how? The doctors couldn't explain it. He loved Jerry Lewis but would never be considered a poster child for MD...hell, he worked, he played...he didn't even sit in a damn wheelchair. The expectation was that he would live with Mom and Dad until the end of his days, or theirs. Fuck that.

He met a woman. Wooed her. Married her. Some people didn't get it. But I bet Susie and Patty understood. Karen certainly did. They worked, they travelled. Billy loved the holidays. Triple time at work. He would put in 48, 56 hours, work double shifts on Christmas. He brought home more in the two weeks of the holidays than most of his co-workers did in two months. Supervisors would call Billy first. He almost never turned them down. He pissed people off, but it was the type of people that had no expectations, for themselves.

Then he moved. Why was it so shocking at the time? He was 30 something, he was confounding doctors, still. He had a life and it was his.

There is something you may or may not realize. It is damn hard to kill a Coyle. Steve was hit by a car when he was 8 ??

The impact should have killed him. The landing on the curb should have killed him. The damage should have killed him. Mom probably would have killed him.

Dad's THIRD heart attack should have killed him, certainly the fourth, fifth or sixth one....hell, he drove himself to the hospital on #7.

A year or two ago the doctors said Billy's heart was twice the size of normal. DUH! Anyone could have told them that. Anyone that knew him. He was 40. Damn the expectations.

No one expected Billy to be around this year. Except, Billy....that or he just didn't give a damn what others expected. The only thing you could concretely say about Billy was that Billy's life was determined by Billy, no one or nothing else.

You know, after a while, you give up waiting for people to live down to the expectations. You give up figuring out what is next because it is all unexpected ground. I knew Billy wasn't getting out of the hospital, but damn it, that was my expectation of him....and why it hurts so much to lose him. He spent 40 years failing to live down to others expectations and setting his own way.

He was supposed to die a long time ago. He spent almost 2 months in the hospital. It's damn hard to kill a Coyle...I don't think you can do it without permission. Billy gave that permission this weekend, but I know sometime, deep down, he said

Fuck you, you mother fucking asshole, jerk. You see, there is one other McCallister / Coyle trait Billy displayed, we might not win all the time, but your not going to beat us easy. Fuck you death, you had to work for this one.

I don't know if Uncle Paul played golf. Maybe Billy will teach him. I don't know about you, your faiths, your beliefs, but Billy taught everyone around him that expectations are not truths. I fully expect to see Billy again....

Social conservatives

2011-01-22T17:42:00.000-08:00

Dear Socons,

Two news events this week have once again brought social conservative issues to the forefront. The brutal murders of children born alive during an abortion procedure and 2nd graders getting naked and having oral sex in the classroom - apparently with the teacher's approval.

Let me deal with the 'easy' one first. Teaching sex in school is just plain stupid. And I am talking about 'sex education' as hygiene. Children learn hygiene at home, or they don't - in either case, the school is not the place to deal with the issue. Every child is different, every home has it's own methods. Some religions require certain protocols, others have different ones. Students will have the ability to deal with issues of personal nature at different times - conformity by time (as is often the case) is too soon for some, too late for others. The teacher should be fired, but probably won't be because of union rules. The parents of the children should sue the school district, school and teacher - but probably won't get far. If they were smart, every parent in the school would remove every child for a week - give the administration time to TEACH the teachers appropriate lesson plans. The only question I have is, apparently the nakedness was the 2nd time it happened...aren't parents talking to their kids about what happened in school today?

Now, the really easy one. The murder of children born alive should carry the death penalty - too bad he can't die 8 times. Of course, many socons are noting that the doctor has murdered hundreds more by performing exactly the same 'procedure' just within the womb. That the doctor in question (and I question that he is a doctor also) has performed many late term abortions in violation of the PA laws. As I said on Tweeter, once we have convictions of the doctor, we need convictions of the 'gov' workers charged with overseeing his clinic and practices and I would prefer to see accessory to murder among the charges. If the reports are correct, this guy was a back alley butcher with government granted approval.

See...that was easy. Except we are not done. A book was recently released by a woman that formally ran a Planned Parenthood facility and how upon seeing her first abortion while on sonogram was horrified. She subsequently quit and joined the anti-abortion movement. I thought about her description and her horror and find myself equally disturbed. (Let me make a comment that is NOT intended as a moral equivalent - I find myself disturbed watching piercings and tattoos to.)

I have always felt abortion to be wrong. One of the many reasons I oppose abortions is I find it unfair to the child. But there are things that society does that makes options to the mother harder. 1) all anti-pregnancy systems (except contraceptives) are medically regulated - you need a doctor to write a prescription. While abstinence is the only guaranteed way to prevent pregnancy, reducing the cost (and therefore making it more accessible) of anti-pregnancy methods would lower unwanted pregnancies. 2) RU-486 was violently opposed - the pure stupidity of such a position is incomprehensible. If an unwanted pregnancy can be terminated within hours of conception, isn't this better than waiting months for the child to form AND THEN terminating her/him? Even if it only reduced abortions by 5%, that is thousands fewer abortions.

Twice in the last couple years, I have gone grocery shopping and left the store with merchandise unpaid for on the bottom of the cart. Both times, I went back in and paid for the items. Both times I could have been arrested for shoplifting - despite no intention of doing so. Could I have been more careful? Sure. I made a mistake and corrected it. Are these situations comparable? The anti-abortionist will quickly claim they are not - because we are talking about a life. No, we are not. We are talking about the beginning of a potential life.

I have two problems with the anti-abortion positions: once conceived, and NO ONE knows when exactly that is, the anti-abortionist holds the child has all the rights of anyone else walking around and if the mother will not take responsibility, well, the government will FORCE her to do so; second, any measure that could reduce (but not eliminate) abortions is to be fought against and denigrated - either all abortions are to be stopped, or none will be. If we could reduce abortions by 90%, anti-abortionists seem incapable of agreeing to it because it leaves 10% still occurring.

On the rights issue: 'among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Among, not first among, not foremost among. But even the idea that life is first I question. What kind of life are we sanctioning if the child is born into servitude? Or born into such poverty that the odds of survival are 100s or thousands to one? What horrors are we willing to perpetrate on the child - horrors we have no will to stop or prevent - to assuage a philosophical position? Anti-abortionists are way to willing to allow a child to be born into this world addicted to drugs and a permanent ward of the state - state raised children, see how that is working with 2nd graders above...

I am all for getting the abortion issue back to the states - I am even supportive of banning third trimester abortions. (go ahead with a life of the mother exception - but it is bullshit as you are stating the mother's life is more important). I am willing to limit abortions to the first 16 weeks. But to anti-abortionists, not good enough so no deals.

The doctor in PA murdered children. Eight. Maybe lots more. But to the anti-abortionist, every abortion was murder....except the mother, not only a willing participant but initiator, did not commit murder. Why? If abortion is murder, then the mother is the proximate cause. Accuse the mother of murder also and I might buy your position that it is murder.

The social conservative wants to use government to change people's behavior. That is my problem with socons. Abortion is wrong, teach your children it is wrong. Teach your children to be responsible adults. Perfection is not possible. Sarah Palin's teenage daughter got pregnant. Does anyone think that the Palins were lax or poor parents? Neither Sarah (with a down's syndrome child) nor her daughter had an abortion despite both having common reasons to do so. Abortion is a choice, make it a bad choice, not an illegal one. Because we can ban all abortions in the United States and three things will happen: abortions, thousands of children born into abject poverty and social hell, children and mothers will die in larger numbers.

Two news stories will give socons more ammunition to call for more social engineering by government - given both stories show the terrible consequences of giving government that kind of power, their calls should be ignored. Too bad, because we could have a chance at addressing the issues but demagoguery will kill all chances of it being fruitful.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson

2010-10-17T11:12:00.002-07:00

Chief Justice Abrahamson,

Over the last 10 years I worked for a Madison attorney helping people deal with foreclosure and bankruptcy. During that time we saw many cases of debtors that had defaulted on loans with no hope of being able to continue to make payments. We also saw many examples of mortgage lenders that had lost payments, failed to accurately report payments and in one or two cases, foreclosed despite having received the payments. In Federal Bankruptcy Court, a lender when confronted with illegal accounting of bankruptcy payments (misapplication of funds) asked, “do you expect us to change our procedures just because someone is in bankruptcy?” to which the Court responded, “Yes.” Increasingly over the last five years, we began noticing that lenders were foreclosing that were not the original mortgage lender, in many cases there were no assignments of mortgages and even more troubling, notes were not included in the documentation, either because the lender was NOT the note holder or it had become ‘lost’.

In my personal life, situations resulted in the default on our mortgage. Our original mortgage lender was Indymac Bank. It failed in 2008 and One West Bank purchased many of its assets (according to press reports). One West Bank’s foreclosure documents did not include the original note to Indymac Bank. When we brought up this deficiency with the court at our hearing (10CV00820), Dane County Court Judge C. William Foust, Branch 14, indicated the lack of the note was a technicality and that he was satisfied with the affidavit of default provided by the lender. The lender did not address the lack of note. We understand the default judgment now replaces the missing note.

In light of the recent actions by the State Attorney General, I am asking the Supreme Court to give guidance to the Municipal Courts in the state to NOT just accept foreclosure documentation that is ‘technically deficient’ in the interest of speeding up the process. We brought the issue to the attention of the Court in our case and it was ignored. Hundreds if not thousands of Wisconsin homeowners are facing foreclosure and are unable to afford legal help to defend themselves.

False affidavits, lost notes and historically bad accounting are being ignored by courts in the interest of ‘processing’ hundreds of thousands of foreclosures throughout the country and in Wisconsin. We are asking you and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to maintain the integrity of the court system for all parties – not just those lenders hoping to take advantage of distraught homeowners to sweep all the bad acts under the foreclosure rug.

In my case, the issue might soon be over, but lenders who have foreclosed and received judgment are also failing to complete the process. We have seen lenders foreclose, homeowners leave the home and then the lender fail to hold a sheriff’s sale. The lender leaves the homeowner to maintain the empty home indefinitely, including municipal fines for failure to mow or shovel snow, insurance and minimal utilities.

The Courts expect homeowners to abide by the terms of their mortgages, it is time for the court system to make sure the lenders abide by the law.

Sincerely,

Tracy C. Coyle

CC:
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen
114 East State Capitol
Madison, WI 53707-7857

Motivated reasoning - a reply

2010-10-10T21:30:00.003-07:00

This is an attempt to deal with a concept that has been discussed in Twitter and the constraints are driving me crazy. Here it is: Motivated Reasoning:

It is proposed that motivation may affect reasoning through reliance on a biased set of cognitive processes–that is, strategies for accessing, constructing, and evaluating beliefs. The motivation to be accurate enhances use of those beliefs and strategies that are considered most appropriate, whereas the motivation to arrive at particular conclusions enhances use of those that are considered most likely to yield the desired conclusion. There is considerable evidence that people are more likely to arrive at conclusions that they want to arrive at, but their ability to do so is constrained by their ability to construct seemingly reasonable justifications for these conclusions.

I bet my readers think that the above sounds reasonable but that something doesn't feel right about it. Here is my take:

Let's parse #1: "reliance on a biased set of cognitive processes"

All cognitive processes are biased. We build experience and knowledge within a framework that encompasses our lives. Your parental raising, your education, your work experience all contribute to the process. This process is biased only in the sense that it is unique to you. Shared education and experience can create similar cognitive processes. the idea that we rely on our education and experience to make decisions is one of those 'yea, duh' points of view.

#2: "strategies for accessing, constructing, and evaluating beliefs"

Ah...it is not just dealing with day to day issues, but for formulating 'belief's. This is more than just observation of natural processes, but rather an attempt to explain how people form their belief systems. As if such a process is DIFFERENT from any other cognitive process. (To be honest, it is not the formulation that is different, but the continuous evaluation that varies. Most people are willing to re-evaluate decisions in the face of new information however, beliefs seldom are subject to such re-evaluation absent some 'trama' to the system.)

#3: "motivation to be accurate enhances use of those beliefs and strategies that are considered most appropriate"

In other words, a desire to be accurate relies on beliefs. Maybe in some. When I 'desire' to be accurate, I use education and experience and systems of decision making that in the past has resulted in accurate results. The choice of words in the above comment suggest a loose approximation of the result and the desire.

#4: "the motivation to arrive at particular conclusions enhances use of those that are considered most likely to yield the desired conclusion"

Let me see if I have this right: I want a specific conclusion, so I am most likely to use 'cognitive processes utilizing experience and education' that are most likely to result the way I want to end up. Hmmm. I want to turn right in the car, so, using the turn indicator and steering wheel, I turn right and voila! ok.....

#5: "There is considerable evidence that people are more likely to arrive at conclusions that they want to arrive at"

Let me think....
Conclusion:
1: a reasoned judgment : inference
2: the last part of something: as a result
3: an act or instance of concluding

It appears that the original statement actually changes which definition is in use.

We start off in #1 considering judgments. How people make choices. But by #5 we are now talking about how they seek outcomes. How I form beliefs is subject to more than just education and experience but also by my desires and the environment I choose to be in. But how I LIVE, how I determine actions and consequences is not based on beliefs or desires - I can desire to be in LA in 10 minutes, but physics limits me to driving for 3 hours. All the motivation and beliefs in the world can't change that the 'conclusion', being in LA requires 3 hours of driving.

I can form beliefs, come to a conclusion about faith that is unique to all the parts that make up me. However, reaching a physical conclueion is based on experience and specific actions that are NOT unique to me. Everyone in San Diego that wants to go to LA, regardless of the reason are subject to the same constraints.

so...
#5: "There is considerable evidence that people are more likely to arrive at conclusions that they want to arrive at...but their ability to do so is constrained by their ability to construct seemingly reasonable justifications for these conclusion"

I arrive at a conclusion by justifying the chosen conclusion? I have desires and needs. They are fulfilled by acting in ways reasonably expected to do so. I don't need to 'justify' them. Nor are they likely to be constrained because I can't figure a good reason to need or want them.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the author ISN'T changing the definition of conclusion. Nah.

"more likely to arrive....but constrained" Which is it? We get to where we want to be but are constrained in do so?

Overall, the statement is illogical. Shifting the definition being applied is dishonest. We make decisions based on desired outcomes - that is the ONLY way reasonable people act. Those outcomes are not 'belief' dependent. A Muslim, agnostic, Jew and atheist all must act in similar ways to drive from San Diego to LA. Their beliefs have little or no bearing on the 'conclusion'. We formulate beliefs based on experience, education AND desired outcomes and 'reason' has little to do with those conclusions.

Conclusion in a reasoned judgment can apply the full range of human options and does. However, a conclusion to an event is a function of choices and their associated consequences. BOTH end points can be desired but only one is ordained.

Snowflakes

2010-10-05T08:20:00.003-07:00

It is hard to notice because we have some of it in ourselves, but most people think that we are at a turning point in history because....welll...."we" are alive now to witness it.

I first noticed the phenom when there was a big "Rapture wait.." back in 1980: 'this generation that sees the rebirth of Israel shall not pass away before these things come to past' - these things being the END OF THE WORLD. 1948 Israel rebirth + 40 years for a generation = 1988 - 7 years of tribulation = 1981.

Anyway, we saw it again in 1999 leading up to the millennium. And now, with the election looming, people are saying we are at a tipping point. Maybe.

One of my favorite "2 minute hobby" is to wonder what the newspaper or news headlines WOULD have been if some major event had not happened. What would the headlines have been on 9/12/2001?

Ever see someone on the side of the road after an accident (people are ok, cars are wrecked)? You know that whatever they were thinking or planning to do right up to the moment of impact is gone, out the window. Their life has just taken a little jog to the right or left (not politically!) But in the big scheme of things - the impact has little overall change associated with it.

Even 9/11 in many regards (yes, despite Iraq and Afghanistan) has not had much impact on the path of humanity.

Think about when you were young (for me the 60's). We all woke up in the morning, Dad went off to work, we went to school. We used a car that is only cosmetically different than the one we use today. We have TV and radio news. We still have McDonalds and ABC/NBC/CBS.... Our lives today would be be pretty recognizable to someone that died in 1965. Yes, there have been many advancements and changes - but human society has not changed that much. There is a significant change from 1865 to today. But does October 5th, 1865 strike you as an important date in history? How about December 7th, 1941? Any different than a day in 1492 or 1066? Ok, some of those ARE important dates to remember, but Earth shattering?

Somewhere in the 80s I realized that my existence/awareness had no cosmic significance. Two things happened then. First, I stopped waiting for 'the EVENT' that I was obviously here to witness (and maybe participate in???? nahhhh). Second, I stopped taking ME quite so seriously. Do I have an impact on others, sure. CJ would not be living HERE today if I had not met Victoria. We all change history in little and unforeseeable ways. But I stopped thinking that the change SIGNIFIED something. Change happens. With or without us. My impact, YOUR impact is important to those around us, but historically, unimportant.

Some people come to a similar realization and then wonder: why am I here? what is my purpose? Stupid questions in a world or historical context. Important for themselves but not for anyone else.

It is likely that 100 years from now, with VERY few exceptions, our passing will be unnoticed and our IMPORTANT time in history will be just that, a point in history. Nothing more, nothing less.

Next time someone tells you WE have to save the planet, offer this (which I shared with two idiots in front of Walmart yesterday asking people to help save the planet) "nope, not interested. Plan on using, abusing, wasting and tossing it away when I am done." to which they replied "what about future generations". I had moved beyond earshot by that time, but I answered "let them get their own Earth. The Earth is big enough to take care of itself."

We are like snowflakes, each unique but unnoticed in a blizzard. The universe is infinite in it's possibilities, I find mirth that there is only ONE of me in all of it. But I long ago gave up the fiction that the Universe, history or even the future will note either my presence or absence. I continue to hope the rest of humanity comes to the same conclusion....eventually.

My summer vacation....

2010-08-24T18:47:00.002-07:00

We left Tuesday, July 20th - a day later than planned. We got down to Chicago to see my parents and drop off a few things for them. We left the Madison house a disaster and worse, we left a lot of stuff we should have brought with us. Time and money worked against us - we had to leave with what we had.

The drive to Chicago showed we packed the trailer badly. On Wednesday morning, CJ and I unloaded and repacked the trailer. We still managed to leave around 3pm. We got to Des Moines. Victoria had either a bladder infection or the trip was just too much, no matter, we had to stop about every 2 hours for her to go to the bathroom. Every other stop we got gas. The trailer was very heavily loaded and when driving, we were limited to about 58-59 miles/hr. We averaged 40 miles/hr over the course of each day. Instead of a 4 day trip, it took 5 days. We made Wichita on day two, and Amarillo on day three. Day four we were in Gallup NM. Victoria was finding it increasingly difficult to get out and into the truck and make it to bathrooms. We slept, but we have one dog with us and it added to the minor issues.

Day 5 we left Gallup and I was determined to make San Diego. It took us 15 hours, almost a dozen stops, but we did pull into Escondido (about 10 miles north of Poway, our target city) early Monday morning.(2am ish). We collapsed into bed, but got up the next mornin to start looking for somewhere to live. We spent 5-6 hours looking, V slept most of the time. We got back to the hotel and crashed. V's appetite, never good, sucked. She ate little, drank less. Tuesday, the bathroom breaks averaged every 90 minutes, and V's ability to get in and out of the truck into the bathroom degraded significantly - she was no longer able to use the walker. We did bring the wheelchair but it was buried in the trailer awaiting unpacking.

Wednesday we found a place, but it was rented before we could get the paperwork and money back to them 6 hours later. Victoria only wanted to be in the hotel so we left her while looking. She did not take all of her meds Tuesday night, ate little, drank less. Bathroom, a lot. I started worrying about dehydration. She didn't take Wednesday meds. Thursday, she was not very responsive, only wanting to lay down, or go to the bathroom. We got some Ensure on Wed and she had a couple Wednesday and Thursday morning. CJ and I went back out looking for places and returned to find V on the floor unable to get up. We got her up and into the bed. But she was not very coherent. She slept, then had an Ensure and slept more. Friday we gave up on finding a house, and looked at some apartments. We needed 2-3 bedrooms, pets allowed, ground floor, under $1800. We found one finally in a slightly seedy area. I balked but CJ liked it and we took the paperwork home.

V was not lucid when we got back. She wanted to go to the bathroom and we did that, but no sooner than we got her back to the bed, she wanted to go again. We did, but back to the bed, she wanted to again. She could barely walk, her urine was not concentrated. She would not eat. She could not hold a drink. She was not aware of her general surroundings. She knew us, but could not say our names, where we were. Saturday we went out for some food and drinks and came back to find her worse. Bathroom was all that she could say. CJ and I talked about 911. By Sunday morning, 911 was not if, but when. She fell out of the bed and I picked her up but all she could say was 'we're done', 'you're out of here', 'let me go to the bathroom'. When she could no longer help me get her to the bathroom, I called 911. It was Sunday, Aug 1, 4pm.

To the EMTs she could give her name, but answer no other questions. The hospital was 7 minutes from the hotel. At the ER (CJ rode with Victoria, I followed with the dog), her blood pressure was 238/120, bloodsugar was 118, calcium was very elevated. They admitted her. For the next two days they tried to get the bloodpressure and calcium down with little luck. Meanwhile, she remained not lucid. She did tell me she wanted me gone, she was not going to forget this. I ignored it, but despite having a foley, she continued to insist on getting out of bed to go to the bathroom.

We did not get the apartment CJ wanted, it was rented by the time we got back Monday with the paperwork. We did go back to another place that did not have anything when we first went by the Wednesday before, now they did, and by the time we left, we were approved for a two bed, one bath, apartment on the first floor. Cost was lower than I hoped. We could move in on Monday the 9th

Tuesday night, they put her in restraints. That was what we came into on Wednesday, Aug 4. Blood pressure was still in the upper 180s, sugars ok, but calcium was still high. As to the 'disorientation', 5 doctors, no answer. Creatine was 3.6 - it was not the kidneys. She complained of being assaulted. She was very bruised. We have many pictures.

Thursday, bloodpressure in the 150/160s, calcium still high. Creatine 4.5. Everyone notices that she was 'drooping' on the left side of her face. Speaking was slurred. Eating/drinking difficult. They got more aggressive on both bloodpressure and calcium. Friday, bloodpressure in the 140s, early morning in the low 130s. Calcuim coming down. Victoria showing periods of lucidity, but when just waking, very disoriented. Creatine 5.3. The kidneys were failing. Saturday, creatine was 5.8. They recommended surgery to prepare for dialysis. It was scheduled for Monday, with dialysis to follow Monday night. Surgery didn't happen til Monday evening. Creatine 6.9, virtually no urine since Saturday. Dialysis on Tuesday afternoon. Sunday, Aug 8, Victoria was back. She was still not sure of things, but normal conversation was possible. For the next 5 days, therapists, doctors worked with her to determine what happened. It took a week to get an MRI. Two recent TIAs, no stroke. We think one occurred the Wednesday after getting to CA, the second, the Thursday in the hospital. First caused the disorientation, the second the slurred speech and other physical issues. Thursday, Aug 12 she was scheduled to have the PD cath installed the next day (this would allow at home dialysis after it healed in a couple of weeks). Conversations with Victoria indicate that the issue prior to and during the first days in the hospital were limited to articulation. She heard our questions, formulated answers, then garbage came out. Her memory of the events was not complete, but nearly so. She again indicated she had been assaulted by a female nurse on the first Tuesday night (the night the restraints were put on). That night, one of the few I did not have my phone on, I received an urgent call from the hospital at 12:38am. On Wednesday morning, when I got the message, I called. There was no record of the call, or any event that would have prompted one. Friday, the 13th, the PD cath was put in. Sunday, she was moved from the hospital to a skilled nursing facility (a SNF, pronounced sniff!). Care is as you would expect, not great.

Tuesday, 8/17. CJ had to register for school. We spent an hour there in the sun, 95 degrees, only to find out she had to come back on Thursday and work with a counselor because she was a new enrollee. We made it to the Dialysis clinic for Victoria's first non-hospital dialysis. Thursday, CJ and I met with the counselor and got her classes chosen. She suggested CJ be on a couple of advanced tracks: History, English, Geometry. CJ was all for it. We have to go back on Monday for ID picture. She starts school officially on Wednesday Aug 25th.

Other little details. Thursday the 5th, CJ and I were able to unload the trailer into a storage facility (near the original hotel and 15 miles north of here) UHaul gave us a free 30 day rental. The dog is settling in. I had almost no business in July. What business I did get I had to do after we got back from the hospital (11pm or so). We didn't have the buffer I wanted, and the travel to the hospital and snif (about 15 miles away twice a day) has been eating into our reserves. We were able to get the misc furniture we needed but it is going to be real tight for a while. We are slowly unloading the storage as we get furniture pieces built and into place.

Between getting CJ set for school, hospital/snif visits, moving stuff from storage, we are falling into bed after very late once a day meals. CJ is holding up pretty well but it has been hard on her. The ambulance ride, watching her mom unable to answer basic questions, the restraints, leaving her nightly....new school, new environment. She is doing better than can be expected.

