Recently in Politics Category

You know things are running amuck when the only difference between the response of San Fransisco Democratic Senator Pelosi and Texas Republican President Bush to Detroit automakers lining up for a bailout too is in deciding which particular taxpayer-provided funds should be used to do the bailing.

A pox on all their houses! The farther we get into this fiscal mess, the worse our government decision-making is getting regarding it!

Frankly, Detroit is beyond being able to be bailed out. And I'm highly offended at the very idea of helping the big 3 U.S. carmakers continue to pay their workers more per hour than I or most other taxpayers funding any such bailout make ourselves, particularly since it would only help them build more cars I'd never be willing to buy at any price.

Update:
This article explains precisely WHY bailing out Detroit automakers costs jobs rather than saving them.
" Making bad, uneconomic investments in failing industries does not, on balance, preserve jobs; it tends to destroy more jobs - and more good jobs - than it saves.

Anyone who thinks that giving money to a company losing 2-3 billion dollars a month -- with overpaid workers and overpaid executives - would usually save jobs in the long run, rather than lose them, doesn't understand economics."

This sure sounds about right "It is ironic that in 2008 we probably have two of the most honest and decent men running for president that we have had in a long time, and yet this has easily been the most corrupt election in my lifetime."

We won't know for a couple more hours who won the election, but in my opinion, the long-term loser is printed and broadcast media, neither of whom I consider worth another second of my time, so horrendously have they failed in their primary job throughout the entire campaign season.

Case in point: "Sheen, of Lincoln, Nebraska, says his vote is coming down to one issue: abortion. Sheen says he's "definitely pro-life" and he's trying to decide whether Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain is more in line with his views." You gotta ask yourself how it is possible any voter whose only election issue is abortion could fail throughout two entire years to learn which of two candidates whose positions regarding abortion are widely known more closely matches that voter's views. On the other hand, perhaps even a properly-performing media wouldn't have helped educate this particular person. As the old joke says, "There's no cure for stupid."

On the bright side, as already noted, we had honest and decent candidates this time, which hasn't always been the case. May God bless the winner with wisdom and courage to lead us well, the humility to realize they need help, and all of us the grace to give the victor a fair chance, rather than immediately resuming the whining that made the last decade so miserable politically..

Update: Thankfully, the election is over, and mostly decided by a margin beyond fraud. I'm thrilled America has progressed to the point of being able to elect a non-caucasian president with even less drama than I remember being focused on the fact that J.F.K. was a Catholic back in 1960.

One of the things I'll never do again is donate to a political candidate. The resulting solicitations for more donations were bad enough, but what really got my attention was folks at the University suggesting everyone hunt down those who donated for non-left-wing candidates, via public records of donations, and make their lives miserable.

Turns out others have also noticed this kind of intolerance:

Here's an Instapundit poll on how folks feel about a Seattle Web site called "The Stranger" posting the addresses of people displaying Republican yard signs.

This comment, by Tell Sackett explains the results:
"My property abuts a busy highway. It is a great place for signs, but I don't put any up. I know from experience that a sign for a conservative cause or candidate will cause my property to be trashed for 24-48 hours and then the sign will be torn down. Democrat candidates routinely place signs on my property without permission. I take those down. No republican candidate has ever done that. Likewise, no stickers are displayed on my car. I don't like the obscene gestures and reckless driving displays they engender among the moonbat drivers and I am tired of returning to my car in a parking lot to find it nicked, scratched and bashed by the enthusiastic opponents of my chosen candidates. I also don't wear buttons or anything else on my person identifying my political persuasion. I've noted the faces of friendly pierced baristas down at the coffee sharp darken with rage at the sight of a McCain-Palin button. I don't trust these people to handle my food and, frankly, I don't need the stress from the constant negative vibe. In fact, I don't even express my opinion verbally, so long has it been since I had an intelligent, civil conversation with a democrat. I don't take calls from pollsters. I really don't have the time and I think the polls are deliberately skewed and used to mislead anyway. Besides, I want my candidates to make up their own minds on policy and not shift with the wind. But I do vote.

I am an invisible conservative voter. I have no 1st Amendment rights. My demographic goes unmeasured until election day. I know there are a lot of people like me , but of course I don't have any idea how many exactly. We'll find out on Tuesday. It may come as a surprise."

What's funny about this is that my sister-in-law moved to Seattle because it is such a tolerant area. But she's a fervent Democrat, so perhaps for her it really is....

As I've said before, of all the freedoms we enjoy, the single most important may be the right to a secret ballot. (So naturally that too is under attack by union advocates of "card check" union elections, that would make it all too easy for thugs to threaten those who haven't yet made what the thugs consider the correct choice.)

Is anyone else sick of the constant media attacks on Sarah Palin? Personally, I'm offended by both the attacks on Sarah Palin for being a woman, and by those on John McCain for being old. Clearly someone has forgotten that both women and old folks vote! On the bright side, I've been very pleased by the lack of racial animus in this election. As others have noted, about the only time the race card has been played this year has been when the Obama campaign itself has chosen to do so.

But getting back to the attacks we have been seeing, against Sarah Palin, I'm afraid we've entered a "Pravda" era - one in which the broadcast and printed media publish only propaganda. In such an era, truth can be found in such publications and broadcasts only indirectly.

For instance, I'm now sure Sarah Palin is proving to be an effective candidate. If she weren't, she'd simply be ignored by the mainstream media. But she's not being ignored. Rather, she's been attacked constantly and in every possible way ever since her nomination, in a way that is rarely tolerated against Democrats. (Unfortunately, the same folks did the same hatchet job on Hillary last Spring.) That tells me Sarah (like Hillary) is doing a wonderful job of getting out her message.

One other manifestation of the "Pravda" era in our media now is that I really can't tell who's ahead in this election. The media proclaimed Barack Obama the winner back in January, and haven't slacked off in that opinion since. Likewise, polls the media chooses to discuss agree on Obama being ahead. But those polls were amazingly wrong during some of the primaries this year, particularly when they proclaimed Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton in various states Hillary ended up winning.

The great unknown in this election cycle is how many Democratics who supported Hillary will vote for Sarah.

It ain't over til it's over. And either way, hopefully for Sarah it's just the beginning.

Update: Helen McCaffrey (director of Women's Watch, Inc.) is also offended by the attacks on both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.
"I cannot predict who will win the presidential campaign, but I already know who will lose big: all women.

Agreement on issues is not required, but Palin merits respect."

Update2: The election is over, and Palin lost, but the attacks still haven't ended. Allegedly-Republican sources are even now attacking Sarah via the all-too-happy-to-repeat-such-venom-from-anonymous-sources mainstream media. My guess is that this is intended as a pre-emptive strike, to prevent her having a chance to run again, by folks from both parties who consider themselves better than "hillbillies from Wasilla." Given that Obama too is from "flyover country", our self-ordained "betters" in DC, NYC & LA may want to curb their retoric while there's still anyone left who cares what they have to say about anything.

There are already many theories as to why Republicans failed this time, but to me it's been obvious for a couple of years that big government, pork barrel spending and intolerance are not winning issues for Republicans, and not good for our country either long-term. Sarah Palin is part of the answer to that.

Tom Coburn, one of the few remaining Republicans in Congress for whom I retain respect offers a similar explanation here, along with a reminder to reach across the aisle.:
"conservatives should be the first to accept the olive branch President-elect Obama has extended to the opposition and help him achieve results in the areas where we agree, such as the need to review the budget line by line and eliminate programs that don't work.

Conservatives need not despair because our ideas never go out of fashion. America was founded on a healthy distrust of activist government. Today, conservatives stand ready to remind the public why it's better to err on the side of too little government rather than too much."

Update3: The New York Times now admits the infamous attack on Sarah Palin's not knowing Africa is a continent was a hoax, a hoax in which they and other liberal media were all too eager to believe, just as when an obviously-faked memo was used in the previous election to try and claim President Bush avoided military service. Here's the interesting story from the NYT blog on how the Palin hoax was created. Interesting how the mainstream media seems to be belatedly discovering their conscience, now that their anointed candidate is safely headed for the White House.

Update4: A lingering mystery from the recent election is why John McCain is still defending Barack Obama against provably-true charges regarding Obama's choice of friends and pastor, yet not defending his own running mate Sarah Palin against even proven-false charges.

Update5: This seems exactly right to me.
"From the beginning of '08, the accepted wisdom was that no matter whom the Democrats nominated, they would deliver to the Republicans an ignominious defeat. But this year's defeat was anything but the complete rout it was supposed to be.

When asked to choose among some of the GOP's top names for their choice for the party's 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin."