Right now, CJ, Victoria and I just want to get her home. That appears to be in the plan for Wednesday.

The hits keep on rolling. Monday, Aug 23. Ollie (our dog) got hit by a car - which took off, did not stop. The damage is not life threatening, 60 stitches in his muzzle and a couple on the leg. The vet takes full payment before release. Joy. There went the little buffer we had. He is back home (got him back at 5am) and appears he will fully recover. CJ was walking him, she is not good. Afraid she almost killed her mom's dog. School starts in the morning.

CJ picked out a mat for the front door stoop, it says, Live Life Simply. That is our plan for the next couple years.

What was your summer like?

Comments on AGW 'evidence'

2010-07-03T19:56:00.001-07:00

A person, @AI_AGW on twitter gave me three links regarding proof of AGW in response to my comment about warming on Mars.

Regarding the Mars warming(sorry, can't find the link) a video 'debunking' the concept of warming on Mars. Only, watching it, there were a couple things. First he mentions that dust storms have changed the face of Mars that could lead to increased temperatures. Two points: what is driving the storms, higher temperatures? and second, he doesn't actually say that Mars is NOT warmer...as a matter of fact, he all but concedes it but notes 'storms may have affected temperature' and 'not enough knowledge to know IF there is warming or what it's cause may be."

So the link to 'debunk' does not. There certainly may be other links that do a better job, but as @AI_AGW appears to spend all his/her time promoting AGW, you would think s/he has the best debunking.

Moving on: article at skeptical science

Fig 1: Atmospheric co2 starts climbing BEFORE total CO2 Emissions do - that is not suggestive, but it is not supportive.

Levels 350ppm is .00385% of the atmosphere content. 4/10 of 1%

Fig 4. Ocean heating 'lag'? 1850 - 1970 little or no change, but from 1980 on ? why if CO2 has been on a parabolic rise since 1850, why has the change taken over a 100 years to have a continuous impact on the oceans? saturation?

With regard to the report on 'climategate' and the 'hacked emails', I find it interesting that ONLY the hacked emails were reviewed. the speaker in the next video wonders why the 'hacked emails' have not resulted in criminal actions against the 'hacker'. of all the emails, two interested me: the one where Jones said he would destroy the data before turning it over - and then of course, the data is no longer available; two, some decline in the current temps diverging from models unexpected?

2nd video NASA global warming facts

1st chart: 1940-1980 temp falling or stable but CO2 was increasing 1850 to present. Why is the temp stable or falling?
2nd chart: 1880 - 1920 had no temp change...so there is a 70yr lag on temp to co2?

1/3 degree per decade is not 1.5 degree change from 1880 to now. 120 yrs: 80ppm increase, 1.5 degree. to get 5 degree change, we need 250ppm change in co2. assuming that the system can convert the co2 to heat at the same rate as over the last 120 years.

The comment that we are making precise measurements is strange given we have gone from 6700 reporting stations to just about 1700 over the last 30 years. further, UHI (urban heat islands) are growing significantly and temp monitoring stations are being compromised. ignore the obvious ones that were placed badly - some of the reviews of well placed stations and their reporting over the years is clearly compromised. I am sure one station, or 3 stations will not change any opinions, but going from 6700 to 1700 seems to be a bad idea.

with regard to satellite temp readings being in good agreement with land/sea based readings, current satellite readings are showing .12 to .19 degree per decade increase - much lower than .33 of a degree and well below a 5 degree change rate.

The satellite data is not without problems, John Christy of UAH concludes:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.

This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."

the link is to skeptical science, source of links provided to me.

the number of stations decrease has been described as non-issue due to the better quality of those that remain. conceded. however, FEWER data points seldom are better than more unless the more is compromised - which is possible.

Another issue, ocean warming would increase water vapor in the atmosphere - a significant greenhouse 'gas' and considerably higher concentrations.

while temps in the higher atmosphere are in fact increasing, the surface temperatures seem to have stalled somewhat (I won't say reduced though there may be some suggestion of it). that should not be happening. as climate can drive weather but weather is not climate POV, the number of temp and precipitation records that were set this past winter suggests weather is not following climates dictates.

3rd video Steven Schnieder of stanford

I skipped the first 40 minutes of this video to get to the meat - there may have been good reason not to - sue me.

@ approx
44:00 min. "models are good, until 1970 or so"
46:00 min all the graphs show a temp drop in the 70s. co2 has been continuously climbing since the 1850's - why is there a temp drop/stall in the 70's? some other factor?

One of his fingerprints: 'models correctly predicted that days would be warmer than nights'. REALLY!? Damn fine models they are.

IPCC was not dependent on Climategate emails or 'how wavy the hockey stick is'. Interesting because at
58:00 IPCC is dependent on the science provided - it takes the science and offers an interpretation. it does not 'catch' or verify the data. Hence we have 'small' back tracks from IPCC on claims that could not be, or were never, backed up by actual science. If the science provided is corrupt, IPCC does not, can not catch it and therefore interprets based on false information. the question is, if IPCC is not dependent upon the science - the data related to in climategate emails and MWP whitewash - what IS it dependent on?

for myself: I don't deny science fact - earth is warmer now than 40 years ago. I deny the conclusions reached based on that fact - ie, the conclusion that co2 is the primary culprit and that humans are the primary source.

continuing:
1:07:00 warming causes higher water vapor - more precipitation.
1:09:00 earth has no brakes to higher temps/ co2? there is no feedback mechanisms? huh?
1:16:00 IPCC: the Himalayan mistake got past...so did others
Congress and citizens not qualified to determine the risk? maybe, but they are the ones to determine what the response will be. Risk is a subjective conclusion, not just a scientific conclusion

1:19:00 Ice fjord affected by ocean water warming, not air warming

1:30:00 bell curve shift = less cold weather...2009/2010 winter cold extremes? yes, weather is not climate - does climate drive weather - " more Cat 5 hurricanes"

1:31:00 regarding fires in the West caused by warming being larger - that ignores the fact that smaller burns have been prevented by ecologists such that we know that the underbrush has gotten out of hand and when fires happen, they are bigger

________________________________

here is the issue.
the earth is warming. why? good question. some of the answer is humans - there are 6 billion of us, 4 billion more than in 1900. that is a lot of human activity.
co2 is going up. why? good question. some of the answer is humans - there is a lot of human activity that produces co2
is the earth warming primarily being driven by co2 increases? good question. maybe. but .12-.19 degree a decade? the average over the last 120 years appears to be about, .15 degree a decade. co2 is up 85ppm over the last 120 years (most of it in the last 30 years - depending on the charts) temps appear to be going up only in the last 30 years? overlaying temps on co2 changes does not suggest a correlation - well, maybe some but certainly not strong.

we have long ocean cycles, long solar cycles

In a vat with 1,000,000 balls at a temp of 50 degrees, adding 85 balls that are 30 degrees warmer are not likely have any significant impact on the temp of the vat.
(assuming stirring the vat is what keeps it at 50 degrees in the first place)

Our understanding of our climate has dramatically improved over the last 20 years - in the face of 4 BILLION years of climate history, I'm impressed but not convinced that we KNOW anywhere near enough to justify killing 4 billion people. Just not.

here is a post I made a while back on the issue...if you care to spend the time.

Tracy

Three views

2010-06-17T06:39:00.005-07:00

Sometimes a single photo captures the essence of an event so well, that further comment is unnecessary. Nature photos can have that 'WOW' characteristic, but seldom can a photo of a person capture the 'wow' of a person, or even the 'WTF' totality. But one picture of Obama has captured for me what I think of whenever I think of Obama and I will let you try to figure out which one:

37 Minutes

2010-06-07T19:56:00.000-07:00

“Are we ready?”

“Yes Mr. President. One minute.”

He looked again around the room. All the furniture except the Resolute Desk had been removed. No paintings hung on the walls, no statutes or busts were displayed. He wondered, again, at his reasoning. Was he trying to hide from the history, the ghosts that clearly occupied this room? Or was he trying to protect them from the future, the soon to be now?

The desk had 3 pieces of paper and his phone. No pens were in view. If someone were allowed to look, they would find the desk was empty. All the drawers had been cleaned out. Despite the complaints of the camera crew, the window coverings were gone also.

“Thirty seconds sir.”

Except for the C-Span producer, the camera crew were all military personnel. Four men specifically chosen for this, event. The producer, William Porter, had decades of experience and was comfortable in the White House and Congress. He had also been cleared by Secret Service down to his first grade teacher.

“Ten seconds. Five, four…” the hand cued him….

“When I last spoke to you three days ago, I said that when I knew more, I would tell you, the American people, everything I knew, as soon as I knew it. The investigations will continue for months, probably years, but we know more, and I am going to share it with you and then tell you what I am going to do about it.”

No preamble, no ‘good evening’. The disaster, no, the attack was beyond platitudes or niceties. He was not going to start off trying to soften what was about to come. For three days fear and terror had griped the nation and tonight, it was going to erupt into violent hatred and the only one capable of stopping that was him. But to do it, he was going to have to act like everyone wanted to, and he was going to have to shock the American people and the world into ending the violence immediately. Twelve people knew what was coming and in less than 40 minutes, it will either have worked, or started the end.

He reached down and pressed a button on the phone. “Send in the Secretary.”

The door opened immediately and the Secretary of Defense walked in. William George Franklin had never served in the military but over the last year, he had earned the respect of the Joint Chiefs and the troops in harms way. He was a soldiers’ civilian. Franklin walked to the side of the Desk and turned to face both the President and the camera.

“Please report Mr. Secretary.”

“Yes sir. Estimates of the crowd prior to launch were in the area of 25,000. Photos of similar sized crowds suggest the number in that area. We will never know for sure. Teams have recovered just over 11,000 sets of remains but all of them are from 5 miles or farther away from the Launch Pad. There were just 87 survivors within 10 miles of the Launch Pad, all have since died.”

That was a shock. His briefing an hour ago said 22 were still alive. The Secretary continued.

“There are 19 hundred and forty-seven in burn units around the entire southeast. The report is that 90% of them will probably be dead within the next week. The remainder will need significant rehabilitation. We still don’t have a full count, but right now, 37 thousand, four hundred and sixty three are permanently blind, another 22 thousand are currently blind but may regain some or all of their sight. Anyone that could have seen the actual launch, is permanently blind. The people furthest away that are permanently blind were 27 miles from the Launch Pad, so far.”

“We expect that the 14 thousand survivors from 10 to 15 miles from the Pad will mostly survive but the injuries are all very serious and the doctors are refusing to give us survival estimates. Anyone 20 miles or more away from the Launch Pad will probably survive and anyone 35 miles or more should be relatively safe.”

“We are estimating the dead at 141,250. Seriously injured and not expected to survive at 17,475. Injured but expected to live at 81,900. That is just over 200,000 dead and seriously injured. In terms of property damage, the Cape is a total loss. All facilities not outright destroyed are unusable for tens or even hundreds of years. Interstate 95 and Florida Highway 1 are closed from Sebastian on the south to Oak Hill on the north. Highway 528 is closed east of State Road 520. Titusville, Cocoa and Melbourne are gone as are most of the communities in the closed zone. Department of Homeland Security and FEMA estimate the property loss will approach one trillion dollars, but that is just a guess at this point.”

“Sir that concludes the injury and damage assessment.”

The numbers were staggering but he knew they were still preliminary and whole areas were still being searched. It was the peak tourist season and no one knows how many were in the area.

“Mr. Secretary, you have informed me of the tactical situation. Please report exactly what you have told me.”

Franklin swallowed hard. He had strongly disagreed, as had most of the Cabinet with releasing the full report. Given the mood of the country and most of the civilized world, this was going to throw gas on and already dangerous situation. But the President would not back down and here he was, giving the ammunition to start the next, and probably last, world war.

“Sir.” He paused and swallowed again. During the first part of the briefing, he kept looking at the President, never glancing once at the camera that was capturing everything for more than a billion people waiting for, desperate for information.

“Analysis of the debris has found two different materials. There may have been some attempt to mix materials in an attempt to hide the sources, but it is clear that the material had two separate and distinct origins. We have shared the data with three other nations and they confirm our analysis. The device was a small rocket similar to those used in the Middle East for short range targets, 30 to 45 miles. We believe it was launched from a tanker truck that had been fitted with a launch cradle and driven to a point on or near the Turtle Creek Golf Club south of Rockledge. Travel time was less than 60 seconds from launch to detonation, which occurred approximately 300 feet above and 1000 feet from the Launch Pad. The estimated yield was 37 kilotons.”

“The source of the material Mr. Secretary,” the President interrupted.

“Iran and North Korea, sir.”

“That sounds convenient Mr. Secretary.”

“Yes sir. However, the UN confirmed the signatures on the Iranian material and the North Korean material was a match for the Syrian material found by Israel in 07 and a ship detained two months ago coming out of North Korea.”

“And how did that material and the rocket get into the United States?”

The sharp tone was much less forceful than the same question the President ask three hours ago. He should have an answer, but even Homeland Security was scrambling. “We don’t know. Sir.”

The President nodded but his clenched jaw, prominent as it was, was clear to everyone in the room and watching around the planet.

He reached for the phone again and stabbed the button hard enough to make the phone jump on the desk.
“Send them in.”

The door opened and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Harold Holebrook led in three others. Michael Penn, National Security Advisor, William Prindle, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Karen Demitrov, Director of FEMA.

They stopped in front of the desk and faced the President.

“I have only one question for the CIA and the FBI, can you confirm the findings of the Defense Department?”

Holebrook led off. “Sir, the CIA can confirm the source materials. We are still trying to determine the method of getting the materials and equipment into the United States.” He looked over at Prindle.

“Sir, we are working on locating the people and methods used to get the weapon into place.”

“That was not my question. Can you confirm the Department of Defenses findings?”

“No sir. But we concur in their assessment.” It was just beyond the ability of the FBI to analyze nuclear material but the President was not interested in the FBI’s limitations today.

“Thank you. Please stand over there,” the President nodded towards the Secretary of Defense and the two men moved to stand behind him.

“Director Demitrov. Do you need anything you are not getting?”

A professional, never bothered by the ‘men’s club’, she was terrified for the first time in her life. She knew the others were also. The President had raged for two days and no one was spared niceties. She had given the President two private briefings and after both, she had been flooded with manpower and materials, first for the casualties, second to hand the flow of materials and equipment from the first flood.

“No sir. We have eighty crews per shift, working twenty four seven looking for survivors. Seventeen field hospitals are up and running and we have 41 morgues trying to establish identities. Hurricane season has been relatively quiet and I have been told it will continue to be so for the next 10 days or so.”

“Good.” He stared at her for a second and then nodded to his right. She stepped over to the side and suppressed as sigh.

“Mr. Penn.”

“Sir.”

“Are they here?”

“Yes sir.”

“Bring them in.”

Penn turned and walked back to the door and opened it. “Bring them in.”

A Marine in combat gear walked in followed by two men that looked miniature in comparison. Three more equally dressed Marines followed them. All four Marines carried sidearms and automatic rifles. Secret Service just about had a cow when informed of the plans and spent two days vetting the Marines but they still protested the weapons in the Oval Office. Especially when no Secret Service agent would be present.

He overruled his detail and the Director. He turned again to the camera.

“The men that have been escorted in are Ambassador to the United Nations for North Korea, Kim Yung and the Ambassador to the United Nations for Iran, Alhemed Fara-Said.” The President nodded to the detail and Yung was taken by the arm and led to the front of the desk.

“I must pro…”

“SHUT UP! I don’t give a damn.” He reached down and picked up the first of the three pieces of paper. “This document voids your diplomatic credentials.”

“You can’t do…”

“SHUT UP! Marine, if he opens his mouth again, shoot him.” The Marine escort took his sidearm, released the safety and put the gun to the Ambassador’s head. The terror was clear in his eyes and the Ambassador from Iran stirred and was quickly ‘steadied’ by two of the Marines.

“When you leave this room, you will be taken to a detention facility where you will be held indefinitely pending negotiations for your release. Step back.”

The Marine guided the man back into the middle of the detail. A nod from the President and the two Marines holding the Iranian moved him forward. When they were standing in front of the desk, the President lifted an eyebrow in question. The Iranian made no comment but continued to stare back.

“Very well.” Picking up the second piece of paper, he continued. “This document voids your diplomatic credentials and is an order for your arrest to stand charges in a military court. I have sufficient evidence to implicate you directly and I intend for everyone to see it.” If he expected a response, it was not happening. He nodded to the detail and they returned to their positions near the door with both former Ambassadors firmly in hand.

He turned to the camera. “Over the last two days, sufficient evidence has been presented to implicate the governments of Iran and North Korea, as well as several other organizations in a plan to detonate a nuclear device on American soil so as to cause significant damage and casualties. That information is being provided to the UN Security Council and our Allies right now. Mr. Penn.”

“Sir.”

“Execute scimitar.”

“Yes sir. If I may?”

The President turned the phone to the man and he pressed a button. “Execute scimitar on Presidential Orders.”

“No wait, you can’t…” came a strangled cry from the back of the room. The Iranian was looking at the North Korean with fear and, sympathy? He turned back to the President and saw the stare. “NO.”

“Captain?”

The Iranian was grabbed by both arms and stood against the wall. The Captain, took out his sidearm and placed the barrel on the Iranian’s forehead. The North Korean didn’t understand, he kept looking at the Iranian and back to the President.

“Four minutes Mr. President.”

“Very good.” The President faced the camera. “We wait for four minutes before proceeding.”

A noise came from the back of the room and the strong smell of urine filled the room. The Iranian had pissed himself. Whether it was his knowledge of Scimitar or his expectation that something similar was about to befall his country, the President didn’t care. He actually smiled.

“Every action has a consequence Mr, Ambassador.”

Minutes passed.

The phone chimed once and the President nodded. Penn picked up the phone and after 10 seconds put it back down without saying anything.

“Thirty three minutes sir.”

“Very good.” The President looked at the North Korean who was still obviously confused but the Iranian was staring straight ahead. “Execute Pesh-kabz.”

The Iranian’s eyes went wide and as his mouth formed the scream, the Marines’ gun discharged. Only the Marines and the President stayed standing. The camera jerked and everyone turned first to the Iranian who was slumping to the floor and then back to the President.
“Mr. Penn?”

“Yes, sir, sorry sir.” Penn stood up straight and reached for the phone. Depressing the button as if it were a trigger he did not want to touch, he spoke towards the phone. “Execute pesh-kabz, on Presidential orders.” He pressed the button again and turned to look at the Marines. The Captain had reholstered his sidearm and was standing in front of the North Korean.

“It will take about three minutes sir.”

Less than a minute later, the phone chimed and Penn picked up the handset. A single nod and he returned the handset. “Scimitar one has detonated sir. Pesh-kabz has crossed the border.”

The President nodded and turned to the camera.

“When I spoke to you two days ago, I promised swift retaliation against those responsible. A few minutes ago, 63 cruise missiles from ships in the Pacific launched. Each missile carries two tactical nuclear warheads and they are striking North Korean military targets all along the DMZ. Over the next 31 minutes, three cities in North Korea will also be attacked. Sunch’on, Kanggye and Namp.”

This time the North Korean’s eyes went wide and he collapsed in a heap. The President stared at him for a few seconds then nodded to the Marines. They carefully lifted the unconscious man and left the room with him, leaving the body of the Iranian against the wall.

“The towns I mentioned are locations for Presidential Palaces, but maybe the North Koreans didn’t think we knew about them. The North Koreans apparently believed that their ability to launch against the South Koreans would stay our hand indefinitely. That, or the prospect of war with China. Those threats are soon to be rendered, meaningless.”

Penn looked at his watch and nodded to the President.

“At the same time, the Iranians have spent the last several years feeling threatened, and threatening. That ends tonight also. Seventeen American bombers are over Iran, I am sure, based on expected responses, that the Iranians have begun to lock down their nuclear facilities. We will see soon if they were very good or not. In any case, Tehran and Qom will shortly cease to exist.”

“The governments of Russia and China have been politely warned to stand down from any response. If all goes as planned, this will be over in 37 minutes, or about 28 minutes from now. After which all of our forces will stand down and withdraw.”

“Over the next several days, reports will come in concerning the damage and death tolls from my orders. They will be at least a magnitude greater than we have suffered. Many innocent civilians will die, are dying. I do not ask for forgiveness nor offer an apology. For too many years we have tried to be polite neighbors to countries that consider that politeness a weakness. The attack of June 22nd will not go unanswered, nor un-avenged. We lost thousands of people but I can’t help but think of those 8 astronauts on that Launch Pad and what they represented to the world. They were the target. The hope they represented was the target.”

The door to the Oval Office opened and the Vice President stepped in. The Marines also returned and three went over and picked up the body and removed it. The Captain escorted them to the door and closed it, remaining in the room.

“Madam Vice President?”

“Sir, the Russians and Chinese have agreed and the Chief Justice is ready.”

The phone chimed and with a look, Penn picked up the handset. He nodded several times and then, “Keep us informed” he hung up the handset.

“Sir. The Norks…sorry, the North Koreans got off two missiles but both failed to detonate on impact. The South Korean military is dealing with them. All other scimitar operations are proceeding as expected. The Iranians got off three missiles, we intercepted one, the Israelis’ got the other two. All three were destroyed without detonations. Pesh-kabz one, three, four and five have already completed, two and….”

The phone chimed and Penn picked it up immediately and then realizing what he had done, looked at the President. “Ok.”

Penn hung up the phone and continued. “Two, six, seven and eight have all executed as planned.”

He made no mention of the remaining two squads and the President decided to leave the issue open for the moment. He turned to the camera.

“My first responsibility is to the protection of the people of the United States. We failed…..I failed and we have suffered for it. I take responsibility because I was one of those that thought we were stronger for working with all countries, the good and the bad, the friends and those that we wanted as friends.“

He turned to the Vice President and nodded. She turned, and nodded to the Marine Captain who opened the door and admitted the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. They both approached the desk. The President reached down and picked up the third piece of paper.

“Chief Justice Roberts, this is my resignation.” He handed the page to the Justice who read the short paragraphs. He turned to the Vice President. “Madam Vice President, do you concur with the President?”

“I do not. I think we need him now more than ever. But I understand why and I accept that.”

“Very well,” said Roberts who turned and nodded to the President. The President came out from behind the desk and headed for the door. The Captain turned and opened the door preceding the President through but just as he got to the door, his sidearm was pulled from the holster from behind, he turned quickly but the President had planned this and practiced it for hours, the gun went off with the Captain’s hand still reaching. The President fell backwards and the gun fell from his hands.

The room was silent. No one moved. The Captain finally bend down over the President and knew before trying that it was useless, the pool of blood forming behind the President’s head was enormous. But he checked and found no pulse.

Thirty seven minutes after the camera went on, it went dark.

Three months later:

“Madam President.”

“Ambassador, how good of you to come.”

“Thank you for taking the time to see me.”

“So, tell me. How did it go?

“Better than we expected. Turn out was high and Ayadi was clearly the winner. There will be no run-offs and he wants me to tell you that he is ready to work with the United States.”

“That’s great. And reconstruction?”

“It too is happening better than expected. There is a sense of …hope for the future.”

“Good, good.”

“Tell me Madam President, will you ever use the Office?”

“Nope. Haven’t been in there since the last night. Not planning on going in there. Everyone that goes in there says the President is still there. The Haunted Office is the unofficial name. The Roosevelt Room will do for me. Who knows what the next President will do.”

“So, you are not running again?”

“Everyone wants to know” she smiled. “We’ll see how things progress. We have a long way to go and I have a promise to keep. Thank you for coming by and telling me in person. Tell your President that I look forward to meeting him in person!”

“Thank you Madam President. I will tell him. Good day.”

She walked him to the door and then closed the door. She took out the piece of paper. Seven words in a barely readable scrawl “Promise to stay vigilant, keep us safe.”

Always. Rest my friend.

Competition

2010-06-04T21:47:00.002-07:00

This is for Bill Clinton who believes rich people don't pay high enough taxes:

Dear Mr. Clinton,

I have a proposition to make to you. You give me $1,000,000 for one year. I will hire a bunch of people and we will make a product or service that will replace that $1,000,000 in the second year so those people can keep their jobs. At the same time, you give $1,000,000 to a government entity, local, state or federal and let it hire people to create a service that taxpayers in that area will be willing to contribute another $1,000,000 every year to maintain. It has to be a new service - no hiring five guys to increase garbage collection.

At the end of two years, we will see which use of $1,000,000 is best - investing in the marketplace, or giving it to government.

Ah, the humanity...

2010-04-14T17:32:00.006-07:00

[update at the end]
For the last week or so I have been 'engaged' in what is loosely described as a troll war. Simply put, a group of people hurl vulgar and profane comments at any and all passerby's like primates in cage hurling their feces and screaming at the onlookers.

Some may say that is a harsh comment, but it is not just others, they will debase themselves in equally vulgar and profane ways. When I realized there was no disrespect possible that would ever approach the level of disrespect they have for themselves, my scorn became pity. There is no virtue in them, no respect. If you watch long enough, you will even question whether there is much that can be called humanity.

There are those that continually engage them, to try and put them off, or to distract them from some unsuspecting wanderer. It is a losing battle because there are two fundamental issues that can not be resolved. The first is the easy one: there is nothing to respect in them. We work with people daily under the premise that if they are willing to improve themselves, we can help. I called them 'children' because their maturity level was that of 4 or 5 at best. They would verbally spar until you hit some point where they would just react: verbally spitting and screaming; putting together visual phrases that no self respecting gutter snipe would utter. Regardless of their actual age, their actions resemble a toddler throwing a tantrum. There is no rational way to discuss anything with them. It is all invective and slurs. When they have no one to abuse, they abuse each other and themselves. In the end, I couldn't even muster much pity. I don't pity a dog licking itself no matter how disgusting I find it. It is natural for the dog to do so. And, that is the second issue:

They have engaged in this for long enough to twist their minds into nothing resembling rational. In Christianity it is called a reprobate mind. But such a claim used by a Christian is meant as a rebuke, an attempt to reach the person in their bad behavior. In these people, it means a mind so twisted and lost, there is no humanity left to cradle or help. They are intelligent animals. Capable of speech, such that it is; capable of reacting to their environment, probably even capable of generally acceptable behavior in public. But they will seldom be involved in social behavior except in small, well vetted groups that will resemble nothing much more than rutting.

If you were out in a field and came upon animals acting like these, you would think them rabid and put them out of their misery. But these are humans, even if marginally so, and therefore have to be given some protection. A hundred years ago, we would have put them in an institution and forgotten about them - letting the orderlies and medical profession attempt some basic control on them. But, we don't do that anymore either. So, they are left to fester on the edges of our society, hurling their feces at whomever passes in front of them. Laughing and cackling at the disgust we show.

Only way to deal with them is to isolate them as much as possible. Set guardians to warn passerbys to avoid them and lock them behind a wall of their own creation.

After eight or nine days of wandering in their swamp, I realize I had more respect for myself and there was no value to my continuing. I will put them outside a wall of the community I share with others and stand my turn at the watch. It is the only humane thing to do.

[UPDATE]
A couple people have asked how to deal with them when you come across them. For most people, just block them and move on. Really, there is no redeeming value in engaging with them. If you must engage, don't use their vocabulary. They are used to doing so and you are not so it will come across weakly. Also, they will use it against you. They will think nothing of applying a double standard - even their response to this post has been to suggest I am trying to 'dehumanize' them. Their own debasement of themselves accomplishes that much better than any outsider can. Finally, they lie. About who they are, where they are, what they do. They take pictures from the web and claim it is them; they claim to be in locations safe from retribution or legal actions; One day they are in slums of our making, the next in a gated community safe from whatever (minority) group they are slurring today. They will claim to be educated although their very words belie such. They will claim to be 'real' people they find on the web.

These trolls are examples of a world gone off the rails. Part of the problem is the internet - it gives them access and anonymity. The probability of any of them acting in public as they do online is almost zero.

39 Hours

2010-04-05T00:45:00.001-07:00

“It is done.”

He closed his eyes and the pain simply stopped. There was no fading, no gradual lessening. The pain was just gone. His arms previously numb from hours of hanging felt neither tired, nor sore. Even the oppressive heat of the day was gone. He opened his eyes.

EVENING

It was night although far on the horizon a glow, signaling the start or end of another day, seemed partially hidden by fog. The sky lacked a moon, or even stars. He was sitting on the ground but felt neither its roughness nor cold. Standing, glorious as it was without pain, gave him no sense of firmness. It was as if the ground, even the night around him, lacked substance. His eyes sought some feature to focus on. His toes, wiggling, sought to distinguish between grass, or rock or sand with no success.

Finally, a sound like a low murmur heard through a wall. It was voices but he could not determine their source or number. Craning his head first one direction, then another did not change their volume or tenor. Like his eyes seeking something to see, his ears strained to catch a discernible sound.

Another sound, like the faint rustling of leaves in the softest of breezes came from behind him. A sigh made without breath. He felt no wind, no cool change in the air but turned, hoping.

No longer facing the horizon, he saw, campfires? In the distance the faint glows did not flicker nor flare. Steady points of unmoving lights seemed to stretch into the sky.

Was he in a valley? Looking back at the glow on the horizon, it did not offer any clue as to the shape of the land between it and his position.

The voice, when it came, was a whisper that sounded as if it were spoken directly into his ear. His quick turn towards the voice upset his footing and he fell over but did not fall down.

“You glow,” it said.

It was the voice of his mother yet; it was of the same spirit as his Father. That was not possible for he knew his Father’s voice and this was not it.

“You’re brighter than the others though.”

“What others?” he asked.

“The others that glow.” It was said so matter-of-factly that any question he may have had died before getting a chance to be spoken. He looked again at what he thought were campfires and realized they had shape and they were not as distant as he first thought.

“Why?” he asked.

“Don’t you know?”

He looked down at his hands. There was no pain, no bleeding, but a definite brightness that varied only slightly around the wounds. His feet showed the same variations. He did glow, but it did not add any illumination to the surrounding ground.

“I have my Father with me,” he proclaimed.

“No, you are alone.”

“He is with me always, even as you are now.”

“He is not, nor am I.”

He knew the second the other spoke that it was the truth. His Father was not here. He could not feel the comforting presence, nor hear the whisper of his approval. Even his eyes still sought focus onto the other with no success. And once again he felt the despair he felt on the cross. The pain had become his companion, his foundation. In the absence of his Father, he held onto the only thing he felt, his pain. And now, with it gone, the loss of his Father came rushing back to him.

“Why are you doing that?” the other asked.
The pain of the loss grew. He felt it in his chest and squeezed his arms together in a tight embrace.

“If you continue you will join the others.”

He did not want to listen, the pain spread and he fell to the ground.

“Was that him?” asked a new voice in the distance.
“No. See. The glow is fading already.”

The pain quieted the voices. The pain was familiar. He could feel the spikes again in his hands and feet. The shouts of the crowd boiled in his ears and he could feel the warmth of the blood on his face. The pain was like strength, it flowed back into the darkness.

A sharp scream turned his head, pain momentarily forgotten.

“NO, NO, it’s mine, MINE!”

A figure came running from the direction of the glowing horizon. It did not block the view of the horizon so he is not sure why he knew where it was coming from, but the outline of the figure was running very fast.

“MINE I tell YOU, MINE!” it shouted.

Like the voice that had been talking before, he knew this voice. Again, it was like the spirit of his Father but not his Father. He wanted to reach out to the figure as it ran closer. His pain forgotten, he could see and hear the pain coming from the shouts.

“NO ONE ELSE, MINE, LEAVE ME ALONE!”

He stood and moved towards the figure.

“No, don’t do that!” yelled the first voice he heard.

The figure slammed into him, knocking both of them down. He, he was sure now it was a man, was freezing. Every touch seemed to drain heat from his body.
“WHAT ARE YOU DOING? TRYING TO TAKE IT AWAY? IT’S MINE, LEAVE ME ALONE, MINE!!”

He was kicked and struck and the man jumped up and resumed running.

“FOREVER MINE, NO ONE CAN TAKE IT, MINE!”

The figure quickly was lost in the darkness but he saw others that were glowing move away from the direction of the shouts.

“What were you trying to do?”

“He was in pain.”

“So were you.”

His pain. Forgotten for the moment had fled again. This time he knew if he wanted he could bring it back but shook his head. Why seek out pain? Why take on pain when you did not need to?

“Because it was yours,” said the other. “You’re glowing again.”

He looked at his hands and feet and saw that the blood and spikes were gone, the glow had returned.

“But he…”
“Could not have been helped. He wanted his pain, he would not have given it up now. He can see and feel and hold it like a treasure of immense wealth. If he were to give it up, he would cease and he will not.”

“Do you know him?”
“No, but there are many like him. Soon you will see and hear them often.”

“How do you know?”
“I’ve been here awhile.”

“What is your name,” he asked.
“Name?”
“Yes, your name?”
“I had a name. It was…”
“Asrith. Your name is Asrith.”

“How do you know my name when I can not remember it?”

“I am,” he replied. And the glow grew.

MORNING

“Is he the one?” whispered the voice.
“Maybe,” replied Asrith.

“How long have you been here Asrith?” he asked.
“Time has no meaning here. I have been here. Before, I hunted. My brother and I were close to killing a wildebeest and I awoke here. I have been here since.”

“Where are you from? Palestine? Greece? Rome?”

“I do not know those places. My village is Antgara. It is by a river near the White Mountain.”

“There is another by your side,” he proclaimed.

“He was here before me, he does not have a name, or does not remember his name,” responded Asrith.

“I know him. He is Weiyou.”
“It is him!” exclaimed Weiyou.

“Who am I Weiyou?” he asked.
“You are the one the will end the night!” Weiyou said.

AFTERNOON

“How?” asked Asrith. “Can you?”

“The night is part of the day. To end one is to end the other. Why would I end the night?” he asked.

“So that we might wake up,” cried Weiyou. “The Sun sits below the horizon, not moving. No stars guide us, the Moon has failed. There is no warmth, no food. We do not sleep. We sit and wait. Some glow as yourself, but most sit and wait.”

“Except the runners,” added Asrith.

Weiyou seemed to move closer. His voice spat, “Runners, always runners. More and more. They burn if you touch them. And they make you tired. Not enough to sleep, but a lot.”

He could see an outline of both Asrith and Weiyou. Like a new moon on a clear night. Darkness on darkness. But neither drained heat away like the ‘runner’.

“Do the runners always run away from the horizon?” he asked.

“I have never seen any do otherwise. They always shout, although it is not always the same, but often it is. I have never seen one that glows run.” Weiyou added.

“How long have you been here Weiyou?”

“Why do you ask again? Asrith was here after, you were here after, others were here before. I have seen no sunrise, no moon. I was left by my tribe, I was here. Has more than a day passed? When were you here?”

“I just arrived,” he said.

“Really? I have known you longer than Asrith.”

This shocked him. He knew the truth of it. He had known Weiyou longer than Asrith but he met Asrith here first. But he knew both. Asrith had many children but Weiyou only had a daughter…she too was here. His eyes looked over towards the horizon and rested on someone with a glow within and knew it was Shuwei. He turned back to Weiyou and looked at him.

“I know you Weiyou,” was all he said.

Asrith turned and moved away.

“Where are you going?” he asked.

“Runners are coming.”

Weiyou and he turned towards the horizon and heard the shouts. “Many of them. We need to move out of their way.”

“Why?” he asked.

He followed them as they walked neither farther nor closer to the horizon. “Their pain will become yours and you will run with them if too many run into you.”

“How do you know this?”

“Did you not like your pain?” Asrith asked.

He thought of his embracing the pain and how easy it was to want to feel, something, anything, again. But he remembered that he stopped seeing and hearing everything else also. And he had a name for the pain.

“Sin.”

“Call it what you will. Pain. Sin. It is the same thing. It takes away the world from you. It becomes more important than anything else. It takes away from anyone that touches it. Runners never let go. They would rather have their pain than to give it up. Your pain did not belong to you. You welcomed it, but it wasn’t yours. If you had kept it, eventually it would have become yours. But when you heard the runner, it fled from you.”

He looked at Asrith. There was no glow in Asrith but he knew that Asrith understood. He reached out and touched Asrith.
Weiyou gasped and both turned to him.

“What have you done?” he yelled. Weiyou fell to his knees and appeared to be crying.

He and Asrith looked at him and then back towards each other. He was astonished. Asrith was glowing.

EVENING

They stood over Weiyou for a long time as he cried. When the crying became slow sobs Asrith knelt beside him.

“Come on my friend. Why are you crying?”

Muffled, but strongly, Weiyou replied, “My daughter. I see her in you. It is as if I see you and her as one. I know you are not her, but I know you as I know her. It is not sorrow, or it is but not pain, that I know that she glowed even in the brightest day. And I know now the source of the glow.”

He stood and put his hand on Asrith’s shoulder. “My friend.” Weiyou turned to him. “You are the one. You are the source. You will end the night.” He sat down but continued to look at him. “I can wait.”

Asrith looked first at Weiyou and then at him. “He is right. We can wait.” He said down next to Weiyou and looked expectantly at him.

He looked at the two men and sat next to them. The runners passed by shouting but he did not have the desire to go towards them. At first he thought he should be ashamed for not wanting to help but knew he could not even if he tried. They were lost in their pain.

He thought about the runner that had run into him. Why did he feel so strongly about that one. It was his voice. Like Asrith and Weiyou, his voice was familiar, but different. He knew their voices, but he remembered the runners….Judas.

The runner was Judas! NO! He bowed his head and started sobbing. Asrith and Weiyou waited for a time before speaking.

“You knew him.”
“I did.”
“His pain is his choice.”

“That does not make it any less.”

Asrith sighed. “Do not make his pain yours. Runners do not wait for the day. Their focus is turned inward. He had a chance to make a choice. He made his choice.”

“If I had given him more attention, maybe it would have been different.”

“And who would you have given less attention?” snapped Weiyou.

“Was that my choice? To give one more attention than another? To say this one is more worthy than another? I would rather none make that choice,” he cried.

“Really? Because it seems you did make a choice. You took all that pain and started to make it yours. Why didn’t you keep it? It was comfortable. You knew it well. Why did you choose not to stay in that pain?” yelled Weiyou.

“Because it was PAIN!” he yelled.

Weiyou stood up and leaned over him. “Right. Amazing how comfortable pain can be when you don’t think anything else is there. But you know there is something else, don’t you. Or do you? What are you waiting for?”

He was confused. “What?” he asked.

Asrith said, “Weiyou asked what are you waiting for?”

He looked at them both. “I….”

“We are waiting for you. What are you waiting for?”

MORNING

What was he waiting for? He looked at the horizon and then back to his companions.

“You have been good friends,” he said. “I would like to spend more time with you….”

“Oh really!? And how much time have you spent with us so far?”

He could see a smile on Weiyou’s face. Like Asrith, Weiyou had started to glow and the light from within he knew had always been there, became visable to Asrith also.

He turned to the horizon and knelt.

“My Father…”

“My Son…”

And dawn broke…

Frumpy puts hands on hips...

2010-03-22T15:25:00.002-07:00

David Frum is a RINO in conservative garb. His response to the vote on health care reform was "na na, I told you so...." level. Let's start:

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

David, really, kinda hard to have a "crushing defeat" when you sit out the game on the bench. Did you notice the Dems had a majority in the House? Yea....see, when that happens, the majority can kinda get it's way no matter how hard you play. And in the Senate? Filibuster proof majority for 6 months...oppss. No GOP required for passage. Health Care Reform was a done deal on Jan 20, 2009.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

A basketball team spends 60 minutes shooting hoops with NO opponents and the score ends up 3-zip and it is a HUGE loss? Really? Ever see an empty net goal in hockey? Real skill necessary...

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

What is over optimistic? Getting control of the House back? That was a foregone conclusion 3 months ago. Even if the majority is by 1 vote....34 Dems voted AGAINST health care reform.

I doubt ANYONE that pays even the slightest attention thinks the GOP will take the Senate, it would have to be a perfect sweep. GOP is not perfect, by any stretch of the RINO's tail.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

Ah, here it comes. Once passed, legislation is forever. Like the Liberal lock on Congress for the next 8 years? Like the Conservatives lost in a wilderness for decades? The chance of it being repealed is good now, if Obama crams a few more items down the GOP throat over the next 4-6 months, it will be much better. If he backs off (why should he?) less so.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

So far, not really. Though there are a ton of Republicans that are whining that the damn conservatives staying home in Nov 08 and not voting for McCain caused this mess. Maybe you agree...?

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

Yep! But let's see if he really means, Conservatives....and just throws in Republicans for cover...

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Let's see. We have a fundamental objection to the premise that the Federal Government, 1) should be mandating individual purchases of mandated insurance coverage and 2) should be providing individual health care, but we should compromise, negotiate SOMETHING? Ok. How about allowing insurance purchases across state lines? Something SIMPLE. Yea, no. We should accept the premise that the ONLY possible path is the Federal Government destroying our health care insurance system and work from there.

The RINOs were considering it! Right up until Obama said, "I won" and so he gets what he wants. His ball, his rules. His marbles, his game.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

Yea. 53%, not 60%. So, because the Dem caucus is this big mighty machine, we should approach the Dias, hold out our hands and say, "Please sir?" We should get down on our knees and say thank you for the table scraps? You're not a RINO, your a GECKO (getting enthusiastic condescension, keep obeying).

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Still thinking like we are in this game. Useful spectators. After 14 months of inept leadership, screwed up planning, the only team on the court scored ONE basket and WE screwed up?

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

OH hell! RomneyCare has been such a STELLAR success! Here we get to see Obamacare in action and after 3 years we want to EXPAND it nationally? You've got to be kidding - or walking around with brown on your nose. Tell me which ideas were developed for a STATE program that are a foundation for a Federal Gov program?

I have gone in search of these elusive ideas at Heritage, email response pending, but let me consider the context: Republican ideas? You mean like Medicare Part D? Certainly not CONSERVATIVE ideas. Maybe a federal regulator for insurance sold across state lines? Certainly not a mandated level of coverage?

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

I agree. Obama wanted Republican cover. He clearly did not want Republican ideas. He hoped for RINO complicity in his attempt to socialize medicine - who knew the biggest obstacle to his goal was the Democratic caucus!? RINOs don't care about conservative points of view - that has been clearly articulated with regards to the reception of Sarah Palin. I for one am not willing to give Obama cover, nor to accept government interference in my liberties because POLITICALLY it was the RINO thing to do. We have as big a mess as we do in this country BECAUSE of that crap sandwich.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

Yea. Probably not repealed. I'll settle for gutting the thing, starving it and leaving it's rotting corpse on the President's front lawn. Rahm will get the visual. As for 'fixing' items, we can do that without forcing 80% of people to change their health care options. And we can do it for a hell of a lot less money. I think a life preserver for our current system is better than trying to build a new ship while the Titanic sinks. And sinking is what the current, and future version of government run health care is doing.

Really, you want to pander to a 25 year old living with his parents? OH. MY. GOD. Because of course the 25 year old is going to vote CONSERVATIVE....

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

The money quote. Radical = conservative. Abject defeat in a game we weren't even playing in and NEVER had a chance to even score in? Frumpy wanted to show we could be good little servants. Doing as we are told by our betters. Screw that. Obama and Congress are SERVANTS to us! And the Republicans either have learned that lesson or realized they better pretend to have learned that lesson because the Conservative beast is awake and pissed.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

Those leaders were/are cowards. Servants at their masters feet. Willing to accept scraps of power by furthering our descent into government control. This is not a movement led by Rush, or Hannity, or Beck. This is a movement led by citizens that have taken our rightful place as supervisors of the public servants. No longer willing to abdicate our responsibilities, we have dragged the establishment kicking and screaming....no, that is not right, we have gone and they have raced to catch up.

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government.

Talk radio does no harm....except to the carefully crafted illusion that Republicans have got everything under control if the damn conservatives would just shut up and do as they are told. Hysterical accusations? Gee, sounds like a Huffer to me. Are you going to call us racists too?

Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail.

Ah, yea. If by Republicans you mean RINOs? As long as Republicans were going to buy into the Obama plans, then to that extent, we ALL want you and Obama to fail.

If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

Damn, Frumpy IS a Huffer. It is all about the crass profit motive! Rush just wants to sell ads! Frumpy thinks the tea parties are just useful idiots for the corporate interests. Hey Frumpy, the tea parties started WITHOUT Rush. They are growing with or without his help. But this is not about Rush, this is about conservatives, not Republicans. The power structure is collapsing around the Republican elite system of going along to get along so that when their turn comes they can have a few crumbs for their retirement and friends.

Business as usual is coming to an end Frumpy. No longer are citizens willing to listen to their elite 'betters' that know better. We have moved inexorably towards socialism whether it is a Democrat or Republican in the White House, whether it is a Democrat or Republican Congress.

Done. Finished. Right now, the entire edifice of political differences is crumbling. Citizens are realizing that it is not just Democrats, but Republicans also that seek power and control and are willing to sell us down the path of socialism for their own aggrandizement. Screw you Frumpy and the Republican mindset that you seek to reassert.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

Republican values? WHAT Republican values? How about Principles? What about limited government, not just slower growing government? What about free markets, not just broader government choices? Obamacare lite would not be a win for free-market economics or freedom, or liberty. It would a slightly slower erosion of them.

I hope this is a Waterloo for Republicans. The sooner they, and you Frumpy, learn that Republican better equal conservative rather than democrat-lite, the faster you both may have some relevance in OUR future.

Public service unions

2010-03-13T06:31:00.003-08:00

My father was in a union most of his working life (before coming to this country, he was in a guild). I watched as he dealt with corruption and out and out criminal behavior. Shortly after he retired, the local union was disbanded by the national for criminal behavior. He even spent time as a shop steward. The union had been 'captured' by the company. Union workers moving up the ladder, eventually became supervisors that were no longer part of the union, but every bit still involved. I bring this up because in a union town like Chicago, where I grew up, there was a common theme - unions had to protect the workers. I often wondered from who? Unions regularly used employer policies to keep members in line, were often compromised by their own corruption and generally practiced a crude form of trickle down economics - what was good for the union bosses would eventually benefit the membership.

My father was eventually removed as steward because he was causing too many disruptions between the union and the company over worker rights/discipline (often as arbitrary by the company as by the union itself).

I get why unions formed, but virtually every one of those reasons do not apply to public service unions. But conceptually, there is one issue that keeps coming back to me:
One 'generation' binding another.

Let me explain. Early in our country's life, there was a debate between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. At the root was a proclamation made by the Parliament to the king (about a century earlier) that took the form of an oath binding the Englishmen AND THEIR OFFSPRING FOREVER to the King. Burke found no problem with such a proclamation and Paine found it to be absurd. How could a man bind his unborn great grandson to a course of action long after his death. What was freedom if your parents could bind you into agrements before your birth? What was liberty if your were required to act in ways you had no choice in?

Bring it forward. A local municipality enters into a collective bargaining agreement with a union requiring pay raises over a five year period. Those pay raises require future administrations to raise taxes on citizens. What if the local citizens require specific votes before taxes can be raised. If legal counsel states the contracts are binding and the taxes have to be raised, have not the citizen's liberty, freedom, been compromised by the union contract?

Maybe I am too simple minded. I can not see any reason for a public servant to have a union. And I can see lots of reasons why such a union can be harmful to the citizens they are supposed to be serving. Theoretically, public servants are providing some common good. A strike (the only means of a union to force their demands on a 'company') denies citizens a public good. Under what agreement between the citizens and their government can the government deny a public good? Well, a union contract could do that. Further, let us say that the citizens are tired of their local representatives and for whatever reason (say contract negotiations) they vote everyone out and replace them. Is it consistent with freedom that the new administration is bound by the actions of their predecessors such that nothing can be done?

Union members will be quick to remind me that renegotiation can occur - but seldom (ever?) have contract terms been rolled back. Future delays yes, give backs, not so much.

I have argued that employment with the federal government (for non-elected servants) be limited to 10 years with no retirement benefits. Two exceptions: military and judiciary(which includes law enforcement). At more local levels, I see no reason to change that position. Obviously there is no military at the municipal level but we can have fire departments and judiciary(including law enforcement). The question then becomes, what of teachers? I can find no compelling reason to include teachers in the allowance. Make your best shot, but teacher unions are among the worst offenders in my opinion.

Public service unions around the country are telling governments to cut common good services, or raise taxes on citizens but to leave their contracts alone. I find nothing in that position that is freedom or liberty asserting. No, your contracts can not be an infringement on my rights and demanding MY taxes be raised to pay you IS an infringement.

Either require all public service employee contracts be renegotiated after each election or just get rid of the union - which is my preference. There is no reason for citizens to be bound by the actions of their parents and there is no reason to have career civil servants (except as noted above).