One of the great mysteries of our time is how professional journalism degenerated from being a major defender of truth, justice and the American way to just another auxiliary of the Democratic Party.

I'm glad to report this loss of one of the pillar of Democracy also bothers honest Democrats such as author and columnist Orson Scott Card.

Card offers a wonderful way for partisan Democratic journalists to reclaim their journalistic heritage -- when deciding whether to avoid writing a story unfavorable to the candidate or party they favor, ask whether they'd do the same if it were about another party, and if they would write about such a scandal regarding Republicans, then be honest enough to also write when Democrats are involved.

Card offers a prime example of such a story:
"This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis."

Journalism is paying the price of their shame in declining circulation and viewership. If their product is just propaganda anyway, who needs to even read it? I no longer subscribe to any such publications, and no longer watch TV.

The other mystery here for me is why Republicans don't fund more competing news organizations to redress this. At minimum, those of us who decry this decline can help by funding those individual journalists honest enough to tell the truth about unpopular topics. As the P.J. O'Rourke saying goes "You get more of what you pay for."

Update: Here are similar sentiments from Michael S. Malone, a 4th. generation journalist, lamenting the death of his profession:
"The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber. Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a Presidential candidate. So much for the Standing Up for the Little Man, so much for Speaking Truth to Power, so much for Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by."

This (Why I'm Concerned About an Obama Victory) seems about right.
"The combination of united government and a major economic crisis is likely to lead to a great expansion of government, just as it did on several previous occasions such as the 1930s.
...
I understand, of course, that none of this is a problem for those who want a major expansion of government power or are at least indifferent to it. But I do think it should be of concern to those libertarians or small government conservatives who welcome an Obama victory. It should also matter to moderates and liberals who recognize that massive expansions of government power in a time of crisis provide major opportunities for abuses of power and interest group power grabs at the expense of the general public - both of which happened on a large scale during the Great Depression."

Voting this time around as one who doesn't care about left (conservative) versus right (progessive), but who does care about wanting less (Libertarian) rather than more (can't think of a non-perjorative name for this one) government, what I can't be happy with is having all the power in one party that believes in increasing the scope of government.

Though correlation is not causation, one possible partial explanation for what happened to the stock market this week is that investors have just figured out the implications of putting people who think like FDR in complete filibuster-proof control of our Federal government.

I don't fear the word "depression" as it applies to Economics. It's just a technical term for three or more consecutive quarters of economic downturn. Our nation had lots of them throughout the 1800s, and we're way past due for another.

What I do fear is the consequences of putting the same bunch that got us into our current mess in filibuster-proof charge of finding a solution, when most of them have never taken even an introductory course in Economics.

What made the Great Depression a decade-long disaster, rather than just another speed bump on the way to prosperity, was all the counter-productive things done by political leaders in the name of solving the problem.

John F. Kennedy was the first American president to have taken a course in Economics, and we all benefited from that as he led skillfully during the recession of 1962. Sadly, neither of this year's candidates has taken such a class, and that may have unfortunate and lasting consequences for us all, no matter which is elected in November.

Here's a short article by Roger Kimball about my home area of Chicago that suggests serious trouble both now and in the near future:
"* In the last six months, 292 people were murdered in Chicago.
* In the same period, there were 183 Americans casualties in Iraq.

* The Illinois State pension fund is $44 billion in debt. That's the worst in the country. Thanks, folks!
* Cook County, wherein Chicago sits, not only put JFK in the White House back in 1960 by encouraging everyone, dead or alive, to vote early and vote often, but it also has the highest sales tax in the United STates: 10.25 percent.
* Meanwhile, the Chicago school system is one of the worst in the country."

I've been joking that Illinois will go for Obama even if every dead person in Chicago has to vote five times. Behind that is a conversation I had as an election judge a few years ago with a fellow election judge about how he had personally been sent out to graveyards on election day in 1960 to find hundreds of votes for JFK. He could tell me that freely because the statute of limitations had run out. So far as I can tell, nothing in our area has changed since to prevent a recurrence.

I'm definitely finding other places to shop, now that my county has the highest sales tax in the country, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

I wonder where those missing pension dollars will be found, given that they are guaranteed by the Illinois constitution? There's no point blaming most of the state employees; they put up their share of pension contributions. It's our state government that never actually got around to funding pensions properly, even back when Republicans were in charge in Springfield.

There's also been some obvious abuse by entities goosing up the last year of pay of favored state employees, since the pension is somewhat based on the final salary. There was an effort this year to require such entities to personally kick in any added pension costs for such goosing, but I don't recall that reform effort succeeding.

One recent ray of hope in IL was State Senator James Meeks' effort this fall to bus poor kids from the south side to rich northern suburbs to call attention to the educational plight of city kids. I haven't seen any actual results from the campaign yet, but it's great to see even some Democrats now see school choice as good for kids otherwise forced into the worst schools.

We fostered one of those kids last fall, and it was amazing how much better he did in a suburban school When he arrived in October, he was a second grader who couldn't count to ten. Two months later, he'd advanced a year educationally - doing first grade level work, but the most telling fact for me was that when he went back into Chicago schools they put him in an honors class in his original grade! If that's typical, no wonder Meeks wants those kids educated anywhere else.

One of the folks at the University asks "at what point did the Washington Crowd - which I have to assume means the Republican Party, since last I checked they held the Office of President for the past 8 years, and the Congress for 14 or the last 16 years (recall Newt Gingrich and Republican "take-over" of Congress back in 1994?) - at what point did they quit being the party of Main Street, and become the party of Wall Street?"

My answers would be:
1) starting in about 2004. Many of us who consider ourselves "Porkbusters" figure the "outside reformer" Republicans elected to Congress in 1994 became indistinguishable from the corrupt porkers they were elected to replace after about a decade in DC. Though many DC Republicans still pretend not to believe it, that corruption had a lot to do with their being routed in the 2006 elections (not that Democrats proved any less fond of pork.) John McCain's continuing reputation as a small government fiscal conservative is a big reason traditional Republicans support him (despite differences with him on other issues) over anyone else from the DC establishment this year.

2) My impression is that Wall Streeters are at least as likely to be throwing money at Democrats as Republicans. One of the interesting things about the current crisis on Wall Street is how hard it is proving for the usual suspects to howl about evil Capitalists due to their own involvement via campaign contributions, advisors, etc.

It may be that Republicans are no longer the party of Main street. It's certainly also true that they are no longer the party of the rich.

3) Personally, I think the problem may be with DC itself - full of unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists whose behavior changes remarkably little as which party is in power changes. A book I once read by Hugh Hewitt "In but not of" suggests most of the power in this country is concentrated in three cities: New York for money, Washington DC for law, and Los Angeles for culture. I remember thinking as I read those words, that we might be better off without all three.

4) In short, I'm not interested in trying to blame this on one party. Rather, I merely want to ensure there is a market solution to this market problem. I don't mind if the Federal Reserve facilitates things, as happened last week, but will very much mind if our government ends up using my money to bail out everyone who placed bad bets on the economy, just as I will mind if all the corrupt politicians whose greed led them to fail in their role of fiscal oversight survive the current crisis.

I've just finished Barack Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope", and have to admit that for a political book it's not bad. Clearly Senator Obama has thought deeply and carefully about many of the same issues I value, and clearly he understands and appreciates the legitimate points made by folks on multiple sides of each issue. In the end, only one thing about the book truly disappointed me, and that's the Senator's actual votes after all the careful listening and thought. I frequently found myself wondering why he bothered to do all this thinking and understanding, when in the end he votes with his party on almost every issue.

To give just one example, Senator Obama explains the importance of original intention in Constitutional law, and then adds that he voted against confirming all the nominees to the Supreme Court who might hold such views. It's pretty hard to reach across the aisle and compromise with someone who, though they fully understand and respect what is important to you, never actually support you at voting time.

A fellow-moderate friend suggested at lunch today that Obama may simply lack the courage of his convictions. If true, that would be unfortunate, as we live in a tough world certain to test the mettle of our next President. In my opinion, it would be further unfortunate, in that Senator Obama inspires enough loyalty in his supporters to lead in useful new directions, rather than only along already-failing paths.

Florida friend Larry recently wrote me as follows "One of the odder things I heard this summer is that the reason it is getting cooler this summer is because of global warming. Only someone who believe that Al Gore has their best interests at heart would believe global cooling is caused by global warming" to which I replied as follows:

"One constant throughout my life has been that no matter what happens, with the weather, or really with anything at all, a large group of would-be nannies is right there to claim it was caused by some bad behavior by folks like me, that can only be fixed by handing all the levers of power to them and their friends so they can take better care of us than we are obviously capable of on our own.