Why health care costs are out of control

2010-03-05T05:12:00.009-08:00

Ok, here are the details: If a medical procedure COSTS $1500 and a hospital performs 100 per year, it must collect $150,000 per year from patients for that procedure. If insurance and medicare reimburse the hospital at less than 100% of the cost, those patients that pay out of pocket must pick up the difference. The table shows a hypothetical process where the procedure cost goes up 2.5% per year, and 1% of the patients move from private insurance to medicare each year. Further, although I do not know the exact dates or amounts, I have estimated the reimbursement rates to illustrate the impact of their change on the out of pocket cost. Over the last 35 years, the numbers show why our costs have gotten out of control.

year	Procedure cost	Insurance coverage				Medicare coverage				number of procedures	Cash cost
		Reimb rate	Reimb	% of proc	# of proc	Reimb rate	Reimb	% of proc	# of proc
1975	1500.00	0.98	1470.00	0.75	75	0.95	1425.00	0.20	20	100	2250.00
1976	1537.50	0.98	1506.75	0.74	74	0.95	1460.63	0.21	21	100	2315.47
1977	1575.94	0.98	1544.42	0.73	73	0.95	1497.14	0.22	22	100	2382.82
1978	1615.34	0.98	1583.03	0.72	72	0.91	1469.96	0.23	23	100	2749.30
1979	1655.72	0.98	1622.60	0.71	71	0.91	1506.70	0.24	24	100	2841.21
1980	1697.11	0.96	1629.23	0.70	70	0.91	1544.37	0.25	25	100	3411.20
1981	1739.54	0.96	1669.96	0.69	69	0.91	1582.98	0.26	26	100	3513.87
1982	1783.03	0.96	1711.71	0.68	68	0.91	1622.56	0.27	27	100	3619.55
1983	1827.60	0.96	1754.50	0.67	67	0.85	1553.46	0.28	28	100	4342.39
1984	1873.29	0.96	1798.36	0.66	66	0.85	1592.30	0.29	29	100	4492.16
1985	1920.13	0.96	1843.32	0.65	65	0.85	1632.11	0.30	30	100	4646.71
1986	1968.13	0.96	1889.40	0.64	64	0.85	1672.91	0.31	31	100	4806.17
1987	2017.33	0.96	1936.64	0.63	63	0.85	1714.73	0.32	32	100	4970.71
1988	2067.77	0.96	1985.06	0.62	62	0.85	1757.60	0.33	33	100	5140.47
1989	2119.46	0.96	2034.68	0.61	61	0.85	1801.54	0.34	34	100	5315.61
1990	2172.45	0.94	2042.10	0.60	60	0.75	1629.34	0.35	35	100	7538.39
1991	2226.76	0.94	2093.15	0.59	59	0.75	1670.07	0.36	36	100	7811.47
1992	2282.43	0.94	2145.48	0.58	58	0.75	1711.82	0.37	37	100	8093.49
1993	2339.49	0.94	2199.12	0.57	57	0.75	1754.62	0.38	38	100	8384.73
1994	2397.98	0.94	2254.10	0.56	56	0.75	1798.48	0.39	39	100	8685.47
1995	2457.92	0.94	2310.45	0.55	55	0.75	1843.44	0.40	40	100	8996.00
1996	2519.37	0.94	2368.21	0.54	53	0.68	1713.17	0.41	41	100	9363.67
1997	2582.36	0.94	2427.42	0.53	52	0.68	1756.00	0.42	42	100	9709.66
1998	2646.92	0.94	2488.10	0.52	51	0.68	1799.90	0.43	43	100	10067.10
1999	2713.09	0.94	2550.30	0.51	50	0.68	1844.90	0.44	44	100	10436.35
2000	2780.92	0.90	2502.82	0.50	49	0.68	1891.02	0.45	45	100	11726.20
2001	2850.44	0.90	2565.40	0.49	48	0.68	1938.30	0.46	46	100	12123.87
2002	2921.70	0.90	2629.53	0.48	47	0.65	1899.11	0.47	47	100	13220.69
2003	2994.74	0.90	2695.27	0.47	46	0.65	1946.58	0.48	48	100	13675.99
2004	3069.61	0.90	2762.65	0.46	45	0.65	1995.25	0.49	49	100	14145.79
2005	3146.35	0.90	2831.72	0.45	44	0.65	2045.13	0.50	50	100	14630.53
2006	3225.01	0.90	2902.51	0.44	43	0.65	2096.26	0.51	51	100	15130.67
2007	3305.64	0.90	2975.07	0.43	42	0.65	2148.66	0.52	52	100	15646.67
2008	3388.28	0.90	3049.45	0.42	41	0.65	2202.38	0.53	53	100	16179.02
2009	3472.98	0.90	3125.68	0.41	40	0.60	2083.79	0.54	54	100	18291.04
2010	3559.81	0.89	3168.23	0.40	39	0.60	2135.88	0.55	55	100	19157.70

A AGW discussion

2010-03-04T16:08:00.003-08:00

Back in the 70's there were two major predictions of doom for humanity: the coming population explosion and the coming Ice Age. The issue with both items was the same - given the level of x and the trend, disaster was imminent. Obviously going from 3 billion to 6 billion people added significant demands on our resources (more about that in a moment) but the idea that we understood the dynamics of our climate based on literally .000000001 % of our planets history was just silly. By the time the mainstream media picked up on the Coming Ice Age, the temperature trend had shifted in the other direction.

Over the last 15 years, the increasing hysteria about global warming did nothing to persuade me that climatologists understood our climate any better than they did in the 70's. But of course the 'evidence' was mounting. But EFFECTS are not evidence unless you can conclusively show that the effect is caused by ONLY the evidence you have.

An example: reefs in Australia were showing bleaching. The reason given was warming water caused by global warming. Here is an interesting fact - back in January of this year, a severe frost pushed into deep south Florida, causing even islands down in the Keys being colder than they had been in decades - but it was not just one day, it went on for days. Fish began dying and when they looked at the reefs closer to the mainland, they were devastated by the findings: there were reefs that were DEAD, not the slow bleaching we saw in Australia, this was bleaching almost to the foundation of the reefs, bleaching that took hours not weeks. This isn't surface effects, this is deep water changes.

I don't use this example to say the world is actually cooling, but to say that a noticed effect can be explained by more than one type of evidence. We don't know enough about a planet's history to understand the mechanisms that drive our WEATHER. The climate is dramatically more complex. Our climate is not just dependent on the Earth! The Sun, our Solar System and our planet's interaction with them have effects that are barely understood, let alone having a significant historical record.

For climatologists to suggest that they have any understanding of our climate such that they can make 100 year, even 10 year predictions is hubris bordering on LYING. With that as MY point of view, I have 1) dismissed the doom and gloom predictions of people like Al Gore - and the 'stars' of climatology, 2) taken the evidence of global warming with great skepticism and 3) the CAUSES of any temperature change to be UNPROVEN hypothesis.

But my skepticism is not evidence contrary to reported 'science'. Finding contrary evidence has been difficult...and there was a reason.

Back in Nov 09, just a couple weeks prior to an international conference designed to complete an international treaty to address AGW a whistleblower at the East Anglican Climate Research Unit in England released thousands of emails, computer code and documents. Of all the items released, I found three to be particularly damaging. But it is important to understand the importance of CRU to the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

All over the world are temperature sensors. The data from those sensors, collected by agencies in the countries where the sensors are located is transmitted to CRU, the head of which for the last 20 years has been Peter Jones. So, the primary source of temperature readings for the entire planet over the last 30 years resides in one place, under the authority of one man. The emails released showed two things about Peter Jones and the CRU: 1) Mr. Jones actively worked to suppress research that showed either temperatures not climbing, or effects not caused by warming; 2) He considered the data to be private - it was not going to be released for other scientists to use and confirm or refute findings and worse, very much worse, if he was ordered to release the data by legal means, he would DESTROY the data. Over the last 3 months we have found out that in fact, the raw data is GONE. All that remains is data that was modified from the raw data. In many cases, even data that has been modified can still be used, as long as the modifications are well documented and subject to evaluation. Here we find out the modifications are NOT well documented and worse, not consistent.

An example. When a weather station is moved, or equipment is changed, the data shows specific variations. Modifications are made to the raw data to eliminate the variations. When the sensors are run in parallel for a period of time, the variation is easy to evaluate and the modification is clear. But when we have situations where a sensor is damaged and replaced some period of time later, in a slightly different location, the modification is more difficult to determine. One way is to take sensors in nearby areas and "relate" the data. If two stations are 50 miles apart and temperature varies between the stations by 1 degree, and one station is damaged, moved or equipment is replaced and the temperature variation is 1.2 degrees consistently, then the .2 difference is equipment/location related and the modification of the raw data is clear. But what happens when the nearest station is 1200 miles away and the station, at a small rural airport is moved close to a new asphalt runway? We expect a modification, but not modification year after year. Analysis of several stations have show modifications that can not be explained by changes in location, changes in equipment or even changes in environment.

The modifications made to the raw data appear spurious, but what they all show is a consistent UPWARD bias. There is one more really serious issue with the weather stations. In the 70's there were over 6,000 stations worldwide. Today, our temperature data is based on just 1,700 stations. But more important than the reduction is WHERE we have lost stations. There is exactly ONE temperature station in the Antarctic. There are only 10 in all of Russian Siberia. A review of stations here in the United States found dozens of temperature stations in locations that compromised their ability to provide unbiased readings. Sensors near equipment exhaust fans; sensors surrounded by asphalt surfaces; sensors designated rural surrounded by businesses and residences. And over and over again indications of regular, consistent, upward modifications of the data.

Another problem has been the attempt to EXPLAIN the rise in temperatures the data shows. Of course any indication of rise has been compromised by the inconsistency and manipulation of the ONE CONCRETE PIECE OF EVIDENCE we have - the temperature record. All the examples of global warming are in fact examples of changing climate - whether they are caused by warming or not is UNKNOWN. Why? Well, we know every glacier currently on the planet was at one time, either non-existent or considerably smaller AND they were larger, grander and more intrusive into our 'environment. Why? Because our climate temperatures were different. One of the most recent climate 'events' is called the Medieval Warming Period. From about 850AD to 1500AD the climate was considerably warmer than it is today. So much so that Greenland, currently covered by glacier, was in fact a significant agricultural area. What we know about that period is that CO2 - a normal and necessary ingredient in our atmosphere, required by every plant on the planet for LIFE - was at a different level than it is today. Whatever caused the planet to be significantly (3 degrees) warmer than today, it was NOT CO2.

So, where are we? From all indications we are about .24 degree warmer today than 100 years ago (but 3 degrees cooler than during MWP). There is no trend indicating a steep climb. If anything, the climb that has been apparent over the last century, has stopped and may in fact be trending LOWER. (In direct contradiction to climate models used to predict the coming doom.)

Of the examples offered by CRU and United Nations International Panel on Climate Change: glacial melt - has been shown to be a fraction of the claim just 2 years ago, a claim based not on science but on the recollections of guides working on just ONE Himalayan glacier. The IPCC had to withdraw the claim on glacial melt because there is NO EVIDENCE of large scale melting; sea level rising: the research showing less than 5 cm in sea level rise over the last 50 years was also withdrawn from the IPCC report when 'amateur' researchers reviewing the data and methodology found flaws in both. The researchers quoted by the IPCC, when confronted with the findings, withdrew their research and acknowledged the fatal flaws in their data and methodology; species extinction - a review of mammal and bird 'extinctions' has found exactly NO examples in the last 35 years. None. No examples of mammal or bird species known to exist prior to 1970 have been shown to be extinct since 1970.

Let's look at one more issue: We are in a solar minimum. What that means is that the number of sunspots (and therefore solar flares) has been in a period of practical non-existence for the last year. What impact has this had on our climate? Some research indicates that a higher amount of extra-solar particles are getting into our upper atmosphere - the impact on cloud cover and precipitation has been noted, but the effect is still being evaluated.

What is clear is that making significant changes in society to address the issues of global climate change is based on little or no science but lots of politics.

The Great Ommunicator

2010-02-27T11:46:00.002-08:00

I have heard repeated two comments that I want to call out:

1. Obama is a great communicator
2. Obama's is not a great communicator otherwise everyone would be in favor of Obamacare.

An example from Morgan Freeberg

By no imaginable standard can a politician be considered a great “communicator,” or even an adequate one, if he is unable to persuade voters of average-or-below intelligence to back his policies.

Further, is there any evidence that Obama is especially good at communicating with those on the far right of the bell curve? Chait is persuaded, and we’re willing to stipulate that Chait is brilliant. But Chait was persuaded before, and we know lots of brilliant people who oppose ObamaCare.

Obama is very good at making smart liberals feel superior. That is a communication ability, but not a terribly useful one for a politician in a democratic country.

Here is the issue: If a great communicator lays out a program, and no one is buying, does that mean they suck? or the program sucks? Conversely, if a moron lays out a program and everyone buys, is the guy in reality a great communicator or is it just the program is so great?

I don't think Obama is all that good as a communicator. Frankly, off prompter, his hmmms and ahhhhs distract me. He has no cadence and worse, he meanders. When he is ON prompter, he is trying to be some great orator enunciating each comment as if the stone masons are working hard to keep up.

His program (Obamacare) is a piece of crap. He could mesmerize listeners and once they see the details of the program, run for the hills.

Nothing that Obama says, or how he speaks can get me buying his POS programs, but that doesn't automatically make him a bad speaker. He is a bad speaker and too many people are giving THAT excuse for Obamacare not getting traction when the POS program is unsaleable to begin with.

We are the one!

2010-02-24T05:15:00.002-08:00

When a child thinks they are destined for great things, we smile and encourage them work hard for their goals.

When an adult thinks they are destined for great things, we look at their efforts, their achievements on the path to that anticipated destiny and compare them to their goal. When we see athletes working hard every day, competing and winning, their dream of Olympic Gold - their dream of being the best in the world - we cheer them on and marvel at the great things they will, and are accomplishing.

But when we see no hard work, no hitting of smaller goals that lead to the larger goal, then we (if we are polite) smile and move on. If we are honest with them, we tell them that their effort will not lead to great things and destiny will be forever outside their grasp.

When those adults get angry and proclaim 'it is their destiny' because THEY are different, they don't have to work, they don't need a history of accomplishments, that THEY have DIVINE support....then we consider them either idiots or delusional, or both.

Barack Obama has no accomplishments, no effort in his background. He may have won, but he is not, THE ONE. And when he surrounds himself with equally delusional staff, the delusional MSM keeps proclaiming, he is THE ONE, because HE WON...then we have a delusional idiot running the country with delusional idiots cheering him on.

Maybe it is because many people are not destined to do great things (either because they have no desire, energy or goal) that they want to be seen as part of someone else's destiny. We see it with sports fans that become so integrated into a team's winning that everything else is irrelevant. And when the team loses, the fan feels betrayed, let down - they have had their share of the great destiny stolen from them. Obama's fans are going to (already starting to) feel betrayed.

Soon, very soon, it will be as obvious to the rest of the country and world that Obama is not failing, he never had a chance - he never gave the goal the effort necessary. His destiny was handed to him without the effort. Obama may in fact have a new destiny - not of his explicit choosing. He may be destined to be the most ineffectual, worst President in our history. For that destiny, he is working hard and hitting all the mileposts...

The President....of what?

2010-02-22T14:16:00.002-08:00

We have all heard, and probably even stated, that the President is "President of the United States". But it really is deceiving.

First, the President is the head of the Executive Branch of the United States GOVERNMENT. He shares power with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Speaker of the House. What they do not do is control the United States. They are in charge of the government that has certain tasks assigned to it by the Constitution - a document provided by the People as a set of rules GOVERNMENT is to follow. Unlike other countries, there is no oath of allegiance to the President, or to Congress.

Second, the United States is not a single unit. It is a unified collection of 50 sovereign states. The President can not tell California, or New York, or South Dakota or even Illinois what to do. Congress is likewise restricted. It is easy to think of the United States as "one nation, under God" but we are "one nation" in that we all agree to be. That agreement IS subject to change. Granted, such a change, once sought, was forcibly denied - but it does not preclude such an attempt in the future.

I am not calling for, suggesting, or even hinting that such thoughts be manifest - on the contrary - I am stating that what 95% of Americans think is just a little wrong.

Obama is my President. That means he is in charge of the government entrusted with certain duties, not that he can call upon me to act in ways he prefers or desires. The government is a servant, a tool. The government is a landscaping business, hired to maintain our lands. The idea that the gardener has some special claim over the property or some special authority to decide how it should look or be enjoyed is LAUGHABLE.

About Congress: think of the Senate as a Butler and the House as the Maid. Each with their duties, but attempts to assert some type of ownership over the property is so out of place as to be an affront to good behavior and well beyond the list of duties they are intended to carryout.

Of course, the problem with long term help is they begin to think they own the place, that they are in fact co-equals with the REAL owners and therefore have the right to direct and use the property according to their wishes. Stupid servants.

Try to remember that when the gardener steps up to a microphone and proclaims that he has decided what can and can't be done by the owners with their land. Chauncey indeed....

Palin, common sense and elitism

2010-02-21T06:51:00.002-08:00

"Palin is not qualified to be President."

Stated with such conviction by those on the left AND RIGHT. Do tell dear proponent of such a statement, what qualifications you think she lacks? Balls? Got them more than our helmet wearing, PEE WEE bike riding current occupant of the White House. Common sense? Apparently she has more than all of Washington combined - left AND right.

The quitter meme is so pathetic that it's use is more an indication of the mental deficiencies of the speaker than Palin.

All that said, it is in fact common sense that appears to be the most significant deficiency by those that would lead - or claim a forefront position in picking those that would lead.

There are at least THREE reasons for Palin to have left the Governorship of Alaska that make sense to any ordinary person....which despite my uniqueness and weirdness, I claim to be - an ordinary person. If you can't state them for yourself, don't ask me to bestow some common sense upon you - it is obviously a waste of time and energy.

I came up with a statement while wandering around doing chores yesterday and I am waiting for the right time to use it:

"You must be educated. That level of stupidity can't happen naturally."

I read somewhere in the last couple of days that something like 1/3 of people have a favorable view of socialism. I am willing to believe that 75% or more of those people have college educations. Now, I have a BA degree in Economics but I spent most of my college time refuting the stupidity I was hearing on campus - both by students in the Cafeteria and by instructors in the classroom. Yes, more often than not, the Professor was saying things that objectively were either outright false, or so detached from reality as to be the same as discussing the color of the Easter Bunny's pelt.

"If you change the value of this variable, and all others remain the same, then the outcome is the change in the system based on that variable's change."

Want an example? "If we reduce the population of the Earth 40% and all other variables remain the same, the standard of living of the remainder will be above the poverty line for all others." Yep. Kill off 2.5 BILLION people and everyone else's standard of living goes up.

That is what passes for educated in this country. Socialism is great because it 'helps the less fortunate'....at the expense of everyone else!?! To these types of people, one additional human is a linear change in humanity. Unless of course you are talking about their choices for leaders in the work of improving humanity. Up to their level. Then an Obama is worth two, or ten Sarah Palins, or worth 10 or a hundred 'tea baggers'.

I am sorry for the people that think education bestows some greater worth on some people over others. They are wrong. Like Tiger Woods acknowledging that the rules apply to him just like everyone else, reality is indifferent to education but accessible to common sense.

My Father grew up in Ireland in the 30s and 40s. He did not attend school after what we would consider junior high - he was an apprentice for years in a trade. My Father is a smart man, rich in common sense and over the decades, educated in reality. He 'quit' his country to come to the United States for opportunities for himself and his children. My Father has met Rev Wright of Trinity Church in Chicago. Obama sat for 20 years in the pews. Want to guess who understood the nature of Rev Wright better?

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident...."

But they weren't. Many people did not see the obvious. Is there any other explanation for the need for Thomas Paine to write a pamphlet entitled "Common Sense" other than there was a conspicuous absence of it in the 'ruling' classes?

Ok, enough for what was supposed to be a 280 word post. And before anyone thinks that I believe Conservatives have some extraordinary claim on common sense, Ron Paul won the straw poll at CPAC yesterday. The damage is severe - common sense is in short supply and I am afraid that people will be agnostic about it's shortage...

My Conservative Statement

2010-02-17T19:00:00.002-08:00

CONSERVATISM

My principles of conservatism:

First, the conservative believes that rights are inherent in each human’s existence.
Second, the conservative acknowledges tradition without establishing rituals.
Third, conservatives are guided by personal responsibility.
Fourth, conservatives choose choice.
Fifth, conservatives are imperfect, freedom is messy.
Sixth, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and prosperity are linked.
Seventh, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power.
Eighth, the thinking conservative understands that change happens in a prosperous society.
Ninth, the conservative is part of a diverse society

First, the conservative believes that rights are inherent in his/her existence.

In the absence of society or others, an individual’s rights are limited only by their imagination, ability and the available resources. Those rights do not end, or cease to exist because a second person is present. A society that establishes the boundaries between individuals on the basis of inherent rights imposes upon itself a limit to the extent it may interfere in the free expression of those individual rights. Our Founding Fathers sought not to limit individuals, but the government powers that could be called upon by society to limit, infringe or deny the individual’s rights. The specific acknowledgment that government derives its power from the people recognizes that the source of power and rights resides within the individual.

"The principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being, and we but obeyed them in pursuing undeviatingly the course they called for. It issued finally in that inestimable state of freedom which alone can ensure to man the enjoyment of his equal rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to Georgetown Republicans, 1809.

Second, the conservative acknowledges tradition without establishing rituals.

When the choices are the same or similar from generation to generation, we have the ability to learn the consequences of the various choices and select those we seek. Those choices that are repeated in each generation inform our traditions and provide the continuity that binds one generation to another.

"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813

"[As to] the question whether, by the laws of nature, one generation of men can, by any act of theirs, bind those which are to follow them? I say, by the laws of nature, there being between generation and generation, as between nation and nation, no other obligatory law."
--Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1814..

When the choices change from generation to generation, it is not enough to avoid making the choice, we must take the lessons we have learned from our parents and our history and apply it in novel ways, hopeful that through careful consideration, the consequences are beneficial to ourselves and our posterity.

Conservatives are champions of the individual’s choice. It is not enough to say, ‘what was good enough for my father, is good enough for me’. Our parents, our ancestors, sought to improve the opportunities and choices for their children. It is a founding principle that the past failed to provide the freedom and liberties our inherent rights need to be freely expressed. We don’t seek traditions because they provide stability, we seek traditions to honor the hardships our parents and their parents suffered so that we might prosper. Traditions for the sake of tradition are empty rituals, devoid of meaning, devoid of understanding.

"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure."
--Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800. ME 10:148

"I am for encouraging the progress of science in all its branches, and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the human mind by stories of raw-head and bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, and to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality and every other science were in the highest perfection in the ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be decided more perfect than what was established by our forefathers."
--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.

Some additional thoughts: Society uses traditions to create structure, to define acceptable activities and limits on freedoms. The conservative is not interested in the devil we know - such a detestable situation needs exorcism. We are interested in honoring our past, not living it.

Elementary change in society demands new customs and conventions. By all measures, our Founding Fathers broke with tradition to establish a representative democracy founded upon the rights and liberties of the individual.

When a society can be isolated from change, it does not stabilize, it stagnates. Change happens. To seek to prevent that change from impacting society is to seek a status quo. That by necessity limits personal freedoms and liberties. The society I live in is fundamentally different than that my grandparents lived in. My parents have straddled that difference and found the old so detrimental to the liberty they desired for their children that they left that former society. It is not continuity of society that makes life meaningful, it is individual freedom of choice and association that makes life meaningful.

Third, conservatives are guided by personal responsibility.

Every action has a consequence. In many cases, it is possible to determine the consequences of an action prior to undertaking that action. Conservatives seek to understand those consequences BEFORE acting. When it is not possible to know in advance the consequences, conservatives do not refuse to take action, but to undertake action only as necessary to further their goals. Our Founding Fathers recognized the danger of allowing government to act without understanding the consequences of its actions. The first question government MUST ask is not how much of a law must be made, but whether a law should be made at all. Each law is an infringement, a limit upon the rights of the individual. Conservatives accept the consequences of their choices. Personal responsibility is the acknowledgment that the choice an individual makes is his/hers alone.

Some additional thoughts: Stress on society is caused when change is both forced, and fought against. A child pulling on the arm of an adult will continue to pull until the connection is broken and the child falls OR the adult slowly begins to move in the direction of the child and the child needs less exertion to continue the motion. Society that stands steadfast, risks a break with it’s own offspring, unless it shows a willingness to act in the direction it is being pulled. Only a cautious step forward relieves the stress. Sudden is only the realization that change can no longer be denied. The stress of change begins the day a position is taken. It builds because those supporting a particular position refuse to acknowledge that others have already moved on from that position. While some may argue that pulling a child in a different direction is an option, it is a change in direction nonetheless. The status quo, the unchanging steadfastness, is the issue that I am addressing.

Although Americans have been attached strongly to rights, they have in recent times, begun to abdicate their responsibilities. Government has been substituted, not just as a means of enforcing the boundaries of individual rights, but as the caretaker of consequences. Bad choices are forgiven. Judgment against the few has been replaced by limits on all. The consent of the governed gives way to a standardized process hostile to freedom and liberty.

Fourth, conservatives choose choice.

They feel affection for the vast array of choices available to individuals and societies and seek to increase those choices. Limits upon the rights and liberties of others reduce the choices available. Conflicts increase when choices are limited. For a healthy diversity in any civilization, freedom of choice must be preserved. If natural and institutional choices are destroyed, bondage is the only possible outcome. ‘All men are created equal’. Our society acknowledges a diversity of choices. We do not expect, nor require equality of results.