Having already lived in a condo, the one thing I know for sure is that I do not want to give such people any power at all."

With Hurricane Gustav headed for the U.S. coast tonight, one of the best suggestions I've heard for how the Republican party should respond at their convention is by showing America what individual Americans themselves can do to help out in a disaster, rather than sitting around talking about how someone else (in the government) should do something.

One of the worst comments is Michael Moore's "I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven..." Another was the similar earlier suggestion by Stuart Shephard that viewers of a weekly video pray for rain during Barack Obama's acceptance speech for the Democratic party presidential nomination.

I learned long ago not to pray about weather. In my first day on the job after seminary, the congregation had just endured a huge flood, and asked me to pray for rain to stop. I did, and it did - for so long that folks feared for their crops and asked me to pray for rain. I did, and floods immediately returned. At that point, I was sure of only one thing - I was done praying about weather!

It isn't that God can't rain on Republican convention plans. It's rather that even asking for such a thing is as Barack Obama might say "way above my pay grade." Only God knows the full implications of weather, and His comment on the topic was that He "sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (MT 5:45)"

Mark Satin has just written an extremely interesting and insightful article for his Radical Middle Newsletter on this non-obvious premise: The Bible is our one essential political book - and we need it now more than ever.

In his article, Mark describes his own recent first and second reading of the Bible, and what he sees of value in it for all of us.

Right away, Mark lists five reasons for the importance of the Bible today:
-- It asks all the important questions that need to be asked (and answered) before we can move wisely into the 21st century. . .
-- It provides a place where left and right can meet, dialogue, learn.
-- It tells difficult truths about human nature.
-- It reminds us of our positive human potential.
-- It calls us to new and better political perspectives.

Further, Mark is sure he's not alone:
"According to Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow, traditional forms of community may be disappearing - but support groups are arising to take their place. About 40% of American adults are involved in support groups at this time . . . and about 44% of those are involved in groups that are described by participants partly or entirely as 'Bible study groups.'
In other words, 17.6% of all American adults - about 40 million people - are engaged in Bible study at this time.
Support groups 'seldom make the headines,' Wuthnow says. 'They are not the stuff that reporters care much about.' But that doesn't mean they're not out there, deeply influencing the culture - including the political culture"

Mark continues with many profound specific insights. Here's one I found particularly interesting, having just read an entire book about the Exodus that neglected to make this simple and (once you think about it) obvious point:
"John Buehrens, former head of the Unitarian Universalist Association, summarizes one take on Exodus as follows:
1. Wherever you live, it is probably Egypt [i.e., Bad - ed.]
2. There is a better place, a world more fair, full of promise and hope
3. The way to it is through the wilderness. There is no other way to get from here to there except by the hard way, being tested as we go "

As always, read the whole thing. And while you're at Mark's site, be sure to also look around for other gems, such as this one from four months ago.

Despite numerous warnings from the blogosphere and former donors over the past three years, Republicans in Congress seem utterly determined not to learn the obvious lesson from any of the many elections they have recently lost, as recently as the Mississippi special election yesterday. It's the pork, stupid! People vote for Republicans, above all else to get limited, honest, economical government. Unfortunately, there are only a few such Republicans left in Congress, with most of the rest indistinguishable from Democrats in their fondness for corrupt and ever-growing government spending.

Congress critters are fond of pointing out that earmarks don't really matter because they total such a small part of the overall Federal budget. But that only a tiny fraction of Republicans are willing to give even that tiny part of the total up, despite all the lost elections in recent years speaks volumes about why voters no longer see a reason to believe Republican claims to be more conservative fiscally than Democrats.

Ironically, John McCain, who fervent Republicans love to paint as not a real Republican, is one of the true fiscal conservatives left in Congress. He and Barack Obama co-sponsored a moratorium on earmarks this year that unfortunately went nowhere, even among Republicans. Too bad, as that could and should have been a great campaign issue for them this year. Instead, we now see fiscally-conservative Democrats being elected to replace Republican porkers, and former Republican campaign contributors refusing to pony up even one more dime to their party until it returns to its small government fiscally-conservative roots.

The disaster looming for Republicans this fall can yet be turned around. It wasn't all that long ago that folks were predicting the demise of the Democratic Party after the '94 election rout. But though Democratic votors may tolerate corrupt and wasteful spending by their candidates, by and large Republican voters do not. If Republicans in Congress continue to refuse to learn that lesson, they too may face a rout this Fall, and deservedly so. Unfortunately, if that happens, they may have many decades in which to regret their greed and folly as Democrats happily establish new bureaucracies that can never be eliminated, and nominate judges to make up in creative interpretations for whatever laws Congress cannot quite manage to pass.

Sadly, it reminds me of all the times I've seen morbidly-obese folks at all-you-can-eat buffets, literally killing themselves, yet unwilling to show even the tiniest restraint. Having started down that road myself, I know how hard it is to turn such habits around. But the potential rewards are also great, both for actual and fiscal dieters.

Update: Politico offers six ways the GOP can save itself:
1. Get a clue: "...Mitt Romney says it should be a modern edition of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America." ... Voters no longer think lean government, smart and strong defense, and good old-fashioned family values when they think Republican. They think reckless spenders, misguided war and hypocrisy."
2. Cut the ****: "You can't run on family values when you don't practice them. "
3. Beg for help: (I consider this idea hopeless until the party steps away from the pork. Who's still stupid enough to give more money to this moneyholic?)
4. Burn the Bush: (Um, he's not running, so why mention him at all? Everyone already knows McCain isn't a Bush clone.)
5. Change the pitch -- and your face: "The image of the white men's club needs to go, too, says Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty."
6. Fan the fear: "Republican officials privately urge lawmakers to whack their opponents whenever they can for worrying more about coddling terrorist suspects than condemning them, failing to support U.S. troops, exhibiting weakness in dealing with dictators, and rushing to a quick Iraq exit that could put U.S. servicemen and women at risk. Polls still show GOP strength on national security and fighting terrorism -- at least when compared with their lousy numbers on domestic issues."

Update2: Republicans in Congress continue trying to lose our votes this Fall by helping Democrats pass a horribly bloated "farm" bill this week despite it having been vetoed by President Bush as wasteful.

Update3: John McCain, on the other hand, clearly "gets it." His nomination of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as Veep is, as many have said, a "game changer." She shares his interest in clean frugal government, and admirably addresses points 1, 2 & 5 above. The Republican base is thrilled to support her, and isn't it interesting just how quickly and easily anti-woman statements flow out of Democratic commenters this campaign season, regardless of whether the woman involved is Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton?

Update4: Similar thoughts from Victor David Hanson today: "...conservatives committed two suicidal acts. One, they discredited tax cuts, which under George Bush clearly brought in more aggregate revenue and primed the economy. Had we balanced budgets by spending restraint, no politicians would now dare to suggest the answers for our present budget woes were to be found in higher taxes.

Second, conservatives grew the size of the government. Perhaps No Child Left Behind or the Medicare Prescription Drug supplement was felt to be necessary to ensure bipartisan congressional support for the unpopular Iraq War, perhaps not. But when a conservative grows the size of government, he not only suffers the wage of hypocrisy, but he wins the additional charge of encouraging all others to do the same."

Long-time readers may recall I used to have an entry supporting Condoleeza Rice for President in 2008. I deleted the entry once it became clear she had no interest in running for President. However, according to this article, she is interested in running for Vice-President. So, Condi for Veep!

For those who care about competence and character, she has both in abundance. For those who like inspiring stories of achievement despite obstacles, she's been there and done that. For those who want to support someone other than another old white man, she's none of those three.

Thanks to Instapundit for the link. His comment is priceless: "And it's probably good for McCain if a potential running mate has more actual experience than both of his potential opponents put together."

Update: Looks like John McCain gets it! His choice of Sarah Palin for Veep was masterful in solving many of both his own and his party's problems. And from the continuous venom directed at Palin by Democrats and their pet media ever since, it's clear they realize just how thoroughly she threatens their smooth easy path back to presidential power.

Even the onset of a deep recession may not be enough to overcome the brilliance of McCain's choice, especially if voters are smart enough to realize that with Congress controlled by Democrats in recent years, it's just silly to blame only President Bush for the current downturn.

And don't even get me started on the absolute stupidity of nominating Joe Biden as veep for the Democrats...

Gateway Pundit has a nice summary of recent comments by Geraldine Ferraro about Barack Obama. For anyone who missed them first time around, "A Hillary Clinton adviser has resigned over her comment that Barack Obama would not be ahead in the race for the White House if he were not black."

Ferraro, Fritz Mondale's choice for Vice President during his doomed 1984 Presidential campaign, then violated the first rule of holes (when you're in one, stop digging) by adding "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" Actually, that was a day or two ago, and she hasn't stopped digging yet, but that's enough to give us the general picture.

One thing I like about the Italian women I've known is that they are spunky and opinionated. However, they are not always correct in their opinions. This is one of those times. And I include Gateway Pundit in that criticism, along with some other more right-of-center blogs, because their coverage of this issue indicates they agree with Ferraro's comments.

I don't.

Whether this is just Ferraro's opinion, or one quietly solicited by Clintonian need to keep the race issue alive in the weeks leading up to the PA primary, I find it extremely offensive for both Ferraro and other whites to continue suggesting Obama's skin color is somehow a huge and undeserved advantage. I suspect they will eventually discover most everyone other than some persons of pallor is also offended.

Many white folks have this persistent delusion that the playing field is now level, or even tilted in favor of non-whites. I'll confirm my rebuttal of that to just this: how fair is it for a poor non-white kid to be forced to attend an awful inner city school and then compete for admission to a good college with a rich white kid who attended New Trier? Even if the other kid gets in due to an unfair-in-their-favor racial set-aside, they still aren't even unless and until they manage to make up for all they didn't learn before that they will need to graduate with a meaningful degree.

What I like most about Obama is that his candidacy offers a chance for our nation to move beyond its centuries-long nightmare of failed race relations. What I absolutely despise about Clintonian politics in this matter is that they appear to be intentionally keeping the monster of racism on life support in hopes it will pave their path back to power.

That may or may not be behind Ferraro's comments. But I am not encouraged to read Hillary Clinton has only "distanced" herself from Ferraro's comments, rather than denouncing them forcefully as her husband wisely once did similarly-offensive comments by Sister Souljah.

If I were black, I'd be hopping mad about a serious contender for the leadership of the party favored by most who look like me selling a generation of our votes down the river for short term advantage in one election.

If I were a Democratic party leader, I'd be seriously concerned about permanently losing the safest 10% of my party's supporters.

For Republicans, this would be a wonderful time to either support Obama against such slurs or at least shut up, so that if blacks are offended enough to leave Hillary's party, at least no one has barred the door to their choosing your alternative.

Update: Hillary Clinton came close to a useful apology on this issue today, according to this article:
"I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn't speak for the campaign, she doesn't speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee."

That's in contrast to the non-apology apology she also offered for Bill Clinton's similarly-divisive earlier comments in SC: "You know I am sorry if anyone was offended."

Update2: Has anyone else noticed the convenient timing of this past week's revelations about the views of Obama's pastor? I've heard enough black pastors and anti-American college profs that I'm not shocked about Wright's views. I do disagree with them, which actually got me in trouble back in seminary when I was assigned to read a book by James Cone and failed to properly genuflect before the altar of liberation theology.

More recently, I've had to simply agree to disagree with black speakers at our church who forgive every racist comment by a non-white by claiming only whites have power, and therefore only whites can be racists --arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, if you ask me. Whether the juicier comments of a James Cone or a Jeremiah Wright are racist, or merely bigoted seems a useless distinction.

What I want to know now is, who saved up those You Tube clips of Wright until needed to focus our attention away from Ferraro's comments? I'm guessing it wasn't the "vast right wing conspiracy", but might have been the person who coined that phrase. "Swiftboating" doesn't just originate on the right any more. (Note: unlike many progressives, I consider the Swiftboat charges against Kerry to be true, and appropriate discussion points in a campaign. I also consider the current You Tube sermon snippets to be true and appropriate discussion points in the current campaign. They may very well tell us something we need to know about Obama's true views, just as the Swiftboat vets reminded those who hadn't heard them the first time around about Kerry's anti-military activism during the Viet Nam era.)

I'm pretty sure I'll end up voting for McCain in the fall, but equally sure that he won't carry my state. And forced to choose among those either of whom probably would carry my state this fall, I still support Obama over Hillary.

For all the dirt we already know about Hillary's character and actions, it's clear we haven't reached bottom yet. For instance, she asks Obama to disclose more about his financial dealings while continuing not to disclose her own. She asks about Obama's shady associate now on trial as though she didn't have one of her own also now on trial. It finally dawned on me this week, that just as Obama had to share some of Pastor Wright's views to be part of his church for twenty years, Hillary has to share some of the less-admirable character traits of her husband to have put up with Bill all these years.

The Illinois primary for the 2008 Presidential election is only three weeks away, and for once may actually matter in who gets elected, but I haven't even decided which party's ballot I want to take this year. It's unusual for me to be so indecisive, but frankly there isn't a candidate in the bunch other than perhaps Obama that I'm sure I'd want to have over to my house for dinner. That makes me less interested than usual in even forming an opinion about them.

On the Democratic side, I like Obama, but disagree completely with his views on Iraq. I dislike Hillary, and don't believe a word she says about Iraq even though her words are closer to my position than any of the other Democrats, I also dislike John Edwards, who seems by far the biggest hypocrite of the three. Note: I also disagree with all three of them on many issues. The biggest benefit for me from taking a Democratic ballot would be if it finally got my name off all the Republican mail lists I've tried to opt out of for years.

On the Republican side, I like Thompson's words, but know little else about him and won't bother learning more until he wins a primary somewhere. McCain is a moderate and great for the war on terror, but differs with me on several important issues, including immigration and campaign finance. Giuliani is also a moderate, and I admire his "broken window" theory of cleaning up New York and his views on the war on terror, but know little else about him and again won't learn more unless he wins a primary somewhere. Huckabee and I share the virtue of having lost a lot of weight and managing to keep it off afterwards, and he's a fellow Evangelical, though a whole lot too public about that for either my own taste or his own chances in November. Apart from that he seems as much a "big government" guy as any of the Democrats (or our current president for that matter), and I don't want either the Democratic or the Republican version of big government anywhere near me. I also still have a really bad taste in my mouth from having voted for the Evangelical who turned out to be our worst president ever (Jimmy Carter in 1976.) Romney is another moderate; I remember liking his dad some when he was running. He's apparently a wonk, along the lines of BIll Clinton, but without the moral baggage. I wonder about the street-smarts of anyone who can believe in what seems to me to be a made-up religion.

One interesting thing about the above list is that once the mud-slinging begins in earnest, there will be no shortage of large targets. Rarely has America fielded an array of contenders with such obvious moral failings. As a character-first voter, that makes my job of deciding all the harder.

My prayer is for God to guide the process, and give us the wisdom to select as He would, ending up not with the poor leadership we likely deserve, but the good leadership we so obviously need. If in the process we can also begin to heal some of the wounds of the past generation of political civil war, that would be a bonus.

Update as of 1/19/08:
Looks like Edwards is no longer in the running, except for veep on the Democratic side. Interesting that the media is calling Hillary the winner of today's caucus in Nevada even though Obama got more delegates.

An article reporting McCain's win in South Carolina today reminded me McCain is one of the good guys when it comes to trying to rein in Federal spending. Romney won today in Nevada. Both of them are generally considered to be of good moral character. McCain is also (alone of this bunch) an actual wartime hero.

Update2: We had a really good Martin Luther King, Jr. weekend service today in which our pastor reminded us of all the ways the playing field still isn't level, and several ways whites still make it hard for non-whites to compete fairly. And as he talked I got increasingly upset at things that have been happening to Obama during the current campaign -- things that are, shall we say, Clintonesque... So, I could change my mind before election day, but as of now, I plan to take a Democratic ballot and vote for Obama in the primary.

Update3: Friend Greg reminded me last night that McCain was part of the "Gang of 14" that killed Republican plans to make Democratic obstruction of confirmation votes for judicial nominees an electoral issue in 2006, which may have been even more damaging to Republican prospects in that year's election than Republican Congress-critter's continuing love for earmarks and pork (hidden wasteful government spending) so evident that year and to this day.

Greg also sadly informed me that by taking a Democratic ballot this time, I won't get off Republican mail and phone lists, but may get more Democratic mailings and phone calls.

Having just fended off yet another telemarketing call from a "charity", I figure what this country needs is for the National Do Not Call Registry to include options not to be bothered by either charities or politicians. Likewise for mailings - we need a Catalog Choice option to opt out of mailings from charities and politicians we wouldn't even consider supporting. Saves them pointless mailing costs and helps the environment.

Update4: Wow, early voting is great! Last time we voted the regular way, we waited in line for an hour to get a ballot. With early voting, the wait was under 5 minutes. The Chicago Tribune also assisted with this Web site that shows you in advance all the candidates that will be on your local ballot, along with links to their recommendations for voting. It allows you to print out in advance a full ballot, with your preferred choices already marked. What's in it for them? Well, now they know too, including your address... polling taken to the next level. So be sure not to give them your exact address - just something close enough to pull up the correct ballot.