Fifth, conservatives are imperfect, freedom is messy.

No single choice is correct for all individuals. There is no perfect choice that can be decided for everyone. Society does attempt to limit choices to those acceptable to itself but that tyranny is no different than the demands of a dictator. The range of acceptable choices is bounded only by the limits of imagination and resources. To each individual, their choice is, no matter how often repeated, unique. Each individual will act in ways that have unintended consequences. Their failure is not something to be protected against. A child that is prevented from making choices, fails to learn from their mistakes. Humans are imperfect, bad choices are made. Government, and society, can not protect us from making bad choices without limiting our freedoms.

Some additional thoughts: It has been said that all we can reasonably expect of a society based on an imperfect humanity is “one with some evils, maladjustments and suffering”. Why? Why not work to eliminate evils, maladjustments and suffering? Accept them as the natural consequence of an imperfect humanity? I agree we are imperfect, but that does not give us license to ignore those imperfections. What is worse is to allow institutions WE create to result in evils, maladjustments and suffering by design. Knowing such evils exist and to do nothing but accept the imperfection is to deny our own evil.

Sixth, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and prosperity are linked.

Limit freedom and prosperity dies. The more widespread freedom, the more stable and productive a country becomes. Freedom has been a powerful instrument for teaching responsibility and for providing mankind the ability to move beyond mere survival. The freedom to act allows individuals to explore their imagination, to make choices not made before. The conservative acknowledges that freedom carries benefits and responsibilities; he accepts those obligations cheerfully. Prosperity is a consequence of freedom. Upon the foundation of FREEDOM, great civilizations are built.

Seventh, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power.

Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A conservative, politically speaking, is one that has the right to do as one likes, but limits the free expression of those rights to the boundary of others. When government, either of it’s own lust or at the bidding of others, limits the freedoms and rights of others, it has ceased being the servant, and assumed the mantel of master. When every person claims to be a sovereign, and behaves with both the rights and responsibilities accorded that position, society prospers. When responsibility is abdicated, the individual loses the freedom to exercise his/her rights and society fails. The conservative endeavors to balance the need for freedom, with the responsibility to limit the free expression of his/her rights. The balance is challenged in every generation. The pendulum of unfettered rights to government overstep is seldom quiet. Whether to enforce a community standard, or to remove the boundary that separates individuals, the use of government is the last attempt of a failing movement to impose one standard on everyone. .

Knowing humans have the capacity for good and evil, the conservative does not trust good intentions. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances and adequate enforcement of the laws are the means to limit GOVERNMENT abuse of power. The conservative understands the need for government, but a just government maintains a healthy balance between the enforcement of boundaries and the claims of liberty.

Conservatives understand the desire to limit people when the free expression of their liberties and freedoms have the potential to infringe upon the liberties and freedoms of others, but that is not what is desired. Any attempt by the government to infringe upon the freedoms and liberties of the individual is suspect. First and foremost, government is our servant, not our equal and certainly not our master. Even if the master is benevolent and just, it is still a master and that is unacceptable to us - or it should be.

Our rights are inherent, they do not flow from society or government. We have the right to do whatever our desires, our imagination, and our resources allow - PROVIDED - we do not infringe, limit or harm another. Individual rights is the cornerstone on which this nation is built. To deny that, is to deny freedom.

Eighth, the thinking conservative understands that change happens in a prosperous society.

The conservative is not opposed to change. Change is a fundamental characteristic of human life and all of its institutions. To oppose change is to limit freedom. Such force can not be maintained indefinitely. It is the responsibility of a civil society not to prevent change, but to assist those most affected by change to adapt. An increase in freedom of choice gives individuals opportunities to change and adapt. Without change and adaptation, a society stagnates.

Therefore the intelligent conservative seeks to balance change with freedom. The freedom to change, adapt and make new choices. The conservative favors progress, not for progress’ sake, but for the sake of freedom. Freedom of choice is limited by our imaginations, our abilities and our resources. Our liberties are limited by the boundaries of others, justly and with respect.

Some additional thoughts: Permanence doesn’t exist and to attempt to force it is to deny change both as individuals and as a society. The biology of humanity will not change much over the centuries, but just about everything else will, with or without an effort to do so. Institutions are not needed to enforce those things that do not change. You don’t need an institution to promote procreation. And, an institution designed to promote change in something that cannot change will fail, but only after significant damage is done - one child rule in China is ample evidence. Institutions are often created to prevent change, or to establish a specific order to change. Such an institution is built upon shifting sands. The more it attempts to control the change, the more the sand shifts under its foundations.

Ninth, the conservative is part of a diverse society

The individual is sovereign, but not isolated. Many members of society will make different choices, have different abilities and resources. When others make different choices, the conservative celebrates those liberties; as long as those choices do not harm another. In participating in society, the conservative recognizes the sovereignty of others, and does not attempt to limit their liberties and choices. Government enforcement is the last resort, and then only to protect freedom and liberty, not to limit or deny it.

The sovereign individual gives up some of his liberty so that all members of society can participate in the resources and benefits of freedom. Over the years, laws have been created to establish how much liberty must be surrendered for the benefit of all. But as society changes, those laws need to be reconsidered. No individual or group can use laws to limit the liberties of others in order to increase their own liberties.

Mount Vernon redux - or....Kirk at least said something

2010-02-17T15:34:00.002-08:00

Russell Kirk listed 10 Conservative Principles - the Mount Vernon Statement announced some conservative platitudes. I still prefer my response to Kirk and it certainly goes further than the Mount Vernon marshmallows:

A COMMENTARY ON KIRK’S CONSERVATISM

Russell Kirk has created ten principles that define conservatism in his book. I disagree with them.

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.

That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent. It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Many of my debates in recent weeks have been the nature of morality in laws. Commonly, and in Kirk’s view, a system or set of moral beliefs is a necessary foundation for a civil society. I have argued, and will continue to do so, that such a foundation is self-affirming and delusional.

First, if a person believes they are moral, and that their actions are beneficial to themselves and others, then their morality should be shared by everyone as it will lead to beneficial actions. In a society where a consistent set of morals is supported and enforced, all positive actions will support the continuing enforcement of those morals. Attempts to extend or modify the morals will be fought strenuously. Any examples of situations, though minor, that argue for a change in the morals will be considered amoral acts. The greater good surpasses all minor evils.

Second, groups with a set of morality different than the predominant groups can and will obtain some freedom to act according to their moral codes, even when such codes are in opposition to the dominant morality. We see this today with Islam and Christianity. The moral code of Islam has fundamental differences with that of the Judeo-Christian code that has dominated the United States for over 200 years. As communities begin to impose an Islamic code, one that is considered equal to the Judeo-Christian code, those communities will find citizens marginalized and in violation of a community moral code, that itself is a violation of our system of laws.

A reliance on a system of moral codes as the basis for law risks significant changes in individual rights if the predominant moral code shifts from Judeo-Christian to Islamic. But in and of itself, changing the dominant code is not inconsistent with this first principle.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.
Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

I call this the ‘traditionalist’s clause’. It is the most common of conservative arguments against change, almost any change. Despite their knowledge that change is necessary to the orderly flow of society. Elementary change in society, by technological change, demands new customs and conventions. Separation of the races, the women’s movement, civil rights were all significant disruptions in the established society and it’s institutions. But none of those events would be considered ill advised. Only after the fact does society say “well, yes, those were good changes”.

“Order and justice and freedom are the artificial products of a long social experience” belies the founding of our country. By all measures, our Founding Fathers were anti-conservative, liberal to the extreme, to think that a representative democracy founded upon the rights and liberties of the individual could function and prosper. No country in history sought to establish such a government and society.

“The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted” ignores the change that goes on in a dynamic human society at all times. When a society can be isolated from change it does not stabilize, it stagnates. What is good enough for the father is NOT good enough for the child. No parent, wishing their child a long and prosperous life, believes such. How many children have been raised by good parents, supported by jobs, companies and industries that no longer exist? Change happens. To seek to prevent that change from impacting society is to seek a status quo. That by necessity limits personal freedoms and liberties.

Finally, “Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless.” My only link to my grandparents - for almost my entire life - was and is my parent’s recollection of them. I live in a different country than they did. I live in a society that is significantly more technologically advanced than they did. I grew up in a society that was more equal than they did. What continuity existed, exists only in the relationship I have with my parents. The society I live in is fundamentally different than that my grandparents lived in. My parents have straddled that difference and found the old so detrimental to their desires for their children that they left, broke continuity with, that former society. It is not continuity of society that makes life meaningful, it is individual freedom of choice and association that makes life meaningful.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.

Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

“The individual is foolish, but the species is wise” is fundamentally at odds with individual rights and freedoms. Why would a ‘conservative’ seek to allow individuals freedom when only society (or the species) has the wisdom to ordain future actions? I benefit from all that have proceeded me, but to limit my actions or freedoms because of the limitations antiquity faced is to deny each of us the benefits of their fruits. The idea that property rights find their basis in antiquity limits most concepts of property rights to the Constitution, which was a break from antiquity. This is an attempt to define morality as established and unchanging. The idea that “new discoveries in morals, politics or taste” are unlikely is to ignore HISTORY! A woman or black man as President? Women’s rights? Civil rights? The content of their character, not the color of their skin? These are changes, ‘discoveries’ that were not ‘a ha’ events, but recognition that the past had failed, that the morality of the past had prevented freedom and liberty for ALL.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

Something I might agree with? Nope. I would suggest that if ‘after sufficient reflection, having weighted the consequences’ actually resulted in action, then we would benefit from such reflection. But it does not. If you will not change, you will not have sufficient evidence to support a decision for or against the change, except that history will show you the status quo is sufficient. Stress on society is caused when change is both forced, and fought against. A child pulling on the arm of an adult will continue to pull until the connection is broken and the child falls OR the adult slowly begins to move in the direction of the child and the child needs less exertion to continue the motion. Society that stands steadfast, risks a break with it’s own offspring, unless it shows a willingness to act in the direction it is being pulled. Only a cautious step forward relieves the stress. Sudden is only the realization that change can no longer be denied. The stress of change begins the day a position is taken. It builds because those supporting a particular position refuse to acknowledge that others have already moved on from that position.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.

They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

This contradicts much of what comes before it. It also fails to acknowledge ‘all men are created equal’. It suggests, Kirk suggests, that inequality is something to be encouraged, even sought after: “there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition and many sorts of inequality”. This may be a situation where MY lack of ability or knowledge is causing a misunderstanding. Our society acknowledges a diversity of outcomes. We, our society, does not expect, nor require equality of results. But it also does not actively - or it should not - promote inequality. “All other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation.” Isn’t the attempt to establish a uniform moral code, a form of leveling? Isn’t a requirement that all adhere to specific norms, an attempt to level? Isn’t the attempt to limit the liberties of one, to adhere to social continuity, an attempt to level? An attempt to force a particular outcome to be consistent with the rest of society?

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

If my sinful nature is inherent, by what rights do I try to ignore it, give in and be what I am! Such is the hell Paul(?) considered. If society is imperfect, well, we know, and we should just accept that because any attempt at fixing it might lead to an impossible utopia, or worse, boredom. All we can reasonably expect is “some evils, maladjustments and suffering”. Why? Why not work to eliminate evils, maladjustments and suffering? Accept them as the natural consequence of an imperfect humanity? I agree we are imperfect, but that does not give us license to ignore those imperfections. What is worse, is to allow institutions WE created to result in evils, maladjustments and suffering by design. Knowing such evils exist and to do nothing but accept the imperfection is to deny our own evil.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic leveling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

By definition, the conservative should seek to insure as many as possible in society hold property. Is this consistent with what came before it? I don’t disagree that personal freedom and personal property are linked, but holding personal property does not cause freedom. Freedom allows for the holding of personal property. “Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built.” Only a select few in history ‘owned’ property. Owning property is a consequence of freedom. Upon the foundation of FREEDOM, great civilizations are built.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.

An argument for Federalism I will not dispute. I will note, from On Liberty:

“Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them”

Communities can be little terror pits too, with their own rules and demands, limits and infringements. It is not enough to accept that a community can state, and enforce standards upon all of its members. Individuals, when free, can and will diverge from the norm on occasion.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Let me rephrase and see if the result is still to your liking:

‘The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon human liberties and freedoms.’

Is this what we want? I understand the desire to limit people when the free expression of their liberties and freedoms have the potential to infringe upon the liberties and freedoms of others, but that is not what is being claimed. “A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty’ is an affront to this country and everything the Founding Fathers stood for. To them, any attempt by the government to infringe upon the freedoms and liberties of the individual was suspect. First and foremost, government is our servant, not our equal and certainly not our master. Even if the master is benevolent and just, it is still a master and that is unacceptable to us - or it should be.

“Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite” are all meant to be restraints not on individuals, but upon GOVERNMENT.

“When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy” is unfortunate because the individual is sovereign is the foundation of this country. My rights are inherent, they do not flow from society or government. I have the right to do whatever my desires, my imagination, and my resources allow - PROVIDED - I do not infringe, limit or harm another. Individual rights is the cornerstone on which we as a nation are built. To deny that, is to deny freedom.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

Permanence is a false belief. It doesn’t exist and to attempt to force it is to deny change both as individuals and as a society. The biology of humanity will not change much over the centuries, but just about everything else will, with or without an effort to do so. Institutions are not needed to enforce those things that do not change. You don’t need an institution to promote procreation. And, an institution designed to promote change in something that cannot change, will fail, but only after significant damage is done - one child rule in China is ample evidence. Institutions are created to prevent change, or to establish a specific order to change. Such an institution, based on human freedoms, is built upon shifting sands. The more it attempts to control the change, the more the sand shifts under it’s foundations. “The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress;” recalls a previous comment where if reasoned and temperate progress were being made, calls for more change would be chastened. But, too often, there is too much reason, and no progress. A society must change. Humans change. Events change both. A society that tries to prevent change, or throttle it to a manageable pace introduces stress and fractures where no need to have been.

“Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change”...is not something that can be determined in advance, or by reasoned debate. Society changes, only reasoned debate can help society adjust to that change in a way that helps all it’s members, those that oppose the change, and those that welcome it.

Such, then, are ten principles that have loomed large during the two centuries of modern conservative thought.

Too bad. These are principles that attempt to define conservatism in a way that limits individuals by the dictates of society. Too much freedom scares people. Someone in a debate argued my definition of rights (anything I can do based upon the limits of my abilities, imagination and resources) gives anyone license to do anything! And with the limitation that I can not infringe, limit or harm another, they are correct. THIS is the foundation of our country! Individual rights, freedoms, liberties is boundless except where it crosses another.

If you think that Conservatism, as a political philosophy, is more correctly stated by Kirk, then, please, follow your own path. I prefer Conservatism, as a political philosophy, is more correctly stated by our Founding Fathers through the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

Marriage

2010-01-15T19:49:00.003-08:00

We were having a conversation on the radio show (BTR Show) about marriage and Bill, my co-host suggested I put my thoughts down into words to share. Here they come..

Why do many gays want marriage? It is not to destroy tradition marriage, it is to honor it. Yep. For many of us, our relationships have reached a serious point that we seek to commit them to God, family and friends. We acknowledge, actually agree with the principle that certain relationships have reached a point where the commitment of two people is such that only one institution accurately reflects that level of commitment: commitment to love, cherish, respect, care for each other for as long as we both shall live.

We don't seek to destroy the institution of marriage, but to embrace it. Many people say gays just want recognition for their lifestyle. That is a simplistic point of view. It is not the lifestyle, but the relationship that we HAVE that we want to share, that we, WE, want to acknowledge.

Marriage says that two people have made a commitment to each other at fundamental levels. I have that commitment to Victoria, and she to me.

Dear Senator Feingold,

2009-12-20T19:45:00.001-08:00

I oppose the so called health care reform non-legislation currently pending in the Senate. It is unConstitutional - who gave you the authority to demand I purchase health insurance?? Auto insurance is part of the priviledge of driving - NOT the same thing.

Who gave the Congress the authority to provide for the individual? This is not a federal issue? Common welfare relates to the UNITED STATES....not the citizens.

I oppose the bill in the Senate and by your own statements - you should also.

Where is the transparency? Where is the opportunity to review the legislation prior to voting? Where is the LEGISLATION??? This is the worse type of closed doors, back room deal making the Senate has engaged in. You and your fellow senators are NOT doing the people's work. This is bribes and extortion. Why do the people of Wisconsin have to protect the people of Nebraska's medicare costs?

After years of demanding Medicare and Medicad cuts due to fraud that have NEVER occurred, we expect to find $500b NOW?

This non-legislation is a lie. It is a lie in what it will cost; it is a lie in what it will promote; it is a lie in what it will cover; it is a lie that it is for the good of all Americans.

Vote against it. It is wrong and to vote for it violates the very oath of office you swore to.

Individual rights, until....

2009-10-24T14:18:00.002-07:00

Doug Hoffman is a conservative running for Congress in the NY 23rd District. Not as a Republican, as an independent. The Republican is a liberal in RINO clothing. I am supporting him despite the fact that one of the items on his plank is 'traditional marriage'. He doesn't claim anything further, so I don't know, but expect, that he supports DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). He might not. He seems to be a big fan of individual rights. That's right. I believe you can not support DOMA, and be opposed to gay marriage, IF you support individual rights and the Constitution. Those positions are mutually exclusive.

Many of my friends in the Conservative movement 'agree' with me that gay marriage does not belong in the Federal or national political arena. I do not for a moment believe the majority of them hold that position because of a fundamental principle of individual rights. No, they are quick to join me that the topic doesn't belong at the national level. But, when a state Supreme Court has overturned state bans on gay marriage, I have heard NONE OF THEM support that result. In every case, they have joined the chorus of 'judicial activism'. Further, to those that voiced an opinion to me (and many did not), they supported the movement in California to place the ban of gay marriage into the California Constitution. So much for individual rights.

So. Lets cover how Iowa's Supreme Court dealt with the common issues raised against gay marriage:

Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage
laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to
heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships,
many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official
recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their
fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for
heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing samesex
couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the
power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it
does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples

With the exception of the gender of one of the parties, we have a marriage in everything but name. Raising kids, legal and life issues, economic and political issues. Community and religious issues. There tends to be no daylight between the life of a straight couple and the life of a gay couple of similar circumstances. So the Court found:

Therefore, with respect to the government’s purpose of “providing an institutional basis
for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of
persons,” same–sex couples are similarly situated to opposite–sex couples.9

Here are the most common arguments against gay marriage, made in the Iowa case:

The County has proffered a number of
objectives supporting the marriage statute. These objectives include support
for the “traditional” institution of marriage, the optimal procreation and
rearing of children, and financial considerations.24

While I could recount the 30 pages the Court uses to dismantle the arguments made, here is their summary:

Having examined each proffered governmental
objective through the appropriate lens of intermediate scrutiny, we conclude
the sexual-orientation-based classification under the marriage statute does
not substantially further any of the objectives. While the objectives asserted
may be important (and many undoubtedly are important), none are
furthered in a substantial way by the exclusion of same-sex couples from
civil marriage. Our equal protection clause requires more than has been
offered to justify the continued existence of the same-sex marriage ban
under the statute.

The Court however, recognized that there was one argument against gay marriage that had been left out of the case, and they considered it to be a fundamental objection and wanted to raise it, and deal with it:

I. Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. Now that we have
addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to
justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for
the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by
the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The County’s silence
reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa
Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage.

While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if
not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the
views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the
notion of same-sex marriage unsettling.29 Consequently, we address the
religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate as a means
to fully explain our rationale for rejecting the dual-gender requirement of the
marriage statute.

It is quite understandable that religiously motivated opposition to
same-sex civil marriage shapes the basis for legal opposition to same-sex
marriage, even if only indirectly. Religious objections to same-sex marriage
are supported by thousands of years of tradition and biblical
interpretation.30 The belief that the “sanctity of marriage” would be
undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples bears a striking
conceptual resemblance to the expressed secular rationale for maintaining
the tradition of marriage as a union between dual-gender couples, but better
identifies the source of the opposition. Whether expressly or impliedly,
much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—
even fundamental—religious belief.

Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As
demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in
Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the
opposite conclusion.31

This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of
any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex
marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government
to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of
ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general
assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”).
The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage
for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil
contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus,
in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed
from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept
of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class
of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil
marriage.

We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free
exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious
organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and
a woman. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no
law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .”). This mission to
protect religious freedom is consistent with our task to prevent government
from endorsing any religious view. State government can have no religious
views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation.
Knowlton v. Baumhover, 182 Iowa 691, 710, 166 N.W. 202, 208 (1918). This
proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.
As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional
standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the
religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or
denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in
marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the
constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal
protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our
constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.
The only legitimate inquiry we can make is whether [the statute]
is constitutional. If it is not, its virtues . . . cannot save it; if it
is, its faults cannot be invoked to accomplish its destruction. If
the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they
pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be
abandoned.
Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 483, 54 S. Ct. 231, 256,
78 L. Ed. 413, 452 (1934) (Sutherland, J. dissenting).
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the
issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our
constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize
both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views
contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to
associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious
denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a
woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or
other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does
not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.
The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the
same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil
marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete
understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our
constitution requires.

The key point is that individual rights are not subject to the whims of tradition. Standing for individual rights means STANDING FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Every conversation I have had with Conservatives starts with the agreement that individual rights are the cornerstone of our country. But, bring up gay marriage and individual rights go right out the door. Back to Iowa for one more issue:

This precise situation is presented by the County’s claim that the
statute in this case exists to preserve the traditional understanding of
marriage. The governmental objective identified by the County—to maintain
the traditional understanding of marriage—is simply another way of saying
the governmental objective is to limit civil marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Opposite-sex marriage, however, is the classification made under the
statute, and this classification must comply with our principles of equal
protection. Thus, the use of traditional marriage as both the governmental
objective and the classification of the statute transforms the equal protection
analysis into the question of whether restricting marriage to opposite-sex
couples accomplishes the governmental objective of maintaining opposite-sex
marriage.

This approach is, of course, an empty analysis. It permits a
classification to be maintained “ ‘for its own sake.’ ” Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at
478 (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 635, 116 S. Ct. at 1629, 134 L. Ed. 2d at
868). Moreover, it can allow discrimination to become acceptable as
tradition and helps to explain how discrimination can exist for such a long
time. If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal
protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious
racial and gender classifications would have failed. Consequently, equal
protection demands that “ ‘the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay
[persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate
from the classification itself.’ ” Id. (quoting Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d
1, 33 (N.Y. 2006) (Kaye, C.J., dissenting)); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 635,
116 S. Ct. at 1629, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 868

Conservatives hold that because the tradition is one of discrimination, that the historical definition encompasses a restriction on individual rights, that individual rights are trumped because they were in the past. Gays can't marry now, because they never were allowed in the past. Great argument to justify virtually ANY long standing discrimination or restriction on individual rights.

Finally, there is one piece left:

Of course, “[r]eform may take one step at a time, addressing itself to
the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.”
Knepper v. Monticello State Bank, 450 N.W.2d 833, 837 (Iowa 1990) (citing
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., 348 U.S. 483, 489, 75 S. Ct. 461, 465, 99
L. Ed. 563, 573 (1955)). Thus, “[t]he legislature may select one phase of one
field and apply a remedy there, neglecting the others.” Williamson, 348 U.S.
at 489, 75 S. Ct. at 465, 99 L. Ed. at 573. While a statute does not
automatically violate equal protection merely by being under-inclusive, the
degree of under-inclusion nonetheless indicates the substantiality of the
relationship between the legislative means and end.

I can not take Victoria to court should she seek to prevent me from seeing CJ. Wisconsin has determined I do not have standing even to make a motion to seek visitation. Almost every Conservative I have ever talked to about this situation says that it is wrong, and that it could be addressed without full fledged marriage. How many issues will we address (times 50 states) individually instead of one change, all done?

Conservatives WANT to address each issue individually. It prevents a result they oppose. But how can a Conservative, one that strongly supports individual rights, so resolutely dismiss them in this area? I don't know. Every conversation returns to something OTHER than individual rights.

Be it tradition, or procreation, or definition, the individual right to marry a person of my choice is not one Conservatives are willing to accept, nor defend. They will not address the issue. Individual rights are subordinate to 'tradition', or arguments that at the state level, a majority oppose it - as if "well, there you have it. The majority oppose it, so, the hell with individual rights" is some type of excuse for THEM.

There are millions of Conservatives. Most will quickly agree that individual rights are inherent, that the Constitution is a document to prevent government from unduly restricting those rights, but when those individual rights include actions they disagree with, they will latch on anything and everything as justification to restrict those 'fundamental individual rights' to 'acceptable norms'.

I have decided and stated to a number of people that we have bigger problems than a lack of gay marriage in this country. And as such, gay marriage will not be a litmus test for me in supporting conservatives needed to repair the damage Obama and Co (and Bush and Co before them) are doing. But don't for a second think that I am willing to concede MY individual rights, nor the fundamental premise that those rights are inherent and the Constitution is designed to PROTECT them, not restrict them.