Another benefit of early voting is that it may cut off calls still hoping to influence our vote, not to mention cutting the potential benefit of an "October surprise" last minute attack on an opponent.

I liked the electronic touchscreen voting, primarily because it included an adding-machine paper-printed record of all my votes for me to easily review as I cast them, and for election judges to review later if any question arises about the electronic totals.

One final thought: on the Republican side, centrists seem to be doing well, for the first time since the '60s.

After the Chicago Transit Authority more or less set fire to all its funds in recent years and then had the gall to ask the State to bail it out, our state legislators have faced the unenviable task of finding some way to keep public transit operating now and in years to come.

Having just done so, their reward was to have our state governor amend their bill to make it also provide free mass transit to senior citizens, no matter how wealthy they may be, and with no provision for paying the added cost of his "generosity."

If the governor gets his way, in a few years I too will qualify for an entirely-free ride, rather than the reduced fare I'd previously have already qualified for. Meantime, I'll have lots of new taxes to pay to partly make up the difference.

What really bugs me about this is:
1) This idea could and should have been debated by the legislature this Fall, rather than being sprung as a last-minute surprise by the governor.
2) There are a lot of wealthy Senior citizens. Why do they need help, rather than for instance, DCFS kids and the handicapped?
3) Once Metra is entirely free for any group, homeless members of that group will use it as a daycare center, much as they already use the CTA - riding around the system all day long for a single fare.
4) Somebody eventually has to pay for giveaways. Since the presenting problem is that the CTA is out of money, proposing to make it give away even more seems DOA. Fortunately, one thing both parties in our legislature seem to agree on lately is halting the governor's latest follies.

Update: I was too optimistic - the Governor won.

Wow. This was an interesting civics quiz. Think you're smart? Think you're well educated? Give it a try. 60 questions. Multiple guess. I missed 5.

I learned about it from Wizbang, which learned about it from AZaMatteroFact, which learned about it from Brad Warthen's Blog.

The above title on Instapundit today definitely captured my attention as a centrist with interest in Libertarian ideas. That in turn links to this article by Brink Lindsey.

Here's the basic idea:
...American society today is considerably more libertarian than it was a generation or two ago. Compare conditions now to how they were at the outset of the 1960s. Official governmental discrimination against blacks no longer exists. Censorship has beaten a wholesale retreat. The rights of the accused enjoy much better protection. Abortion, birth control, interracial marriage, and gay sex are legal. Divorce laws have been liberalized and rape laws strengthened. Pervasive price and entry controls in the transportation, energy, communications, and financial sectors are gone. Top income tax rates have been slashed. The pretensions of macroeconomic fine-tuning have been abandoned. Barriers to international trade are much lower. Unionization of the private sector work force has collapsed. Of course there are obvious counterexamples, but on the whole it seems clear that cultural expression, personal lifestyle choices, entrepreneurship, and the play of market forces all now enjoy much wider freedom of maneuver.

Most Americans, it turns out, have moved on since the ’60s toward a common ground whose coloration is not recognizably red or blue – call it a purplish, libertarianish centrism. On the one hand, they embrace the traditional, Middle American values of patriotism, law and order, the work ethic, and commitment to family life. At the same time, though, they hold attitudes on race and sex that are dramatically more liberal than those that held sway a generation or two ago. Likewise, they are deeply skeptical of authority, and are strongly committed to open-mindedness and tolerance.

What does this mean for liberals? Perhaps this:
"...the trust in government that made possible the New Deal political order is gone and highly unlikely to return."

And the message for conservatives? Perhaps this:
"52 percent of people 18 to 25 years old believe immigration strengthens the country, as compared to 39 percent among those 26 and older. Consequently, any political movement that has trouble distinguishing between immigration and invasion is spitting in the demographic wind."

More like this, please!

I once felt strongly about the importance of a particular election and made a donation to the Republican party.

Ever since, I've regretted the decision, not because of the candidate, but because making a donation put me on a "spam constantly" list.

Over the years since, we've received endless fund raising letters and phone calls from every conceivable permutation of the Republican party, enough that they have now invested far more in seeking money than I originally donated before I knew the long-term consequences.

For years now, I've returned every piece of mail, at their expense, stamped "Please Take Me Off Your Mailing List", to no avail.

But tonight was a new low. A woman called from the National Republican Party. When I asked to be taken off her list, she insisted on a reason. On being told it was because they'd now ignored over 200 such requests via mail, she insisted I would have to individually request to be taken off every individual campaign. When I reminded her it only costs them money to deny my request, she immediately hung up. I then checked the calling number, to block it from calling me in future, and discovered she used an "out of area" number to call me, just like the worst illegal telemarketers.

The Republican party has recently been sinking like a rock, thanks to making sure everyone knows they no longer stand for honest government. Experiences like this convince me they want to lose big in 2008. I guess they don't call it the "stupid" party for nothing...

I will never again make a personally-identifiable political contribution.

Simlarly,. I used to donate to any charity with enough gumption to send a volunteer to my door. I now insist on making such donations anonymously. The only charities now privileged to know my name and address are those I support regularly. Even those sometimes ask again often enough to get dropped from my list.

I tithe, but never donate again to those whose thanks for a gift is to spam me for another.

Two Democratic politicians have recently earned my praise:
1) One of our Illinois U.S. Senators, Barak Obama, for co-sponsoring (with Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma) S2590, the recently-passed Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. This bill, also passed by the House, and on its way to the President (who expects to sign it), does not directly cut any waste from government spending. However, it does require those sponsoring such waste to do so openly rather than in secret as has become increasingly common of late.

This is one of those rare issues on which both those who think government should do more, and those who think government should do less can agree -- that whatever government does should be done openly and above board rather than in secret. Sunlight is, as they say, the best disinfectant.

(Our Congressman, Republican Mark Kirk also gets honorary mention on this one, for daring to put the final nail in the coffin of "the Bridge to Nowhere" so vigorously defended by porkmeister Republican U.S. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. But for Kirk's action, Stevens might despite everything done this year to stop him have nonetheless succeeded in getting the Bridge to Nowhere built with federal funds.)

2) Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago, for successfully vetoing a proposed "big box" city ordinance that would have driven more businesses such as Wal-Mart just outside the city limits, thereby harming mostly the poor in Chicago. Although I'm not a city resident, it's always a joy for me when a politician, and particularly a Democratic politician displays at least a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

However laudable the stated aims of the "big box" ordinance, its actual effect would have been to harm the city and its poorest residents.

Here's the Atrios/Drum "Are You a Liberal" test, as interpreted by Instapundit, including my answers. As usual, I'm way off-center on specific issues, but on average and overall, I'm somewhere in the middle.

1) Repeal the estate tax repeal:
Yes, and also block all the clever trusts and such rich folks from both sides of the political aisle use to avoid paying any estate tax, even on vast fortunes. If taxes have to be collected, taking them after death seems the least-painful way to do so. Estate taxes, if they actually worked, would also have the useful effect of helping each new generation start its economic competition on a more level playing field, which is essential if you want the losers to continue to respect the rules of the game.

2) Increase the minimum wage and index it to the CPI.
No, never for any reason. Setting a minimum wage merely forces those unworthy of that salary out of paid employment entirely. Further, the persons hurt thereby are disproportionately the needy folks we should care about helping most.

3) Universal health care.
No. Only an idiot would even consider putting the civil servants who already can't cope with FEMA or homeland security in charge of anything more. On the other hand, if it happens, let's force Congress onto the exact same plan as everyone else, rather than their current better than all others' plan.

4) Increase CAFE standards.
Absolutely, and only one standard for both cars and trucks, with no exceptions for those who choose to drive ten ton tanks. After all, we are at war with people funded by gas purchases.

5) Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice.
Absolutely not on "choice". If it turns out God considers fetuses fully human, our society is offing them at a rate ranking with Stalin and Hitler. On the other hand, those who oppose abortion, ought not also to oppose contraception. Personally, I'd allow anyone one abortion, but tie the tubes of anyone seeking a second.

6) Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code.
Simplify, absolutely. Increase progressivity? Yes, so long as there are no loopholes at all to permit Ted Kennedy to continue to pay a lower income tax rate than me, as he has throughout most of his life. However, I am opposed to increased total taxation. Our government already sets fire to entirely enough money via waste and corruption now.

7) Kill faith-based funding.
Absolutely not. Such groups routinely do a vastly better job meeting every category of need than most other groups, particularly compared to government employees.