In the area of gay marriage, the Conservative movement is statist. The state, used by society, is an appropriate tool to restrict the rights and freedoms of a small group because the majority wishes to do so. The Constitution of California was changed to explicitly restrict the liberty of a minority based on the desires of a majority. No greater threat to us as a people, to us as a Nation exists than the desire and use of 'legal measures' to keep a minority limited in their freedoms.

I stand for individual rights. A classical liberal in the same mold as our Founding Fathers can hold no better position than to state the use of government against the individual is an evil the Founding Fathers attempted to avoid by giving us a Constitution specifically created to prevent such a use.

I stand for individual rights. Every Conservative that opposes the Lefts attempts to use the power of the state to force a minority group to fund it's every whim, should oppose any attempt of a majority to impose upon a minority restrictions in their liberties because they think it is just.

I stand for individual rights at the national level, at the state level, at the local level and in my neighborhood. That is the characteristic of a 'principle'. That it applies everywhere, to everyone. A principle of convenience, of tradition, is no principle at all.

I stand for individual rights, the question for the Conservative movement is, why don't you?

Anti

2009-10-04T19:15:00.002-07:00

I have been dealing with three different political issues that are not things I can change (ha!) or even necessarily address, but they are creating disturbances in the Force!

First. The left has been trying to smear the Tea Party movement with racism charges almost since the beginning. There are always fringe elements in politics. We have accused the left because of them, so we are getting the same treatment. However, the difference is that mainstream leftists have a tendency to accept the fringe element as the 'speaking truth to power'. We need to disavow the right fringe, but we have a problem. What IS the fringe? Ignore the stupid 'hitler' bunch - most of them are Lefty Democrat LaRouches that are opposing Obama because he is black. Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

My problem is the ID/Creationist wing of the the Right. ID is NOT science. It is saying that what can't be explained is obviously the result of 'intelligent design'. The problem is that we are imbeciles. We have two chapters of the book of life and think we KNOW something of the Universe. We have one example of life on a planet and think that we can point to a universe of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets similar to ours and KNOW anything. Two thousand years ago, we were the center of the Universe. A thousand years ago, demons inhabited the mentally ill - hell, that was 150 years ago. We think today we are the pinnacle of human evolution and knowledge but we infants in the Universe. Microscopic amoebas.

"Intelligent design" is the current age version of the pagans worshiping the Sun and nothing more.

I believe people NEED their belief systems. What I don't want and what we don't need is to use those belief systems to determine our secular systems. But it appears that is not possible for many on the Right. So it puts me in a quandary. I have argued that it is Conservative, in a founding fathers, individual rights way to promote individual liberty and responsibility, to limit government to those specific responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. That conserving traditions and allowing society to trump individual liberties is a classical conservative position that is INCOMPATIBLE with such an individual liberty political system.

We have two political parties that are illiterates, economically, scientifically and socially. To the Left, government can fix all our problems. To the Right, getting right with God takes care of the issues. Neither position lays the responsibility ON US, as individuals to do the adult things. Both want to use government to 'fix' us. The only difference is what fix will be forced upon the rest of us. All of what is wrong with capitalism has set the table for a nightmare banquet of financial disasters that will reduce our economy to ashes. However, the saviors of the Left, are going to take every disproven, failed policy ever tried in these situations and apply them at ten times the rate ever before tried and we are going to gorge ourselves on the carcass of our economy. The planet will suffer and it will take decades to recover.

We don't need an asteroid the size of Manhattan, or a swine-flu pandemic with 80% fatality rate, or aliens to come and destroy our society - we are doing everything in our power to do it to ourselves!

The right fix is for government to get out of the way. For the Left to stop trying to make us better people, for the Right to stop trying to makes us all, righteous people. Individual choice MEANS individual choice - to decide what each of us wants to do, even if everyone around is calling it 'wrong'.

The second political issue is 'others'. We have a couple morons running around creating havoc in their neighborhoods. First, we have Iran and the Taliban and the Saudi's. Either we impose our power and will on that part of the world, or we help Israel against all foes and otherwise get the hell out. I am opposed to pulling out - but Obama's dithering is killing people and WE have to call him on it. Further, Chavez is mucking up South America and needs to have his head handed to him. Playing some pathetic 'hands off' crap is going to create more problems, not solve any. The rest of the world could pretend to be morally superior to the US, wring it's hands at our obviously 'cowboy' ways because it KNEW we were going to in the end do the right thing alone and they could just smirk and relax. Well, we have a pansy, a ball-less wonder at the helm and he just might let the Europeans hang in the wind. Maybe it will wake them up, but I doubt it. The few that know the world is stable because WE take responsibility for it, will try to warn of the danger of a wimpy US, but others will think we finally are acting appropriately and wonder what hit them.

Finally, I am tired of the children running the insane asylum. There has to be a way to establish adulthood prior to anyone accepting (or being offered) any positions of authority. It is time this human race began to grow up, and I'd like to see it in my lifetime.

Hey Tammy....

2009-08-07T11:34:00.001-07:00

You asked me to complete your survey. I did. I also sent you an email, reproduced below. What is your response?

I oppose the Fed Gov providing health care of any form to individuals - and any attempt to provide 'insurance' in competition with private insurers is, in my opinion, so unconstitutional as to be a violation of your oath of office.

My partner needs health care insurance and if YOU and Congress would offer pool insurance to the uninsurable, many, probably a super majority, would support that, but the 'Obamacare' is an affront to American values and our system of government.

Come out and meet with your constituents. I will be happy to be there and NO ONE will be paying me to be there - but we do pay for YOU to be there.
--------------
I'll be waiting.....

I'll work with you

2009-07-05T22:36:00.001-07:00

Dear Sarah Palin,

I will work with you on bringing American values back into the political process.

I will work with you on restoring America.

Tracy Coyle

A thought experiment

2009-07-02T04:58:00.002-07:00

If I fill a large cup with water to about 1/2" below the rim, then add a large ice cube to the cup so that the water is just below the rim.

Now, wait.

As the ice cube melts, will the cup overflow?

The vast majority of the Arctic and Antarctic Ice Sheets ARE on water. If they melt...the oceans won't rise.....right?

End of the world, comin' round the mountain...

2009-06-29T17:27:00.002-07:00

Today we were at 341 meetings. For those that do know, 341 refers to the section of the bankruptcy code that gives creditors an opportunity to question debtors that have filed bankruptcy. Generally, no creditor bothers in Chapter 7. The hearings are administrative (generally) and a formality. The average hearing lasts less than 5 minutes including the swearing in part.

I listened to about a dozen. Only one or two did not own real estate, the rest were all way underwater on their homes. Only a couple were losing their homes, most were going to be able to keep them - but you have to wonder....

10 to 20% underwater appeared to be average. I would be willing to bet a bunch of them were in adjustable rate mortgages which have NOT been failing as much as predicted over the last several months BECAUSE interest rates have been so low. But rates are going to go up long before prices recover and all those people are going get squeezed big time. Filing bankruptcy now will probably keep some of them in their homes, others will be able to hang on longer, but the majority of them will still end up losing their home and largest investment before this is over.

The housing problem is not over. It is not even stabilizing. It is a pause, the eye of the hurricane. People buying homes right now in many places figure that at worse they might lose a couple of percentage points but "no one can pick the bottom right?" Right.

From one polluter to another....

2009-06-26T19:42:00.001-07:00

Dear Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin:

Congratulations on your vote for the largest tax increase on the American Economy EVER! It will be great to see all the new jobs that Wisconsin will get building windmills and solar panels! I heard there is a big factory in Janesville available! And the BUREAUCRACY this bill will create should be good for at least 10,000 new jobs in Wisconsin to oversee the CO2 polluters adherence to government mandates - I did want to know if people that run will be taxed higher than people that walk...??

Oh, I just wanted to know your reading speed...1000 pages plus another 300 today...wow! Amazing.
Can you tell me what part you found most interesting? The hampering of economic growth or the part where this law will reduce the TEMPERATURE of the planet..you know, more than the SUN has done in the last 8-9 years?

I am sure many of my fellow Wisconsin 2nd district citizens are going to be amazed at your explanation for higher electric bills, higher taxes and higher costs in general! After all, if Washington can't fix the economy, well, IT CAN'T.

I am extremely disappointed in your vote today - it was ill-informed and NOT beneficial to your constituents. But you probably got a thank you from Speaker Pelosi...right? I mean, she at least NODDED in your direction.

I am off to lower my carbon footprint....for 30 seconds or so as I hold my breath to stop from screaming at this message.

Your fellow Wisconsin 2nd district resident (oopppss - yea, I LIVE here....)
Tracy Coyle

too much snark?

Comparative Culture Analysis

2009-06-25T06:53:00.002-07:00

For many years we have been told that our culture is no better or worse than another country's culture - that all are equally valid. I have routinely said 'bullshit' to anyone stupid enough to offer that crap in my presence or earshot.

The culture of the United States, our society, stands heads and shoulders above virtually every other culture or society on the planet - I will concede that Australia, parts of Canada, England, and Israel and maybe a part of ...no, not them... have many of the same benefits, characteristics and values we share. Maybe France and Germany have a chance if their current leaders can effect permanent change...

Compare the United States to Iran and the differences are so apparent you'd need to have the IQ of a hot dog not to see them. It is pathetic to call a country sovereign and then ignore its brutality and EVIL system. Iran is an evil country - that there are non-evil citizens there doesn't change it. Lot and his family lived in Sodom.

Our Country IS BETTER than other countries. Our Culture IS BETTER than others. I am tired of people holding out a plate of shit and asking me to pretend it is pâté.

A comment on 'The Correct Response'

2009-06-22T15:15:00.002-07:00

I attempted to answer wdporter's comment on the post and got stymied by the comment limit...so, here is my comment:

Eventually, I return.

Your First paragraph: I have the right to marry whomever I want - neither you, nor the government can stop me. However, the government bestows upon couples it recognizes as married certain benefits and how and when and why it bestows those benefits by it's recognition is the issue.

As you suggest, I can not demand recognition, however, I can and do demand that government treat married couples equally AND if it established criteria for that definition, I can and do demand it do so in a non-discriminatory way. Let me define 'non-discriminatory' so that we are clear: the state MAY discriminate among groups and classes when it has a compelling interest in doing so - such that it can establish age cohorts for legal contracts, government benefits and the exercising of certain rights and privileges. When it has no compelling interest, it can not discriminate.

In this case, the government must show a compelling interest to discriminate against gay couples that marry and seek those government benefits. As the Iowa Supreme Court found, there is no compelling interest found in such a discrimination in the area of gay vs straight marriage.

Your opening paragraph: if I am asking for recognition, but I don't have the right to ask for recognition, then when recognition is denied, I am not being discriminated is a nice piece of circular logic. If recognition is being denied, I ask what is the reason - your response is I don't have the right to ask for it. If I ask why I do not have the right to ask for recognition, you seem to suggest I that I am not being discriminated against.

Comparing gay to interracial marriage is less foolishness than you allow. I am sure you, from this safe distance in time, believe that 'of course' interracial marriage should be allowed on the basis of...what? Man and woman? Are you suggesting that for centuries here in the United States, the people of those days could not distinguish between men and women of different races? Of course not. Everyone knew a black man and a black woman were EXACTLY the same as a white man and a white woman...except, you know, their 'color' and their 'sensibilities' and their 'intelligence'...right? So it was not a man/woman issue, or even a shssshhh sexual issue, but rather...the children would be well, not white. It was absolutely a procreation issue, not that they couldn't, but that they COULD! And that couldn't be allowed. Until it was - by judicial activism. And for many years (in some places still) bi-racial couples were treated terribly by both races as race traitors. The issue was: can someone marry whom they choose or not and would the state recognize that marriage.

Our issue is much smaller than 'civil rights', it is government discrimination. Now, some people will either dismiss my claim of the right to marry whomever I want BECAUSE, to them, such a right without government recognition is meaningless. I want you to think about that for a moment - a right is meaningless unless and until government recognizes it. Is that what is meant by 'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'? No, not at all. It means before there is government recognition, before there is government, our rights exist.

Let me address the "has to do with evolution and the propagation of the damn species". One, gay marriage - hell, any marriage is not required to propagate the damn species: Palin/Johnson proves that, and so do the other 40% of births out of wedlock. Human beings create human beings, now, and for millions of years, without the benefit of a government recognized marriage. Whether gays marry or not will not change that. So, as Iowa Supreme Court found, straights will continue to get married, continue to have children, the species will continue to live and EVEN if that were absolutely false in the United States, there are WHOLE continents where marriages barely exist and species propagation is flourishing.

But, you seem hell bent on keeping the issue marriage and children, "disconnecting MARRIAGE and CHILDREN, in my opinion is not a good sign in a society" absolutely IGNORES the fact that gays are raising children and seek 'government recognition' in many cases FOR THE BENEFIT of those children!

But the children/marriage issue is really just another non-issue, otherwise, why allow seniors to get married? Or those not capable of having children? or WORSE, people that want to get married BUT DON'T WANT CHILDREN!

Not a single straight marriage is prevented by gay marriage. Not a single straight couple seeking to have children, will be prevented from having children by gay marriage. Not a single child, born of straight, married parents, will be left homeless and destitute because of gay marriage.

And because millions of straight couples will continue to marry, have children and gay couples will marry, and have children, the family unit will be strengthened. The alternative is a whole generation will grow up and say:
my parents got divorced and it was a mess - who wants that,
or
my parents never got married and I turned out ok, why bother...
Oh wait...we already HAVE that...long before gay marriage was on the radar. Marriage sucks, let's oppose more people WANTING it! Brilliant idea. How about letting MORE people that want marriage HAVE marriage - maybe we will have less people going it alone.... or without...

My rights are not being abridged, but I am being discriminated against. The government confers benefits to one couple and denies them to another couple on the basis of a biological characteristic. There is no compelling reason made why such discrimination is necessary.

As for the suggestion that I move to find more respect - why isn't that just peachy! If we could just put all 'those types' over there somewhere out of sight, out of mind and let us be....

How about just end the discrimination instead of pretending it doesn't exist by banishing those that seek to end it...

(Apparently, California believes that the popular will is more important than individual rights - but we knew that was a fundamental problem with mob...er, majority rule...didn't we...)

Iran, Democracy and Moslems

2009-06-21T06:55:00.003-07:00

On the radio show on Tuesday I talked about my indifference to Iran as a blow up over the election between a really bad man and a really crazy man. It is clear that while that might have been day one or two, the IRANIANS realized that the fraud was the one the Mullahs perpetuated with the concept of free elections. The Iranian people have realized that 1) they WANT real democracy, not a false choice between two chosen candidates; 2) that their government ISN'T their government - it is a theocracy that imposes on the people what it will not abide upon itself, adherence to principles (not principles I would ever ascribe to, but the point of having principles is to live by them).

"Hey you cheated my candidate" has become "the whole thing is a farce - you have been cheating US."

I welcome such a change and with a nod to President Bush, acknowledge the principle that democracy is an inherent right and when people can see the benefits, they will want it. Establishing democracy in the heart of the Middle East is going to have positive results for a long time (before ANYONE suggests that democracy has been in the Middle East for a long time - namely Israel - Moslems don't recognize Jews as people and therefore would not want anything that Israel has except the land it sits on) But Moslems having democracy? Well, that is a different thing. Which brings me to my last point.

The most common thing Moslems - especially the fanatical types - do to other Moslems is kill them. Moslems kill and impoverish Moslems in much greater numbers than Jews or Christians do. At some point people, mostly Moslems, are going to realize that Jews and Christians have democracy and prosperity and if Islam is the right religion, something is very wrong.

Iranians have reached a point in their nation's life where they want what others have. Freedom and democracy and IF the President of the United States can't, or will not stand up for them, then something is very wrong here.

Apologies

2009-05-29T06:27:00.002-07:00

Obama has spent the last 100 days apologizing for the United States behavior towards other countries (while ignoring what we have done for them) but based on HIS actions, we as a nation are going to spend the next decade apologizing for OBAMA.

The Correct Response

2009-05-24T07:48:00.002-07:00

On Tuesday (May 26), the California Supreme Court will issue it's opinion on the legality of Prop 8, an amendment to eliminate 'gay marriage' as allowed by the same California Supreme Court just last summer. Let's look at the possibilities:

If the Court rejects the amendment as inconsistent with the California Constitution, the Right will argue that it was judicial activism overturning popular will.

If the Court upholds the amendment, the Left will argue the Court succumbed to pressure and did not uphold it's mandate.

Both will be wrong.

First, the Court reads the law and applies it. I read the Supreme Court's decision last summer and it rested almost entirely on the fact, FACT, that the California Constitution does NOT allow separate but equal institutions and when the California Legislature created exactly equal systems for gays and straights to get married, but called one Civil Unions and the other Marriage, it created a separate but equal institution. The Court rightly called them on it.

The Right howled and put an amendment on the ballot that asked for people to, by popular vote, re institute a separate but equal system. The people of California did just that. And understand, it is clear that the California Constitution and the United States Constitution clearly allow popular will to create laws that are on their face discriminatory AND allow for the creation of laws that specifically deny fundamental rights.

I expect the Court to uphold Prop 8. Californians can, and have said that certain people can not be allowed to get married based solely on the sex of their partner of choice.

The biggest mistake the Left can make on Tuesday and the days that follow is to give the Right ammunition for the argument that Gays can not be trusted to be full partners in society. And virtually ANY acts of anger will do so.

Too many people, especially on the Left think that judicial outcomes should be determined on the basis of what the outcome should be. The law is the law and judges, generally, adhere to it. There is as much judicial activism on the Right as there is on the Left.

However, too many people on the Right think that because a majority wills it, it is right. It is possible for the majority to be anti-minority and our Constitutions (state and federal) demand equality under the law for all.

Today, in every place in the United States I have the right to marry a member of the same sex. No one can stop us. However, I have no right to demand recognition of that marriage. If the State chooses to become involved in the process of recognizing that personal choice, it must do so for all couples without discrimination. The popular will of California is discrimination.

Throughout human history, slavery was practiced (it still is in a few places); just 150 years ago, our Country stopped the practice. Women did not have the right to vote until just about 100 years ago. 60 years ago, blacks and whites could not marry each other as if race had some meaningful distinction between humans. Human history is full of examples where basic rights were denied until upheaval in society forced change.

"After careful consideration" is the phrase used by 'conservatives' to demand change be withheld. Here is my final question: how long does careful consideration take? Just so I know whether I will benefit from the result, or if my grandchildren will.

The right to bear arms

2009-05-11T11:49:00.003-07:00

Given the choice, I'm likin' Sarahs better. Just sayin...

Activist judges

2009-04-04T17:07:00.002-07:00

It is clear that there are judges that just ignore the law and rule according to their proclivities. We need not a one of them actually sitting on the bench, anywhere.

However, every time a ruling goes against your position on issues is not evidence that a judge, or judges are being activist.

I have read both the California Supreme Court decision overturning the ban on gay marriage and I have read the Iowa Supreme Court decision. The rulings are significantly different.

The California case: was it constitutional have a a civil union system for same-sex couples and a marriage system for opposite sex couples if they were fundamentally the same system, just called something different. This is the 'separate but equal' issue that is well established to be unconstitutional at the federal level, and the California court found it was also unconstitutional at the state level. There is no activism necessary to find that position. It is clear cut. The California Court did address other items that makes it an important part of the Iowa decision which went right to the issue of denying gays the right to marry because their choice of partner was same sex.

The County seeks to undercut the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim by asserting the plaintiffs are not similarly situated to heterosexuals. The County references this threshold test in this case and asserts the
plaintiffs are not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples so as to
necessitate further equal protection analysis because the plaintiffs cannot
“procreate naturally.”

Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage
laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to
heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships,
many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official
recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their
fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for
heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing samesex
couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the
power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it
does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.
In short, for purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, which are designed to
bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and
their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every
important respect, but for their sexual orientation. As indicated above, this
distinction cannot defeat the application of equal protection analysis

But both Courts make an assumption that those opposed to gay marriage seemingly refuse to consider:

The County initially points out that section 595.2 does not explicitly
refer to “sexual orientation” and does not inquire into whether either
member of a proposed civil marriage is sexually attracted to the other.
Consequently, it seizes on these observations to support its claim that the
statute does not establish a classification on the basis of sexual orientation
because the same-sex civil marriage ban does not grant or withhold the
benefits flowing from the statute based on sexual preference. Instead, the
County argues, section 595.2 only incidentally impacts disparately upon gay
and lesbian people.
The County’s position reveals the importance of accurately and
precisely defining the classification in analyzing all equal protection
challenges. The manner in which a classification is defined impacts the
utility of an equal protection analysis as a means of revealing discrimination.
Therefore, it is critical that a court reviewing the statute identify the true
nature of the classification.
It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and
lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry,
it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of
marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex
is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person
of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian
person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a
person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or
lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a
committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation,
and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.

The Court recognizes that at the core, sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of people and creating laws based on the characteristic is constitutionally flawed.

Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the
statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 441. The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 583, 123 S. Ct. at 2486, 156 L. Ed. 2d at 529 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (reviewing criminalization of homosexual sodomy and concluding that “[w]hile it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such
circumstances, [the] sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.”). The Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996), supports this conclusion. Romer can be read to imply that sexual orientation is a trait that defines an individual and is not merely a means to associate a group with a type of behavior. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 632, 116 S. Ct. at 1627, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 865–66 (holding an amendment to a state constitution pertaining to “homosexual . . . orientation” expresses “animus toward the class that it affects”).

By purposefully placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals, the ban on same-sex civil marriages differentiates implicitly on the basis of sexual orientation. See Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 431 n.24; Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571, 605 (Md. 2007). Thus, we proceed to analyze the constitutionality of the statute based on sexual orientation discrimination.

Recognizing the situation as presented is not activism, it goes to the heart of the issues. Finally, the reasons WHY there is an anti-gay marriage ban were addressed. I hear these reasons all the time and the court addresses them well.

The County has proffered a number of objectives supporting the marriage statute. These objectives include support for the “traditional” institution of marriage, the optimal procreation and rearing of children, and financial considerations.
The first step in scrutinizing a statutory classification can be to determine whether the objectives purportedly advanced by the classification are important. “The burden of justification is demanding and it rests entirely on the State.”

I am not going into the Court's reasoning, in every case it is straight forward and clearly points out that the objectives are not met in any way by the law as written. In the most fundamental way, the Court asks the question: does the gay marriage ban protect or promote traditional marriage. The answer is clearly no to anyone that is willing evaluate consequences. Does the gay marriage ban encourage more people to marry? No. Does the gay marriage ban encourage more people to have children? No. Will gay marriage cause straight couples to avoid marriage? No. Will gay marriage cause straight couples to have less children? No. These are obvious to anyone willing to consider them.

My issue is always individual rights. Infringe on my rights to protect others. The gay marriage ban does not do that. The ban does not protect the rights of others. Gay marriage does not stop straight couples from marrying; gay marriage does not prevent straight couples from raising children. And arguments that gay marriage does not support the growth of healthy children ignores that many marriages - gay and straight, do not have children as a goal.

If you support bans on gay marriage, show me where the infringement of my rights is necessary to protect someone elses rights. Please, do not start with the argument that there is no Constitutional right to marriage. Your ignorance would be clear.

Leading Role

2009-04-04T15:43:00.003-07:00

Our current President, 'in a leading role of a lifetime' continues to act poorly without the script right in front of him. To wit:

In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world.

I must ask the question...actually, the statement BEGS the question: What leading role is Europe playing?

Economics? Nope.
Military? Nope.
Security and defense? Not even for itself.
Relief? Nope.

Well, maybe as a garden for cowards and ass-kissing girlie-men.

Neither in innovation, nor exploration.

Obama thinks Europe, I guess, is a unified nation, acting as one big offset to American hegemony. Put Germany, France and Great Britain in the same room and see what kind of...oh yea, we kinda did that this week and we saw outstanding leadership from...no one.

I can't think of a single thing that makes me think, "Europe does that so well, we should be doing that too!". Nothing. Obama of course thinks Europe does lots of things well - I guess. Ask him to name something Europe leads in and I can guarantee that a super-majority of Americans will say "and more power to them...no thanks!".

You know, come to think of it, if we HAD to have an 'actor' playing the leading role of President of the United States, we could pick from just about anyone that has played that part in the last 10 years and get lines delivered better and with more authority than the current understudy...

I have often been told this position is wrong, but experience says different. Leadership is an inherent quality - it can be nurtured, trained and directed, but it can not be taught or learned. Apparently, it can't be scripted on a teleprompter either.

Tea Party Focus

2009-04-01T11:17:00.002-07:00

There is much discussion going on all over the place concerning the focus of Tea Parties - I brought up the issue in last night's radio show.