8) Reduce corporate giveaways.
Absolutely. In particular, convert all special tax breaks, import tariffs to benefit domestic suppliers, etc. into explicit subsidies visible in the budget. Don't whine about abuse by welfare mothers while simultaneously expecting government to chip in $700 million on a railroad to nowhere just to benefit casinos.

9) Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan.
No, kill it instead.

10) Force companies to stop underfunding their pensions. Change corporate bankruptcy law to put workers and retirees at the head of the line with respect to their pensions.
Worth discussing, but government itself is a big offender here, at least in our state, where my pension is guaranteed by the state constitution, but chronically underfunded by the legislature.

11) Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana.
Yes. Inf fact, let's leave the states alone on most everything added to the plate of our national government in the last century.

12) Paper ballots.
Yes, but let's go further. I'm very much in favor of making it impossible to cheat in or even argue about the outcome of elections. If we can't trust the outcome of our elections to be honest, we won't stay one country long.

13) Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies.
No. I'm all for families, but don't trust goverment efforts to help them as actually having that effect.

14) Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes.
Remove the cap entirely, with no resulting increase in benefits for those not in need. It's just welfare for old folks under another name anyway, so we may as well admit it.

15) Marriage rights for all, which includes "gay marriage" and quicker transition to citizenship for the foreign spouses of citizens.
I have no objection to domestic partnerships, and would be willing to use that term for heterosexuals as well. Marriage, is a term I would reserve to the religious rather than legal ceremony. I am strongly in favor of quickly approving the immigration applications of foreign spouses of citizens and most everyone else on the application list long before we even consider doing anything to legalize illegal immigrants.

16) Undo the bankruptcy bill enacted by this administration.
No, I may not be entirely up to speed on this one, but it seems OK to me.

I had high hopes for this term of congress. With a united government for the first time since the 1960s, I expected to see major legislation passed to deal with some of the intractable problems that could only be talked about during years of divided government.

Was I ever wrong! About the only thing our government did well in the current session of Congress was writing checks to support the troops..

Pretty much everything else we got out of Congress this session amounted to setting fire to money -- a virtual orgy of pointless spending on bridges to nowhere, rebuilding railroads that have already been rebuilt, and in general acting as if no one alive remembers 1994's Republican "Contract With America".

I've returned dozens of fund-raising letters this year with refusals to contribute even a penny while the spending orgy continues. But so far as I can tell, no one cares. I have yet to receive even the tiniest indication anyone anywhere has even read a word I've written on the subject.

This Fall could be disastrous for Republicans if the current congressional arrogance continues.

Hugh Hewett said it best:
"Bottom line: It is hard to see how the GOP is not like the Titanic, except it is aiming for the iceberg."
(Not a cheerful thought from a guy who just wrote a book on how to create a permanent Republican majority.)

The "good guys" regarding all this may be found at Porkbusters. Lots of good reading - if only anyone in either party's leadership cared.

Update: Add the Wall Street Journal to those upset:
"The chief culprits are the House Appropriators, led by Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis of California and his 13 subcommittee chairmen known as "cardinals." If Republicans lose the House--and they are well on their way--Mr. Lewis deserves the moniker of the minority maker.

For weeks, the Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscally conservative Members, had been negotiating a spending outline with the House leadership. But when they finally struck a deal last week, Mr. Lewis refused to go along and threatened to defeat the budget on the House floor if Speaker Denny Hastert brought it up."
...
"At the current pace, a Democratic majority in Congress would be preferable, if only for reasons of truth in advertising."

The Middlewife has for over a year been receiving bunches of Republican surveys that are actually thinly-disguised fundraising letters. Since they demand a minimum contribution to be tabulated, and no such gift will ever come from her, we've been round-filing them. Now, with Republicans spending, as one blogger put it, "like drunken Democrats", I too am committed to giving "Not one more dime" to such a party.

Therefore, in case anyone from the GOP gives a rip what someone who donated the max to their last Presidential campaign thinks, here are my answers to the current survey.

War on Terrorism:
1. Do you support President Bush in his efforts to wipe out terrorism worldwide even if this war goes on for many years? [Yes]
2. Do you think American troops should pursue terrorists and their leaders even if it means going into countries where we are not invited? [Yes]

Homeland Security:
3. How concerned are you that we potentially face more terrorism within the United States and that it will directly impact your family? [Somewhat Concerned]
4. How confident are you that the Department of Homeland Security will be able to keep America safe from future terrorist attacks? [Not Very Confident is the most negative response listed. My actual response is Zero Confidence!]
5. Some critics say that in tracking down potential foreign terrorists, the FBI and other investigative agencies are infringing on individuals' Constitutional rights. Do you think this is reasonable if it leads to exposing more terrorists in our country? [Yes. Foreigners have Constitutional rights?]
6. Should resident aliens and all non-citizens be required to carry an I.D. card issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service while they are in the U.S.? [Yes. Everyone else legally in this country should also carry a secure ID.]
7. Do you think our government is doing enough to secure America's borders against foreign terrorists? [No]
8. Do you believe that all foreigners within the United States whose visas have expired should be found and deported? [Yes]
9. What is of greatest concern to you and your family right now? [Other - Big Government Conservatism.]

Economy:
10. How confident do you feel that America's economy will continue to grow stronger in the next six months? [Somewhat confident]
11. Which of the the following factors (Burdensome taxes, Gas prices, Stock market, Questionable corporate governance, Severe government regulations, Threat of terrorism, Growth of government spending, or Other) is most adversely affecting our economy? [Growth of government spending.]
12. President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have passed historic tax cuts. Do you agree that additional tax cuts are needed to spur the economy and relieve the tax pressure on America's citizens? [No. Until spending is brought under control, it's pointless to talk about further tax cuts.]
13. Do you agree that a top prioity should be making President Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut permanent? [No. Not while deficit spending continues.]
14. Do you support eliminating the Death Tax? [No - I'm a strong supporter of the Estate Tax, as a way of helping each new generation start on a more level playing field. If government has to get my money, let them take it from my cold dead hands.]
15. Do you believe the nation's tax code should be completely overhauled and streamlined? [Yes. I favor an income tax return that fits on a postcard, but doesn't favor the rich over the poor.]
16. Do you agree that Congress must provide more incentives for work and entrepreneurship to promote job creation? [No - Just cut oppressive regulations.]

Social Security/Medicare:
17. Do you agree with President Bush that it is imperative to modernize and restore fiscal soundness to Social Security? [Yes]
18. Do you support President Bush's proposal to allow individuals to choose to invest a certain portion of their Social Security money in order to build a stronger retirement fund? [Yes]
19. Do you feel it is imperative that Congress act today to ensure the financial stability of the Medicare program? [Yes, along with every other item in the budget.]
20. Do you think that all costs for prescription drugs should be covered under Medicare? [No]

Health Care:
21. Are you pleased with the quality of health care you currently receive? [Yes]
22. Do you agree that there should be reasonable limits on punitive damages on the amount of money patients and trial lawyers can collect when suing their doctors or HMO's? [Agree]
23. How much of a role should the federal government have in an individual's health care [Limited role - only as an umpire ensuring fair competition.]

Education:
24. Do you agree with President Bush's reform proposal of flexibility and local control that will reduce red tape and give states and local schools unprecedented flexibility in using federal funds to produce results? [Yes]
25. Should states be encouraged to develop methods to test teachers regularly to ensure they are proficient in the subject they teach? [Yes]
26. Should a federally-funded voucher system be established to allow inner city parents to move their children from failing public schools to better performing schools? [Yes]
27. What do you see as the major cause of the decline in America's education (Complacent parents, Not enough discipline, Not enough money, Too much bureaucracy, Poor teachers, Crowded classrooms, Other)? [Other - lack of competition.]

National Defense:
28. Do you back President Bush's efforts to build a "missile defense shield" to protect America from nuclear attack from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran? [Yes]
29. Is America doing enough to revamp, restore and strengthen our armed forces to meet the needs and challenges of the 21st Century [Yes]
30. President Bush has announced the most comprehensive restructuring of U.S. military forces overseas since the end of the Korean War by redeploying troops to better face the threats of a post-Cold War world. Do you agree? [Yes]

Foreign Affairs:
31. In the recent election, President Bush made it clear that "the United Nations will never dictate U.S. foreign policy." Do you agree with that statement? [Yes]
32. Which of the following do you think will have the most impact on America in the next 5 years (The situation in Iraq, Unstable economic markets in key areas of the world, The threat of terrorism, North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons, The instability in the Middle East, The growing military and economic clout of China, Other)? [Other - failure to reduce dependence on Mideast oil]
33. Do you agree with President Bush's policy that the establishment of a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution? [Yes]
34. Do you support President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief, a five-year, $15 billion initiative to turn the tide in combatting the global HIV/AIDS pandemic? [No - better done by private contributions through churches and charities.]

Immigration:
35. Do you think that America should be doing more to secure our borders and keep illegal immigration to a minimum? [Yes]
36. President Bush has proposed a temporary guestworker program to match willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs. Are you in favor of this proposal? [Yes - only because it's better controlled than intentionally letting in illegals]
37. Do you believe Congress should place stricter limits on legal immigration? [Yes - prospective immigrants should be required to support such American values as freedom]
38. Are you concerned about the current unprecedented levels of illegal immigration? [Yes]
39. Do you support increased funding for border control operations? [Yes]

Supreme Court/Federal Courts
40. How do you feel the current U.S. Supreme Court is positioned? [Too liberal]
41. Do you believe it is acceptable to apply "litmus tests" on key issues to potential Supreme Court nominees? [No, we can't predict what issues they will face.]
42. Do you think that confirmation of federal and Supreme Court judges should simply require a majority vote of 51 U.S. Senators or should 60 votes be needed to break a Senate filibuster? [51 votes]

Federal Government:
43. In recent years, has the federal government grown more or less intrusive in your personal and business affairs? [More intrusive]
44. Is President Bush right in trying to rein-in the size and scope of the federal government against the wishes of the big government Democrats? [Yes. If only either he or Republicans WERE trying!]
45. Are you in support of President Bush's Faith Based and Community initiatives that will allow federal funding to be allocated to qualifying religious organizations to further social and community works? [Yes]

General Issues:
46. Congress recently passed a "class-action reform" bill to bring an end to frivolous and costly lawsuits that are getting out of control. Do you approve of this legislation? [Yes]
47. Does the national new media accurately report the news without liberal bias? [No]
48. Do you support the President's plan to unify our nation around a comprehensive energy plan that protects consumers while producing more reliable, affordable and environmentally clean energy? [Yes]
49. Should Congress authorized additional oil exploration in Alaska to help alleviate America's over reliance on Middle East oil in the future? [Yes]
50. Considering the massive amount of money spent in the 2004 elections by so called "527 independent groups" which were allowed to take millions of dollars from single individuals, do you feel that additional reforms are needed to our campaign finance laws? [Yes - GET RID OF ALL OF THEM BEYOND REQUIRING FULL DISCLOSURE.]
51. Do you believe all abortions should be banned? [No - Some are requred to save the life of the mother.]
52. Do you think there should be a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage? [No]

The President and Congress:
53. Generally, are you satisfied with the accomplishments of the Republicans in Congress? [No - but Democrats have managed to behave even worse.]
54. How do you rate President Bush's job performance thus far? [Good - his shepherding of the War on Terror still barely outweighs his many other missteps.]
55. Do you agree that the obstructionist Democrats should not be allowed to gain control of the U.S. Congress in the 2006 elections? [Yes, but having today's RINOs controlling it isn't much better.]
56. In your opinion, how does the federal government best function (When one party controls both the White House and Congress, When one party controls the White House and another party controls Congress, When control of Congress is split between both parties, No Opinion)? [No Opinion - I'm seeing a serious need for a third party for fiscal responsibility again lately.]
57. What do you consider the most important steps the Republican Party can take in the coming months to ensure continued control of Congress? [Cut government spending and regulation, simplify tax forms, enforce borders, help the poor, reform the judiciary, and wage war effectively against Islamic Terrorists.]

Update: In the wake of the Miers withdrawal, Republicans must also nominate and do whatever it takes to confirm, an excellent jurist to the Supreme Court, someone with real respect for the unique chemistry that makes our Constitution work as is, rather than a foolish lust to "improve" it. I won't mind if the next nominee is from somewhere other than Harvard or Yale, but I will care what they believe. Please, no more "stealth" candidates who turn out to be closet judicial activists like Souter. Please also no more limiting the pool to only women, or only persons of color, or other Hispanics, etc.

At least some liberals will attempt nuclear war over the next nominee, no matter who it is, so let's make the nominee worth the resulting fight, including using, if necessary, the "nuclear option", rather than solely trying to make the Court "look like America", or limiting the choice to judges suggested by Democrats.

It's likely also time for a serious discussion with the RINOs, to see who if anyone good they are willing to back to the hilt. (And if the answer is "no one", let's make sure that answer is heard loud and clear by conservatives, so blame ends up rightly assigned.

Personally, if he still wanted the job, I'd nominate Robert Bork again. He's already been "borked" once. What more could anyone do to him now? To me, his competence for the job seems as far beyond honorable dispute now in retrospect as it did to me at the time.

Update2:
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, I understand our two top Republican leaders in Congress spent the day today whining about excess oil industry profits, while simultaneously suggesting oil companies build more refineries, apparently without a clue there might be a link between increased profits and increased supply. Somebody get them each a copy of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics!

On the bright side, at least one of the two now has his own blog here.

Update3: Bob Krumm offers sure-fire advice to Democrats on how to win the next Presidential election. Sadly, most Democrats I know would rather die than take Krumm's advice, thereby leaving intact the one issue Republicans can still rely upon to energize their base.

"I offer Democrats a sure-fire, absolutely guaranteed way to win the Presidency in 2008: Let Bush win the war in Iraq.

Instead of looking backward to question why we're at war, Democrats should focus on winning by increasing the size of the military, portraying a positive message, supporting not just the troops, but also their mission, and showing the world a united homefront in the midst of war."

Update4: Lately I've taken to returning all the Republican fundraising materials I receive with this notation: "Not one dime more until you get serious about porkbusting and defending the border." In the case of Republican Senate fundraising letters, I also add they need to get serious about judicial reform. A well-qualified conservative has now been nominated to the Supreme Court. Now we need to see if Republicans in the Senate have the courage to get him confirmed. Those who lack that courage will also lack my support.

Update5: Democratic blogger Kos sensibly points out "If Democrats can nationalize this election, and really work the culture of corruption in as a big theme for the election, I think it could be devastating to the Republican Party. That is what happened to the Democrats in 1994. We were the corrupt party then. It was not pretty being a Democrat. But it took Democrats 30 years to become a totally corrupted party and it took the GOP only 10 years."

Instapundit similarly comments "Republicans need to be worried about this. The temptation will be to try to shore up their position by buying votes, but the GOP base is offended by this stuff and may be motivated to stay home. As always, the GOP's best hope lies in the Democrats doing something stupid. But that's a hope, not a strategy, notwithstanding how well it's worked in the past.

Limiting pork -- which will require structural changes in the House and Senate -- is not only a good political move. It's the right thing to do. The question is whether the GOP will be smart enough, and principled enough, to do something that's both smart, and right. I'm not overly optimistic about that."

Neither am I. If any Republican other than President Bush has taken a principled stand on any issue and backed it to the wall no matter the consequences, I missed it.

Update6: There's an election for a house Republican leader to replace Tom DeLay today. If early frontrunner Roy Blount (considered a DeLay clone) wins, we'll know the Republicans still haven't gotten the message about the need for reform from their base or the blogosphere. If John Shadegg wins, we'll know the reach of the blogosphere is indeed long, as he has been heavily supported by prominent bloggers as the best pro-reform candidate. For details, see this analysis.

Update7: And the winner is John Boehner, indicating at least some sensitivity to the need for reform by Republicans in the House, but definitely not merely doing whatever the blogosphere wants.

In preparation for Y2K, I prepared a disaster plan for my office at the time. It considered pretty much everything that could go wrong in Chicago in January if all the computers stopped working.

One thing now clear after Hurricane Katrina is that New Orleans had a plan for dealing with a Category 4 or 5 hurricane, updated just last year after the scare from Hurricane Ivan. Another thing now clear is that New Orleans pretty much ignored the plan and didn't do much of anything useful before the hurricane, nor afterwards before the levees failed, and not much useful ever since.

What they and many others did do a whole lot of, was cast blame, trying to pin all the fault for a major natural disaster on one of the very few people who actually did anything about the danger in advance.

Yep, in their minds, it was all the fault of President Bush, either because some National Guard soldiers and their gear are in Iraq, or because he didn't support the Kyoto treaty on global warming, or because they think he doesn't care about poor blacks.

Never mind that only one school bus in all of New Orleans was actually used to evacuate poor people to Houston (a "crime" for which its driver may yet be arrested), with all the other buses unnecessarily rusting and polluting back in New Orleans right next to a superhighway a mile from the Superdome, even though the hurricane plan called for their use.

Never mind that the only reason there was a mandatory evacuation order given was because President Bush personally requested it.

Now we have a world class mess on our hands, and many of the victims could easily have been spared much of their misery, had the city and state government done more than run their mouths while sitting on their hands waiting for magic to happen.