1. Tea Parties got their start on the anger over the Stimulus Package size and the amount of pork AND the absolute uselessness of it to actually address the issues facing the economy. Therefore, government spending in general, and pork/stimulus spending in particular need to be a primary focus. But Congress can either tax or demand printing for any amount of spending they want to do so just focusing on the spending is not enough.

2. Three things:
a. Freeze government spending at 2008 levels. Any extra spending necessary comes out of next years budget
b. Taxes: A one year moratorium of Federal taxes. Then, a flat tax (I don't have a problem with the just announced GOP plan of two versions)
c. A movement to replace every Congressperson that voted for the bailouts (2008 and after) and/or the Stimulus bill regardless of party.

3. The above addresses spending, income and the judgment displayed (or failed to be displayed) in matching the two.

4. Two of the items have immediate actions (Freeze and moratorium) and long term planning actions: tax code change and elections.

Let's go.

Pragmatism or Populism

2009-03-30T20:02:00.002-07:00

I am sick and tired of one or both of the above coming from Conservatives - WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

Let me backtrack and lead you by the chin to the basis of my current disgust....

Last year, the financial markets began to crumble. The process was foreseen by those willing to look and ignore the anti-deniers ("You are just trying to talk down the economy. Look at the numbers, across the board the economy is strong and getting stronger.") No matter how much the voices in the wilderness suggested the foundation was rotten, cracked and sinking, the anti-denier argued the doom and gloom was unwarranted.

"The Washington Post had even run a column the day before Lehman's collapse ridiculing those who were making negative comments about the state of the economy."

Bear Stearns should have been allowed to fail. The die was cast and the 'moral hazard' argument won, too late though for the lesson to be correctly applied. Lehman Brothers was let fail and the repercussions scared the Politicians (probably the Fed too) into worrying that systemic failure would cause financial and structural collapse of the world economies. That belief is short-sighted and naive. Coming from the Fed and the Treasury, it can not be reassuring - and it is not.

With the failure of Lehman, no further failures would be allowed. Moral hazard was something that was 'academic', the Powers were dealing with real financial systems and real economies. Moral hazard lost it's ability to impose a check on improper behavior.

AIG. There are enough lessons for 20 or 30 books but the most important ones - from my perspective - are being ignored by many. I have said that freedom is messy. Bankers don't like messy. Especially when it comes to risk and any 'respectable' entity that tells them they can make risk less messy, more controllable is going to get a long look. AIG was offering financial managers a way to 'diversify and distribute' risk and this was paired with products that gave the illusion of AAA, almost Treasury safe, leveragable returns. How much AIG was involved with we will learn some time into the future, but my guess is somewhere around 45 TRILLION dollars of products/derivatives. With an exposure of .1 to 10% depending on the product, AIG had the potential to lose $450billion to $4.5 TRILLION. Obviously it did not have the ability to cover those losses and so their counter parties and clients would except....except. The Clients were people that were not free participants of capitalism. Most bankers are not and the financial markets have learned that they too dislike capitalism. See, capitalism can have winners AND losers. Win/win is not the normal of capitalist events. Risk means that there is a chance that investments fail. And despite AIG, failure was not only an option, but coming like an avalanche.

Who were the clients? Sovereign funds, hedge funds with 'serious' clients like Princes and National Banks. They couldn't lose...that was unheard of, and I think the Fed and the Treasury got a long lecture after Lehman about the viability of the American way of life if large holders of American Capital products in Europe, the Middle East and Asia were going to take big losses.

So, AIG would be unwound. It had to be done slowly, and the money would have to be given to make sure that AIG counter parties didn't get burned. The problem was, how much money? I am sure that AIG and others said that the markets were just disrupted and pricing products too harshly. If the markets could be calmed, the unwind could be done slowly with minimal losses...maybe less than a $100 billion. And if the economy had held on, that might have happened. But moral hazard has a dark side. It is bad enough to be caught violating it, it is much worse to be caught hiding that you might have violated it (regardless of the truth). The politicians and the Fed and the Treasury oversold the issue: imminent collapse, financial Armageddon. People shut down. The financial markets were houses of cards, one bankruptcy (AIG) away from disaster. People know people one paycheck away from disaster, they don't like to think of their national ECONOMY in the same position.

Like a tornado warning well heeded, people shuttered the windows, bolted the doors and headed for the cellar. Big ticket items died first as small stuff was stocked up on. What the financial markets feared was losses, what they got was rug pulled out of the economy.

How much of AIG is left is irrelevant. The multiple dips into the public trough put lie to all the claims that the situation was contained.

Now this is where I got pissed.

The Fed and the Treasury should never have bailed out AIG. Yes, I DO understand what the potential was, IS. YOU probably DON'T. 600 TRILLION in derivatives. The systemic failure of every major bank, most small COUNTRIES and a financial system a smoking ruin. Instead, we are going to burden the American People with bailing out anti-capitalists that believed they had a right to a free lunch - no risk.

And most conservatives are letting them get away with it.

AIG.

Should never have been bailed out. But was. And that did NOT give us the right to interfere private enterprise. If I borrow $20 from you, you do not get the right to check my pantry for expensive soup, or publicly call me out for my spending choices. Our agreement for the $20 is the extent of your involvement.

I don't care about AIG bonuses AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU. It is NONE of your business and take that 'but it is our money' crap and stick it. Shareholders do not get a say in the day to day running of a business and the capitalistic system is either an all in, or get out choice. Since the 1930s, we have been trying to have it both ways and the more it is tried, the worse the situation is getting.

Capitalism, like freedom is messy. Too many conservatives have forgotten and have looked at their 401ks and home values and quietly, hopefully, they have encouraged the Obamas and Geitners and Bernakes to succeed so that they will not have to suffer from the risk THEY wanted to benefit from, but also be protected against.

Choice has consequences. Demand to be protected from those consequences and you lose the freedom of choice.

Too many are seeking protection and I am damn tired of it.

Step One

2009-03-29T21:02:00.014-07:00

Suspend all federal tax collections. No income tax, no business tax, no social security/medicare tax.

For one year.

At the end of the year, the Federal Government assesses each state the following:

$1.74 per acre
+ .35 per acre for debt reduction (not interest, principle)
-----
$2.09 per acre

Credit to be given for all federally owned lands in each state.

No new taxes, no new income rates. $2.09 per acre. That's all.

Punch Drunk or....

2009-03-23T04:46:00.002-07:00

I watched part of the interview of Barak Obama from 60 minutes and it almost seemed as if there was a smile ready to break out at every serious moment. Steve Kroft began to wonder about the state of mind of Obama, I am only wondering at what he was/is taking to 'take the edge off'. We know he smokes, the question I have is, what?

After the latest foreign affairs gaff, there is ONLY on question left concerning Obama's Administration and our President himself: Dumb, or Dumber?

Yea, what he said

2009-03-20T20:48:00.003-07:00

Ok, regular readers (yea, right) know that I don't link too often. First off, I am too small a site to make any noticeable dent in someone's visits, but the primary reason is that I write here, for me. If people find it interesting, great.

Well, I have been saying for a long time that the gay community is it's own worst enemy and the Prop 8 issue in California is showing that in spades. In comments all around the blogosphere, you will hear gay people lamenting the activist gays apparent attempts at self destruction (self loathing?).

The idea that gay activists could stand up for Palestinians in the form of Hamas is so stunningly stupid that you have to wonder if it is actually alien provocateurs leading the community! No really. How could a gay activist support a group that would KILL THEM the second it got it's hands on them???

So, that said, I read a 'mainstream' blog today with a post that has said all that I have said, said it well, and gave it a big audience. So, you two over there, go read this.

Repose

2009-03-08T09:45:00.003-07:00

My youngest brother died yesterday. Eddie just turned 45 in January. It'll be a couple of days or so before we know why - but I had expected that when my Mother called, it would be to tell me he took his own life. It doesn't appear to have been that.

Eddie got a raw deal early and it haunted him. When he was 12 or so, he was taken to the doctor because he complained his legs hurt all the time (he was in Little League). Our family has a history of Muscular Dystrophy and doctor jumped to conclusions - it would be 2 years before things were straightened out but by that time the damage was done. Knowing what my parents did about MD, the later it hits, the more destructive it is - this was a death sentence for Eddie. For the next two years, he was given leeway to be/do almost anything - and he took advantage of it - as teenagers are prone to do. At 17 Eddie checked himself into rehab. More or less, things never really improved much from that point on. Shortly after that, his girlfriend got pregnant and both families tried to talk them both out of marriage. They got married and within a year moved to Austin where Eddie got a job from Diana's father. When his second son was born, there were complications and Eddie's response was to attempt suicide. His son was ok, Eddie survived a lame attempt.

A year or so later, they moved back to Chicago and Eddie got a good job and was very good at what he did (electrical construction). But it was rocky and Diana and he eventually divorced. As is normal for my family, Diana remained an important part of our family gatherings and the boys were regulars at my parents. Eddie struggled with addictions of one form or another and despite that, his employer stuck with him - he was just that good - when he was there, which was most, but not all the time.

Eddie met and eventually moved in with Cyndi. In many regards she was good for him, others, not so. Eddie abused the relationship and Cyndi hung on. Eddie would go to sleep and with minor bathroom breaks, sleep for days on end. He was delusional, psychotic at times. He got treatment, but didn't like taking the meds. When he went off them, it would 8 days of sleep out of 10, 2 days of delusional rantings. Through it all, Cyndi stayed with him. The boys got out of school - they are doing great.

Over the last year or two, things had improved, some. But it was always a fragile thing. I would hear that he was coming over to help my parents, but later learned he 'was down' and never made it. HE DID help Mom and Dad, a lot. He tried and when he was ok, we could enjoy a repartee that I had with no one else. He helped me when I built out the lower level - driving all the way here, worked for hours, and drove home again. Cyndi joined him and it was good.

So, it was a matter of when with Eddie, not if. He walked an edge with one foot almost always over it. Dad called him one of the finest electricians he ever worked with. He was outgoing, friendly, always willing to help. But his demons always seemed to lurk just below the surface.

Two days ago, he fell off a ladder. It didn't seem a big thing. Cyndi went out yesterday, Shawn noticed he was not very attentive. It looked like Eddie was 'going to be down' for a day or two. Shawn went out and Cyndi came back in the early evening to find him sprawled on the bed.

The demons probably didn't do it. Accidents happen. Eddie burned the candle at both ends for many years and he was physically much older than his years. Unlike the raw emotions I had with Billy, Eddie's death is a little like relief - certainly not for us, for Diana, or Cyndi, Shawn or Matt, or my parents. For Eddie. I am very glad it did not appear to be at his own hand. That will not give much comfort but it does mean that Eddie persevered. He didn't give up. No matter the demons, no matter the trials, he faced them.

Eddie got a raw deal and it finally caught up with him. I take no comfort in his death - I will miss him. But, he and Billy can get along and keep each other company. They both died way too early, but long after they were expected to.

Rest my brother. This time, it will be a good sleep.

Speed of Change

2009-03-06T20:19:00.002-08:00

For many years I have held the notion that change is a good thing - that without change, life stagnates, that life fails. Obama's mantra of change obviously would resonate with that notion - if I thought for a second he actually meant change in the same way that life changes - grows, matures, evolves. He doesn't. He means that he is going to change what works into something that is more defensible to the elites of Europe. That is not a throw-away snark. Many in Europe - and here in our academic circles believe that 'socialism' style economic and political policies can work provided three things: everyone buys into the change - even if that means forcing those that disagree to adhere; smart enough people are in charge - the right kind of smart; and there is a willingness to spend any amount necessary, from anyone and everyone necessary, to provide the means to establish the necessary changes.

They are wrong. But evidence and facts are insufficient to prove they are wrong. Argue that every attempt at socialism has failed and one of the above 3 items will be used to explain why it failed - but never, at any time, will proponents admit the fundamental flaw with socialism - the need will always exceed the ability.

It would be easy to say that uneducated people will buy into the socialism concept because they are the ones most likely to benefit (they are not), but it more commonly appears among the educated - those that should know better. Maybe they do, maybe they think that the first step, getting everyone to buy into the concept is the most important step. To succeed, they need a majority of voters to give them the chance - Obama asked for that chance, and a majority have said ok.

It is doomed to failure. I know it. Most of the people (all three of us) that read this know it. Most conservatives know it. Not in a general, belief way of knowledge - but in the cold, hard knowledge that comes with viewing the killing fields, the mass graves or the daily news from Venezuela.

Which brings me to today. 45 days after his inauguration, the number of areas where the failures of this President are becoming obvious to even the deaf and blind has reached the point that I have to ask - how much longer can this go on?

Obama and his Secretary of State are proving to the world that the United States will not longer be a superpower. We are going to unilaterally show to friend and foe alike that change has come and a kinder, gentler, pussy whipped, emasculated foreign policy will be laid at the world's feet on bended knee. Someone is going to, in Joe Biden's words "test Obama". The response - clearly from the last 45 days - is going to be painfully obvious to everyone, wrong.

Obama and his Treasury Secretary are acting as if the economy were an economic lesson. Most of you will not understand, so let me explain. When academic economists talk about policy changes and macro-economic behavior, they will begin their discussion such: "If you enact this change, and all other factors remain the same, THIS happens." As an intellectual, academic exercise, it is interesting to note how changes introduced to a system can effect results. You can take a model of our economy and introduce change to one variable at a time and see and tweak the results til you get the situation you are seeking. Unfortunately the real, messy, shifting world does not work like an economic model. Every policy proclamation is reviewed, analyzed and acted upon by millions of economic actors. All the other variables DO CHANGE. Often quickly, sometimes, instantly. So we have a President and a Treasury Secretary promoting economic changes in isolation. This policy will have this result; that policy will have that result. And neither has an impact on 'unrelated' matters. This is why 'the market's up and down gyrations' are not of concern - they are unrelated to the policy pronouncements. It is an academic blindness and it is destroying wealth daily.

To those of us grounded in the real world, we look upon the actions of this Administration and wonder - can they be this stupid? They can't, can they? They don't REALLY want to destroy the country, they can't REALLY think that their plans will work. Obama really, truly believes that his policies will work. I believe that. I believe that he has surrounded himself - loosely and inefficiently - with people that believe his plans and policies are GOOD for the country AND the planet.

They are wrong. Freedom is messy and economic choices and behaviors do not stand idly by as 'variables' are tweaked. But here is where I am starting to get worried. 45 days. In 45 days Obama has done more damage than just about anyone could imagine (I figured he could and would do it, just that it would take most of this year to do so - wrong).

Virtually every action Obama has taken, directly with his words and policies, and indirectly by his Cabinet members actions in their arenas, has made everything worse that it should have been.

I know this - I lived this one afternoon at the radar scope of an Air Force GCA when I screwed up with 6 flights - every action, taken by itself, was correct, legal and responsible. Taken as a whole, I put 14 crews in deadly danger. It was my last day as an Air Traffic Controller.

In 45 days, Obama has set a course of events into motion that is dangerous beyond his, or his advisors, understanding. 45 days. He has over 1400 days still to go. 1400 days. Can ANYONE imagine 1400 more days like the 45 we just had? Can anyone imagine where we will be in 100 days? This is the question that plagued me today - how much longer can we continue AND what happens when what is painfully obvious to many of happens - a crisis where the President, and ONLY the President, can and must act.

President Obama campaigned on a promise of change. The speed at which he is trying to implement his change is dangerously out of control, and he doesn't, or can't, see it. Where we go, and how long it is going to take us to get there, is happening faster than most of us could imagine. Speed kills, and our Country is in danger.

I want Obama to fail

2009-03-05T11:13:00.004-08:00

Sent to my Congressional delegation (Sen Kohl, Sen Feingold, Rep Baldwin)this morning:

With all the bruhaha going on about Rush Limbaugh's statement hoping for the failure of President Obama's policy I wanted to make a comment to my Congressional delegation:

Given the policies and plans proposed and supported by President Obama, I hope they fail as they will neither help our Country's current economic situation, nor benefit our Country in the long term. If you support his policies, then I hope you fail also.

Just to be clear. We have heard this before. Remember?

Support the troops, not the mission.

I support my President, not his policies or plans for this country.

40 Days

2009-02-25T04:48:00.001-08:00

1. States are threatening tax refund checks - THAT IS OUR MONEY.
2. We are being forced - yes, forced - to pay for a stimulus that takes from private citizens and gives to government entities
3. What happened to tax cuts for US!?

So, here is the plan - IF you normally receive a refund at the end of the year - go to your employer and have them STOP withholding federal taxes from your paycheck for the next 40 days. Three paychecks. It will reduce the refund you get next year - but YOU get a 'stimulus' right now!

The extra money you get is YOURS. Spend it wisely.

And, after Lent, just put your withholding back to where it was. We get a stimulus and the Federal Government learns what happens when American's keep their money for themselves.

Let's give up letting the Federal Government use our money for free for Lent. How about you?

Focus

2009-02-23T14:56:00.005-08:00

Obama may

be President,

but he is

still my servant

Your Responsibility

2009-02-15T14:50:00.003-08:00

Senators Feingold and Kohl, Representative Baldwin

You own the Stimulus as much as President Obama. President Obama said without the stimulus passed, and passed soon, a catastrophe was in the making. Well, his answer to the coming calamity has been passed and he will sign it. Therefore, calamity averted....NOT.

Things are going to get worse and the stimulus bill will DO NOTHING to stop it, but it will preclude options on how to react in the future. As the economy worsens, you and our President will first ask for patience - let the bill work. But as little of the spending actually occurs in 2009, there nothing in it to work.

So, in about 10-12 weeks, we will be hearing of a second, more aggressive stimulus package that will be, like it's predecessor, useless - unless you are a government employee or hope to be one.

The current unemployment rate here in Wisconsin is 5.6% Every future rise in that number is your responsibility. While Governor Doyle is hoping for a slice of the pie to try and offset his own budget problems, I will be watching to see what use he has for our hard earned money...

Just to be clear

2009-02-12T21:34:00.000-08:00

Sent to Senator's Feingold and Kohl and to Congresswoman Baldwin:

I have been remiss. I have given Democrats a pass because as a conservative, my voice is easily ignored here in Wisconsin. But I want you to know Senator, that if you vote FOR the President's stimulus bill, I will use every ounce of energy to lay every single increase in unemployment, foreclosure, bankruptcy and budget shortfall on your doorstep. I will work for ANYONE that seeks to run against you in the future. I will write letters, send emails, talk ears off and blog about how we have spent a trillion dollars to pander to the most base instinct of the mob to 'do something' and the result was a package of pork so large, hog farmers are going to complain of anti-trust actions by the STATE.

This is not a matter of 'doing something', this is abdication of EVERY principle of our Constitution, and the Oath you took when you took the Office you hold.

Tracy Coyle
Chairwoman, Executive Committee
American Conservative Party

Executive Director
Wisconsin Conservative Party

Experience or political connections

2009-02-01T17:09:00.005-08:00

Senator Russ Feingold has endorsed Julie Genovese for Circuit Court judge. Why? Because he knows her; she is politically connected. Experienced? Please. She does have more experience than Barak Obama in a court room, but that is saying little.

Experience matters. In the courtroom. Julie Genovese has little experience except as a friend of Russ Feingold. I will admit that FORMER Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Ehlke at least knows what a courtroom looks like. And if we elected judges to a particular court - family court, criminal court, etc - then Ehlke might be a viable candidate for Criminal Court Judge, but we don't. Our judges are expected to handle the full range of court cases and ONLY Charlie Schutze has that experience.

From Charlie's website:

Based on Wisconsin CCAP Charlie has: -More than twice the Courtroom & Trial experience of his two opponents combined -More Diverse Experience:
	Charlie	Stephen	Julie
Divorce & Family Cases(inc. Adoption, Paternity, Custody & Support, GP Visitation)	752	0	0
Civil Litigation/Personal Injury	116	176	28
Criminal Felony cases	64	19* *(Inc. 5 as ADA)	0
Criminal Misd/Traffic/OWI (1st Offense OWI are not on CCAP)	474	1,026* *(inc. 999 as ADA)	0
Estate Probates	27	0	0
Juvenile/CHIPS (Not on CCAP)	101	?	?
Bankruptcy (Federal Court)	704	0	0
Real Estate Matters	65	0	0
Wills & POAs	343	0	0
Business Formations	27	0	0
Current Tax Clients	165	0	0
Other Areas of Law	466	?	?
Charlie has handled Jury Trials in Criminal Felonies & Misdemeanors,Personal Injury, Contract Litigation, CHIPS and TPRs. Almost anything that might come before a Circuit Judge, Charlie has hands on experience in. As a CPA, he understands the financial and tax aspects of cases. Charlie has practiced in: Adams, Columbia, Dane, Dodge, FonDuLac, Iowa, Jefferson, Juneau, Marathon, Marquette, Milwaukee, Rock, Sauk, Sheboygan , Walworth and Washington Counties, Wisconsin Federal Courts and the U.S. Tax Court.

Hey Russ - friends are great to have over for a Superbowl party - but that is not a reason to be judge!

- I'm thinking of one....

2009-01-31T18:27:00.003-08:00

For the last year I have spent a lot of time working on helping to build the American Conservative Party. During that time I have spent a lot of time discussing, debating and arguing with 'conservatives' about who is a 'real conservative'.

What I am about to say will piss off a lot of people - which is why I am doing it here - this is NOT official ACP.

The biggest issue among conservatives is: how important are social conservative positions to a conservative philosophy/movement. Head on, the social conservatives are screwing the pooch.

If 6 conservative judges were on the Supreme Court, Roe v Wade would not be arbitrarily overturned. Cases on point would have to make their way through the lower courts and it would have to result in the Supreme Court NOT finding a right to privacy. I like my privacy. I think I have a right to my privacy - certainly from the prying eyes of the government but equally from those that find my lifestyle offensive. Abortion is not a GOVERNMENT ISSUE.

You can make all the arguments you want, I am an adult citizen of this country with rights inherent in my existence. I refuse to give them up because you think they are subordinated to another. The Republican party has had a 'right to life' position on it's platform for almost 30 years and NOTHING has happened. If abortion is your litmus test, YOU are part of the problem in this country.

If abortion is your issue - don't have one. If you know someone that is thinking of abortion and you don't offer to pay for the pregnancy and plan on adopting the child, you are a typical issue bitch.

Don't get me started on gay rights. I live the issue every day and the pathetic, useless and mindless suggestion that I can use written contracts and agreements to get the same rights as married couples is made by stupid morons that haven't a clue of the legal reality. So, if you want to suggest that marriage is a tradition that can't be changed, fine - get the government the hell out of your traditions. I don't accept them, I don't agree with them and your desire to limit my rights because you don't like me exercising them is NO DIFFERENT than some left-tard dressed in pink. If you don't want to marry a gay person, don't.

Every single time a reasonable person looks at conservatives agitating for fiscal conservative principles they run smack into some moron social conservative spouting crap. The more I run into social conservatives, the less I am convinced they are actually conservatives. If you want to keep the status quo, maintain the traditions - then you are a Classical Conservative - something we call liberals today.

Our Founding Fathers were LIBERAL. They despised the idea that government would interfere in the private lives of citizens. Our rights have suffered a thousand cuts til even most 'conservative' - anti government person thinks NOTHING of invoking government involvement.

Let me talk about Republicans. The party is corrupt. Period. I am uncertain if there is ANYONE I would trust running or calling themselves Republican. Here is what I know - if I can see a politician making an excuse or spinning a decision that is at odds with Principles - that person is morally bankrupt and should be scorned. EVERY single Republican that voted for Geitner PROVED their bankruptcy. EVERY SINGLE Republican that voted for the TARP, or votes for the 'stimulus' is a corrupt piece of shit. The Democrats are scorpions, it is their nature and desire to rule our lives so I can not fault their proclivities.

Anyone that buys the idea that we MUST eat the shit sandwiches provided for us by Republicans because the crap from the Democrats is worse, is a moron. "You should thank me for only stealing your wallet, the other guy would take your car too" sounds as stupid when a thief is saying it as when a Republican says it.

So, here we are. I once thought that social conservatives were just a sub-set of Conservatives. They are not. Yes, they might pay lip service to fiscal or security issues - but they would sell a fiscal conservative or security conservative into slavery for their social agenda. And yes, they, just like the radical left, have a social agenda. They want to take us back like Luddites into some dream world of the past where Mom and Dad and their two kids led idyllic lives and all was right in the world. For most people, those bad old days were much more a nightmare than 'pleasant'.

I am done, stick a fork in me. Social conservatives can stick their agenda up their ass. Like the Founding Fathers before me, I despise government intervention in our private lives and consider the current attempt to interfere with the marketplace to be criminal. Let social conservatives go find some party to sing Hosanna's with - right next to the progressives singing kumbiya. There is NO difference between them except with the GOD they seek to appease.

The future is what you make of it. I am taking back my future.

Today, vs well...someday

2009-01-31T06:48:00.002-08:00

Half a million on unemployment last month. Half a million more on unemployment this month. In anticipation of President Obama, the economy honored the new President by throwing a million people under the bus. You could even say that the economy's opinion of the stimulus plan was, "we need less employees'.

Ok. So the 'proposed stimulus plan did not stop the economy from contracting. Will it stop another half million from being tossed on their butts next month? To use my favorite phrase, I didn't think so. How about in March? Will the stimulus plan change the flow of employees from outgoing to ingoing? I didn't think so.

If by the end of March two million more people are not working, does ANYONE think that retail sales will be anything but nightmarish? Will the stimulus plan help them? I didn't think so.

President Obama talks about saving two million jobs, but apparently, they have to be allowed to be lost to make that happen. Now I don't have to be a conspiracy nut to think Obama is letting things get bad so he can ride to the rescue. There is little or nothing he can do to prevent the slide that is already occurring, he rhetoric to the contrary. His stimulus plan serves three purposes: it is SOMETHING and people - as stupid as it is - want the government to DO SOMETHING; it is big enough that people can't say he is taking half measures; and it pays off a significant amount of his political base. What it won't do is prevent two to three million from losing their jobs in the first months of 2009. What it won't prevent is further deteriation of the economy. What it won't do is STIMULATE the economy.

But, Congress is going to pass it, and Obama is going to sign it. And then they can sigh and sit back and watch A REAL RECESSION. Federal borrowing is going to crowd out everything - but since it is now the lender of any resort....

We talked about what would really work on the radio show Tuesday: a federal tax holiday of 3 or 4 months. No federal income tax or social security tax collection. Benefit 1: immediate money in consumers pockets; successful businesses will have more money to keep or hire in the face of a declining economy; less borrowing by the Federal Government. Of course, it will not happen. No one in Washington wants to face what will happen AFTER the holiday. If you think people are grumpy after returning to work on Monday, wait till you see how people respond to the re-imposition of tax collection on their paychecks. Congress and the President KNOW that will start a revolution that would make 1775 look like a stern look.

So, the President and Congress COULD stop this train wreck from happening if they were more concerned with Americans than their own power. Do you think they even remotely considered it? I didn't think so.

I didn't think so....

2009-01-16T21:43:00.002-08:00

A LOONNNGGGGG time ago, I had a crush on Elvis. Then, it was John Wayne. Lindsey Wagner, then Signourney Weaver. I have ALWAYS had a thing for Phil Collins. But generally, actors, actresses, personalities, not really my thing. Till.....welll....Mira Sorvino, in The Replacement Killers with Chow Yun-Fat. My favorite scene is between Mira and Jurgen Prochnow. He is stalking Mira and says that he is going to kill her, but he suggests that she could save him time and just shoot herself, he would do that for her if he were in her shoes. And, of course, very soon, he is. And she asks:

"Well, are you?"
"I beg your pardon?"
"Now that our positions are reversed, will you shoot yourself?"

He turns and she shoots him dead.

"I didn't think so."

Great! It is a phrase that is repeated throughout the movie, often when someone that says they will do something is called on it, and whimps out.

Barak Obama, great President?

I didn't think so.

You might be a moron...

2009-01-02T20:21:00.002-08:00

If you think Hamas is being unfairly bombed, you might be a moron....

If you think Iran deserves a nuke just because we have thousands, you might be a moron...

If you think record snow and record low temperatures are a sign of global warming, you might be a moron...

If you think Obama has a clue on how to fix the economy, you might be a moron....

If you think Caroline Kennedy or Al Franken is qualified to be a senator, you might be a moron....

If you think the only bad government is George Bush, you might be a moron....

If you think only Republicans are corrupt, you might be a moron.....no..wait,

If you think any of the above, you ARE A MORON.

Sow?

2009-01-02T05:55:00.003-08:00

When you encourage this:
You get this:

Reap what you sow.

Recap and retread

2008-12-30T08:39:00.002-08:00

Ok, let the review begin:

On February 1, 2008, I made the following predictions:

The Republican Party is about to get exactly what it wants.

A moderate candidate! Who lost.

Predictions for 2008-2012:

1. The first recession in 26 years will last between 8 and 11 months and cause widespread dislocations specifically in housing

Recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Not there yet, but probably did start in the 4th quarter. We'll see. I consider this a hit

2. Ford will declare bankruptcy. As will Citigroup. Both will survive but neither will recover. Four of the top 20 banks will fail or be forced into mergers to survive.

Who could have foreseen a government bailout. Citigroup was all but bankrupty.

Here is the list:

1.	Citigroup (New York, N.Y.)	$2,199,848
2.	Bank of America Corp. (Charlotte, N.C.)	1,743,478
3.	J. P. Morgan Chase & Company (Columbus, Ohio)	1,642,862
4.	Wachovia Corp. (Charlotte, N.C.)	808,575
5.	Taunus Corp. (New York, N.Y.)	750,323
6.	Wells Fargo & Company (San Fransisco, Calif.)	595,221
7.	HSBC North America Inc. (Prospect Heights, Ill.)	493,010
8.	U.S. Bancorp (Minneapolis, Minn.)	241,781
9.	Bank of the New York Mellon Corp. (New York, N.Y.)	205,151
10.	Suntrust, Inc. (Atlanta, Ga.)	178,986
11.	Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (Providence, R.I.)	161,759
12.	National City Bank (Cleveland, Ohio)	155,046
13.	State Street Corp. (Boston, MA)	154,478
14.	Capital One Financial Corp. (McLean, Va.)	150,608
15.	Regions Financial Corp. (Birmingham, Ala.)	144,251
16.	PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (Pittsburg, Pa.)	140,026
17.	BB&T Corp. (Winston-Salem, N.C.)	$136,417
18.	TD Bank North, INC. (Portland, Maine)	118,171
19.	Fifth Third Bankcorp (Cincinatti, Ohio)	111,396
20.	Keycorp (Cleveland, Ohio)	101,596

Pure banks, I lost. However, Washington Mutual and Indymac banks were big failures as were the almost complete loss of investment banks. In green, banks that received Treasury money - some forced upon them. Also, we have some new 'banks'. It was clear that the financial sector was going to get hammered. Again, too big to fail saved some. Mostly a hit, but I can't give myself credit for stating the obvious especially when it didn't play out cleanly.

3. Obama will be sworn in as President in Jan 2009. Hillary and Bill will be divorced in 2010.

Hit on the first, we'll see on the second.

4. A series of 'minor' attacks on American soil (single bombers in crowded places) will focus Obama on terrorism....unfortunately, we will find that several of the bombers were illegals that got visas as part of the comprehensive reform passed and signed in 2009. Obama will seal the border with an overstep that will violate virtually the entire Constitution with the complete support of the American people and Congress.

Still to be seen.

5. The military withdrawal from Iraq begins to resemble a retreat under fire.

Still to be seen.

6. A small nuclear denotation in Iran signals Iran's entry into the nuclear club in early 2011.

Still to be seen - but getting closer

7. Hezbolla attacks Israel from the West Bank, Gaza (with Hamas) and Lebannon using rockets, several of which will be chemical. Israeli government will fail and only the Iran nuclear threat prevents the US from doing anything to help. Assistance from a completely unexpected source keeps the country from falling.

Israel grew a few stones this year and is making Hamas pay, but Hezebolla is gaining strength in the north. I left this open ended so I still have time.

8. Bankruptcies in the US hit 1.5 million in 2009 along with 2.5 million foreclosures.

2007-2008 hit 1.04 million. I feel pretty confident about the bk. Estimates on foreclosures put them at 1.35 so far in 2008. I may miss the foreclosures by about .5 million - however, even 2 million foreclosures is going to hurt a lot. still some time left.

9. The Democrats get a functional majority in the Senate in 2009 (with the help of several RINOs) and complete the hat trick with a functional majority in the House in 2010.

Consider this a hit on the Senate and and still time on the House - however, governing tends to hurt chances for the party in power.

10. A major financial figure will expose one, maybe two flat out lies that the media had been reporting in financial matters that leads to a rout of the dollar on international markets. Only the complicity of the EU in the lie prevents the dollar from ouster as the currency of trade.

Not yet...

11. A chemical introduced into coca in South America spreads into the cocaine trade leading to thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of addicts having serious and permanent medical disabilities that WE will have to support.

Ok, a miss - but it could happen.

12. A version of nationalized Medicare will be expanded to 50 and overs and pre-school aged children.

They are going to give a try....still waiting though.

13. In 2011, after tax cuts that were put into place in 2003 expired, the Federal revenues decline for the first time in almost 40 years.

Time not up.

So, not too bad. How did you do?

Stupid is as stupid does

2008-12-29T18:00:00.002-08:00

Someone came up to me to tell me about the horrible goings on in Palestine. I was pretty clear - "If you open your mouth to tell me about the horrible Israelis bombing the poor Palestinians, I will KNOW for a fact that you are a moron and incapable of intelligent and rational thought. So, before going any further, if you want to prove your stupidity, by all means tell me, or better yet, let me think you MIGHT be stupid and walk away now."

The response was stunned silence. I considered it a successful result.

I am tired of tolerating stupid people making stupid comments. Conservatives need to quit giving power to PCness.

Twas the night before Christmas

2008-12-21T08:38:00.002-08:00

Twas the night before Christmas and all through the Congress

Not a politician was stirring, not even the House Mistress

The earmarks were hung by the Congress with care

In hopes that Obama soon would be there.

The Conservatives were nestled all snug in their enclaves,

While visions of leadership danced in their dreams.

And McCain making mischief’ and Palin at home,

They had all just settled down for a long minority snap.

When out on the Rose Lawn there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.

Away to Windows I flew like a flash

Tore open the Twitter and threw up the mash

The rage on the breast of the new-posted blog

Gave the illusion of normalcy to objects aglow,

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,

But a miniature cabinet and eight tiny posers,

With a little bold driver, so lively and quick,

I knew in a moment it must be Daley’s young Schtick

More rapid than lobbyists his posers they came,

And he whistled and shouted and called them by name,

“Now Clinton! now, Richardson, now Daschle and a Chu

On Salazar! on Duncan! on, Solis and yes, Biden you too!

To the top of the House! To the top of the Congress!

Now shoe away, shoe away, shoe away all

As dry RINOs that before the principle fly,

When they meet with an obstacle, concede to the sky,

So up to the House-top the posers they flew,

With the black bag of tricks and Obama too.

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof

The prancing and pawing of each little goof,

As I drew in my hand and was turning around,

Down the economy came with a bound,

He was dressed all in style, from his head to his toe,

And his clothes were all absent, nar a sash nor a bow,

A bundle of promises he had flung on his back,

And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack,

His eyes – how dark and deep, his ears wiggled how scary!

His cheeks were sunken, his nose all runny!

His droll little mouth was drawn up and flat

And the jut of his chin, sharp and taut, pointed this way and that,

The stump of a cig he held tight in his teeth

and the smoke it encircled his head like a wraith,

He had broad ears and a trim little body,

That rippled when he laughed, or so I am told but not by many

He was a thin and wry, a left loony absorbed old self,

And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself,

A glare from his face, a twist of his hand,

Soon gave me to know, I had everything to dread,

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work

And filled all the promises, then turned like a jerk,

And laying his middle finger aside of his nose,

And giving a sneer, up the chimney he rose,

He sprang to the cabinet, to his team gave a shout,

And away they all flew, full of cheer and ill mirth

But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,

It’s all mine now, to all the Conservatives, good night....

Trends

2008-12-13T07:06:00.002-08:00

It is human nature to assume that what happened yesterday will happen again today. The Sun rose yesterday, my spouse loved me yesterday, I had a job yesterday. Economists have made a living and science out of the belief that what happened yesterday, can be an indication of what will happen today and tomorrow. Statistical analysis is based on the concept. Trends tend til they don't.

If a car company sells exactly 100 cars every month for 10 years, statistics will tell you (as will human nature) that it will continue to see 100 cars a month into the future. Well trained and experienced economic analysts will delve deeper into the numbers and might tell you that the company can only produce 100 cars a month and that the demand for the vehicles is greater than 100 a month, suggesting a long and profitable (assuming it has been and is now) future. But if the demand ends? What part of the analysis takes that into consideration and gives everyone an idea of the real future? What if demand falls below 100 cars a month?

I read a story on California's budget woes. In it, it said that the shortfall was getting bigger because state revenues had come in significantly worse than expected. Expected, how?

AIG needed $20 billion, then $40 billion, then $85 billion and after $150 billion still might not survive. Why?

Lehman Brothers was liquid on Tuesday, bankrupt 6 days later. Why?

GM had enough money til mid 2009, now it needs money by the end of this month. Why?

These are all examples of following trend lines that fail. Many stock investors - chart types - closely watch a stock and how it behaves around trend lines. Many will note the change in a trend line, but then look for another trend line to follow. Are ALL analysts this blind? No. But most are, and they are in corporations and government (and of course teaching all the new economist in universities).

"Woe is me". Eeyore has a character flaw. Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. Positive news just doesn't phase him much. Every event is a point on the downward trend. Those supporting the bailout of the automakers have the same character flaw. If GM declares bankruptcy, the end of the United States economy will occur. It doesn't matter that thousands of companies declared bankruptcy and SURVIVED for another day, week or decade. The trend line is down all the way to the bottom.

In all these cases, it should be noted that the trend lines changed because of events outside the analysis that established the trend lines. The Sun didn't come out. But, in many cases, looking back, we can see the break and if we are really careful, we can see why.

I believe the auto industry fall started the day car loans got extended to 30 years. Huh? You wonder what I am thinking. There are no 30 year car loans. Sure there are. When someone refinanced their home and used those extra funds to buy a car, cash, they were actually taking a 30 year loan out on the car. Everyone understands that most cars are not worth the loan the day they drive off the lot. That if they have a four or five year loan, that they will spend most of it, underwater. We accept that. But we also accept that at some point, the vehicle will be paid off and we can get a little for it. But a 30 year loan? Cars (generally) don't last 20 years, let alone 30 and therefore it will never be worth more than is owed. But, people don't see it that way. The actuality is buried in the mortgage. Others will, and have, loudly, that the legacy costs of all those retirees is what is killing GM, but it wasn't a problem when GM was profitable.

But, the issue is not the bailout or GM. It is the mindset that believes what happened yesterday will happen today - and they have the empirical evidence to prove it. Unfortunately for all concerned, reality can and often is different.

I also read today about how the decline of the US will give other countries the opportunity to take our place. China being a big candidate, but also countries with a lot of cash/funds to lend (read oil producers). I take issue with that point of view, not because I am partisan (I love my country) but because trends do not make reality. China pretends (sometimes better, sometimes worse) to be a capitalistic economy. It is not. It's ability to respond to events is limited. Oil producers will have considerably less funds if the world economy continues to fail (and they do not have a diverse economy to replace oil revenues).

I don't believe that the US can remain the source of reserve currency forever - that trend line is just like all the others - but regardless of what event occurs to change it, there has to be another currency available to take it's place - and right now, I can't see one that doesn't have the same, or worse problems than the dollar.

Where will our economy be in a year? The trend lines suggest like The War to End All Wars becoming WW1, the Great Depression will soon be known as the First Great Depression. It is possible because trends are trends, til they are not. What event or events could occur that will change the trend lines? I have two problems: I have a degree in Economics; I will only live 80 or so years. My experience and lifetime are both limited and I have no special insight into the future.

I can make some assumptions - you know, follow the trend lines - the economy is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And better does not mean like it was before. The automakers, especially GM will never be the same. Could our financial system collapse (duh...already has) into oblivion, no, but what it will look like in the future?

Next time you hear ANYONE predict the future, make sure you know what trend lines they are using.

People have been talking to us and predicting our business (consumer bankruptcy) will be booming. It is not - growing, yes, but booming? Nope. First, people are just walking away. Second, they are hoping that Obama really WILL pay their mortgages.

You can be sure of one thing Obama said: change will happen. That is a trend line that has been unbroken from the beginning.

Innocents

2008-12-05T20:17:00.002-08:00

Every time a group of Moslems engage in a heinous act, we are told that the vast majority of Moslems are peace loving and not terrorists. Every time a group of Moslems slaughter innocents, we are told that American policies contributed to the environment that lead to the mindset of the murders.

I look at Moslem nations that treat women as property. I look at Moslem nations that do not honor or even consider individual freedoms and liberties.

I look at nations where large numbers of Moslems have remained separate from the society they live in; have asked for, or demanded, recognition of Sharia law even when it directly contradicts the law of the surrounding society.

Everywhere I look, Moslem communities are violent and self-segregated. Fathers and sons killing daughters and sisters. Mumbai was savage if you can believe the reports, and given the history of beheadings, acid throwing and hangings, it is EASY to believe.

Entire nations cheer the murders. Entire societies encourage the hate, the cruelty, the murder.

I am going to take a position my Christian friends espouse: hate Islam, not the Moslem.

Either 1.1 billion Moslems rise up and take their religion back from the murders, or I will support the marginalization - the isolation - of any 'infected' communities.

Eggs and liberalism

2008-11-18T21:25:00.004-08:00

This is your brain on drugs

This is your country on liberalism

California, Prop 8 and the 'movement'

2008-11-15T19:08:00.003-08:00

When the California Supreme Court ruled that the law setting up the two separate but equal systems of civil unions and marriages was unconstitutional, I was asked my opinion by a number of people. As someone that is heavily involved in the American Conservative Party, they sought to find out how I stood.

I read the opinion and it was clear that the concept of separate but equal was unconstitutional as far as California was concerned. (I suggested it would be equally unconstitutional at the national level.)

That said, the Prop 8 movement has also provoked questions concerning my opinion, both personally and as a leader at ACP. The ACP position was clear, we had no position on a state issue. My personal opinion was equally irrelevant - I don't live in California. But, what is going on after the election, concerns me - both as someone involved in ACP and as 1/2 of a gay relationship.

I think gays have the right to be pissed off. But I have been clear for months that Americans CAN use the ballot box to marginalize, even deny rights outright, to whatever group enough of them can agree on. That Prop 8 passed and overturned the California Supreme Court is an outcome perfectly consistent with the law.

I think gays can protest, but the response has gone well over the deep end. I have been an outspoken critic of things like Pride parades that showcase the most bizarre sides of a culture that is significantly in the minority virtually everywhere. Mainstreaming gays has been a longterm goal of the average gay and every time the outrageous happens, it sets back any advances. What is going on now, is setting gays back a decade or more as people who might have been somewhat willing to accept civil unions are getting slapped back.

I have supported civil unions for years and think that it resolves most of the issues raised by gays facing discrimination in legal matters related to couples. While I disagree strongly with the concept that gays getting married redefines marriage, it is clear - and it should be respected - that many people feel that way and are strongly opposed. Change is possible, but will not happen overnight, and the protests that are going on now will destroy ANY good will those of us that have tried to be rational proponents have gained over the last several years.

The gains made in civil unions will end here. Any attempt to get them on ballots or into laws in the near future will be held up as an attempt to force the same type of situation that is going on in California. Rather than face such an outcome, people - who would be willing to support civil unions - will turn it down.

Instead of showing people that Prop 8 was turning back the clock and marginalizing gays, the post election nightmare will give strength and support for FURTHER turning back the clock.

Once again, gays have overplayed the situation and failed to realize that they are a minority and acceptance has to be given, not taken. It is impossible to claim the Pro-Prop 8 supporters were disrespectful when every single action since has been disrespectful of the voters.

I will continue to make my arguments but it is clear whatever willingness to listen was available before will be in much shorter supply in the future. And THAT has been a defeat gays brought about themselves.

Voting process

2008-11-04T09:15:00.002-08:00

I was talking with CJ this morning about not voting for someone when she sought some clarification, she asked:

"So, there are 4 boxes...Obama, McCain, Not Obama and Not McCain?"

So, here was her idea. You can vote for Obama or McCain, but if you vote for Not Obama or Not McCain, then one vote is deducted from the total.

Tracy

Privacy

2008-11-03T06:15:00.002-08:00

Over the last year I have had numerous arguments/debates/discussions concerning individual rights. In every conversation that I discuss the idea that the individual is sovereign, I get complete agreement ... until....

The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Until we to abortion. Then, the individual is not sovereign. The individual is a surrogate, a slave to the child. Everyone objects to that characterization, but if a mother's actions are limited to benefit another, against her will.

You can argue this point if you wish, but let me discuss some practicalities.

Human life amendment: can not be enforced as long as Roe v Wade stands. And overturning Roe v Wade would require several things - ONE of which I doubt anyone wants to have happen: overturning the right to privacy.

Overturning Roe v Wade will not be overturned without cases being brought before it. Eight conservative judges will not wake up on the first day of a session and say, 'hey, the past was wrong, we are just going to toss Roe v Wade out'. It will not happen. So, what kind of cases have to be brought? Privacy issues.

The alternate is that, so far, any attempt by a state to make abortion illegal that does not have a 'life or health of the mother' clause has been tossed by the court.

Remember a certain argument I made several months ago when first discussing here our rights. Any sufficiently large number of Americans, with purpose held long enough, can deny the rights of others. Slavery can reintroduced, free speech eliminated. It is possible for Americans to deny the rights of others. Legally.

One of the issues often raised by conservatives is consequences. What would be the consequences of making abortion illegal. Most that argue for that outcome are quick to point out that they will not make the mother criminal. How that position can be reconciled - IT CAN'T - with any support for a strong support for laws, is beyond my ability. Those that have argued with me have told me they would arrest the doctor for murder. RU-486 and other types of abortive drugs would be banned. Of course, we can not ban abortion or drug availability in other countries - but that doesn't bother some, anyone that leaves pregnant and comes back not is guilty...what punishment they want in those cases is usually left unstated.

If the mother can not be allowed to have an abortion, what about actions that could be reasonably thought to cause spontaneous abortion? No one wants to go there, but a few have suggested that overt acts should be illegal. In other words, actions that can cause abortion would be made illegal.

Overturn Roe v Wade, lose the right to privacy. Make abortion illegal, you significantly infringe upon the mother's rights. These seem to be irrelevant, and many will tell you that we would never go so far. Really? I doubt it. Because the same people (often) that will tell you that gay marriage is a slippery slope don't seem to think that banning abortion has a similar slope.

And finally, where are those that oppose abortion on adoption. There are 50,000 kids awaiting adoption in this country. There is no mass movement on the right to address this life issue. Victoria and I became foster parents. Of the 15 couples and women that were in our training group, 2 were 'conservative'.

I oppose abortion. I think it is wrong. I oppose smoking, most drinking and all illegal drug use. My opinion is not enough. The individual is sovereign. And until a child is viable, the ONLY individual we have is the mother.

Corrupt flesh

2008-10-27T17:38:00.003-07:00

The question is simple:

How does a political system which all but eliminates anyone with even a slight hint of corruption from attaining political office - create office holders that apparently are corrupt to the core?

Whiplash

2008-10-24T18:37:00.002-07:00

If you were expecting a post about the stock market...sorry. I got on an elevator today but it was going up, I wanted to go down. The nice lady that pushed the button said that I would have to go up with them before being able to go down. I told her I was in the stock market and I was getting used to the up and down. We all laughed.

Fortunately I am NOT in the stock market otherwise it would have been the laugh of a desperate woman.

No, I am talking about the election. The previous post noted that the Obama supporters were no longer (if they ever were) interested in logic, reason, or even reality.

But, here is a prediction: John McCain by 51.6%

Why am I picking that number? It just came to me - but the reason for the prediction is less arbitary. A couple I have known for decades, who have never voted for anything BUT a democrat, told me they couldn't do it. They couldn't vote for Obama and their list of reasons is almost a rehash of the post below.

I think the pro-historical vote is going to get hammered by the 'you got to be kidding' group. I have argued on this blog for years that the average American - the Moderate Mainstream - is more conservative that anyone gives it credit for - but more than that, the mainstream of America is much smarter than most give them credit for.

I believe that McCain, a weak candidate, has more substance in his shadow than Obama does in his suit. 8 years ago the left was talking about gravitas. Notice they are not now? Not only does Obama lack gravitas, I am not sure he even has ....well, have you noticed a lack of jokes about his 'manliness'?

And the slams against Sarah Palin are backfiring on two fronts: conservatives are getting pissed that 'conservative = moron'. We knew were were being mocked and demeaned, but calling Sarah a moron is like saying Brett Favre was never more than a third string quarterback. On it's face, the comment is stupid. Second, honest women are getting their 'feminism' handed to them with a kick in the ass out the door. It is quite clear that 'woman' is not nearly as important as 'liberal'. Honorable democratic women that believed the Democrats really were more concerned with their issues are finding themselves not only on the outs, but dismissed as little airheads. They are not liking what they are seeing.

I have been told that McCain chose Palin to 'pander' to women. I disagree, but even if he did, it wouldn't have worked if Hillary had been treated with respect. Dem women compromised themselves for Bill Clinton and expected Hillary to be the price paid to give them back some of their dignity. They were thrown under the bus as fast as Obama could do so.

The democrats have pissed of 52% of the electorate to pander to 12%. And on November 4th, I think it will pay off....for McCain.