As is often the case in our fallen world, those who whine the most about how everything bad is someone else's fault may themselves be the incompetents responsible for the mess.

The only good thing about this disaster thus far is that it is the first time in my life I can recall such an event not being blamed on God. Sadly, that seems to be because the complainers are worshipping either Mother Nature or the purported power of the Presidency, rather than the Almighty.

Our church has started a fund off with $100,000 to help New Orleans, through churches in that area. Over $500,000 was raised for AIDS orphans in Africa last Christmas, and for Tsunami victims before that, so I expect this fund to increase rapidly too. Even better, the Middlewife's employer will match our gift to that fund, so we expect to make it a big one.

Thirty years ago, the church we were in then sponsored a family of refugees. I'm beginning to expect we may need to sponsor another such family from New Orleans this year.

I'm all for emergency assistance. I'm also all for real help in starting over for those willing to make something of themselves (as President Clinton said, "a hand up, not a handout")

Fifteen years after sponsoring that refugee family, their youngest daughter enrolled at the university, and reported her dad was still in the custodian position our church helped him find, all those years ago, but nonetheless had managed to save enough to raise a family of nine, and buy an apartment building. That's the kind of family I hope I'm always glad to help.

One thing I'm not willing to do, is spend a penny to rebuild New Orleans at its current height, 30 feet below sea level. After the Great Chicago Fire, our city was rebuilt, but not just rebuilt as it was. Rather it was built better -- the streets were raised 30 feet above the swamps, and the new buidings made of fireproof brick. New Orleans needs to return also, but not until it can return better than before.

Until then, my only reply to those casting blame will be "What have you personally done to help?"

Update: Amid allegations of racism related to New Orleans, this long Eject! Eject! Eject! blog entry clearly explains the concept of tribes, and how the differences between the pink and grey tribe, and between the tribes of sheep, wolves and sheepdogs have nothing to do with skin color. (Caution: the entry also does a fair amount of swearing.)

Update2: How much to give, and where? On his last visit, Shades taught me two clever new names for amounts we often give:
1) a yuppie food stamp, also known as $20 US. This is what we give pretty much any charity we don't actively disapprove of, whose representative actually comes to our door and knocks.

2) a Franklin, another name for $100 US. This is what we give charities we actively care about and choose to support.

Occasionally, when we really care about a cause, we take our giving up another notch, to $500. For us, Hurricane Katrina is such a cause, and our church will be the place, as it will funnel our gift through like-minded churches in the affected area.

Point of clarification: All of us in this the richest nation in all of history would do well to tithe, both time and money. Even atheists would do well to tithe in support of all they want to endure and prosper.

Update3: Implied in all the criticism of government response to this crisis is an unquestioned but highly-debatable assumption that such events are best handled by government.

That has never been the view of any church I've been part of, either liberal or conservative. Both United Methodist churches and Willowcreek Church emphasize in their fundraising in response to disasters that the aid will be channeled through churches in the affected area.

Churches trust other churches to care about people in need, and to be ethical and efficient in distributing aid. There's a sense among church donors that charitable funds given via some governments may not reach intended recipients in a useful and timely manner.

Here's President Reagan's famous quote on the topic: "government is not a solution to our problem, Government is the problem."

Update4: Peggy Noonan expands and explains here.
"Last week I quoted Gerald Ford: 'The government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.' I was talking about money. But it applies also to personal freedom, to the rights of the individual, including his right to do something stupid as long as it's legal, like swimming [the day before a hurricane arrives.]

It is the government's job to warn and inform. That's what we have the National Weather Service for. It is not government's job to command and control and make microdecisions about the lives of people who want to do it their own way."

I've just added a new link to the top of my links list. It's called Power Line News, and has been compared in its potential impact on mainstream media to the impact the Protestant Reformation had on the Roman Catholic Church.

RSS readers provide an extra layer of abstraction, allowing folks to more easily keep up with all the changes in Web sites of interes. Portal Web sites like Power Line News allow folks to do the same by simply going to the portal site. In that sense, it's much like Drudge Report, World Net Daily, Jewish World Review (three of my other links), and some other portals I occasionally check: Google News, My Yahoo, My Way, and Topix.net.

However, Power Line News takes this one step further, by intentionally getting news directly from blogs, rather than from mainstream media sources.

Thus, instead of hearing about a soldier's death in Afghanistan from a reporter in a Kabul hotel, you might hear about it directly from a soldier who was there at the time.

Prior to the Protestant Reformation, ordinary folks could not read the Bible in their own language, and had to take the word of a priest as to what it said, whereas after the Reformation, many could do their own reading and deciding.

Similarly, prior to the appearance of this portal, ordinary folks could not easily hear about news of the day unfiltered by the biases of journalists.

Like the regular Power Line blog, and like my own choice of portals to which to link, Power Line News is unapolagetically at least a bit right of center in viewpoint. Frankly, if it weren't, it wouldn't be needed, as pretty much any news source's own portal Web site provides at least a slightly left of center viewpoint.

Case in point: The Chicago Sun Times has on two recent occasions been one of very few news sources to cover stories unfavorable to liberal viewpoints, (such as allegations of liberal talk radio network Air America ending up with money meant to help poor kids and seniors), yet in my youth the Sun Times was the liberal paper in Chicago.

Note: In the paragraph above, I use the word "liberal" in its recent "left-of-center" meaning, rather than the traditional "advocate of individual freedom" meaning I prefer. Don't you hate it when good words get hijacked to mean almost the opposite of their original meaning?

Update: Here's a link to similar and earlier sentiments by Hugh Hewitt.

As the entire blogosphere already knows, this has been a lousy month for individual liberty, the kind that caused our American ancestors to rise up in revolution against big, bad government from afar.

In both cases, the culprit was the U.S. Supreme Court, making decisions that are not necessarily either left or right politically, but are definitely in the direction of ever-bigger government, and in a manner likely to frighten as many liberals as conservatives.

First, the Interstate Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution has now been stretched to include matters that are neither Interstate nor commerce, in ruling that the U.S. government has the right to over-rule the State of California's law allowing medical use of marijuana.

I'm on record here favoring the legalization of all illegal drugs, even though I've never used them and likely never will.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg damage-wise in this decision. If the Interstate Commerce can be stretched this far, then in effect it's now a "do whatever you want" card for Congress, and States Rights (despite all non-enumerated powers in the Constitution being reserved to the States) are no more.

As if that wasn't enough damage, the U.S. Supreme court has now also ruled that states and localities don't even need a good reason to take away private property from one owner and give it to another. The mere hope that the new owner might yield more tax revenue is sufficient motivation for the court to allow such takings via eminent domain.

As Rev. Donald Sensing has pointed out here, the most obvious target of this new power of states and localities is places of worship and charitable organizations, which pay no taxes at all, and often occupy prime locations.

One might think this would only be of concern to conservatives, but liberals have also realized poor folks in the path of a proposed Wal Mart are less likely to keep their homes as a result of this ruling.

Republicans are fond of pointing out how much worse such decisions would be if made by Democrats, but frankly, in both these cases, it's hard to see how.

I sure wish some sensible political party in this country were still for individual freedom...

Update: The Supremes' month of disaster continues apace. Now they've also ruled against the display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, and restricted consumer rights to buy products that might be used for unauthorized uses in addition to authorized uses.

By restricting display of the Ten Commandments, they hide from future generations much of the underpinnings of our law, and thereby make its eventual decline and fall more likely. It's just silly to think that the ideas underlying a nation as unique as America came from nothing and nowhere, and we do no favors to future generations by pretending they did.

The problem with adding a test of intent on the part of manufacturers of devices that can be used for both good and evil, is that only a court case can decide in each instance, which can't help but have a chilling effect on the willingness of companies to make anything that anyone anywhere might misuse. Guns, for instance, though honest studies indicate appear to save more lives than they cost, can obviously be misused. So now there's another excuse to drag their manufacturers into court in hopes of a tobacco settlement-type bonanza. The potential effects here go far beyond just preventing folks from buying a program capable of sharing MP3s.

Since the Instapundit has already mentioned this, I hardly need to, but will anyway, if only to remind myself of it later:

WORSTALL'S LAW: "Any organization will, in the end, be run by those who stay awake in committee."

Worstall elaborates as follows:
"A brief survey of the world around us will show that this is a simple and obvious truth.

...one of the lessons I take from the history of the 20th century is that we don't actually want to be ruled by those who stay awake in committee meetings."

See also O'Sullivan's Law.

Update: Powerline's Thanksgiving 2005 post comments on both these effects, closing with this:

"For reasons I don't fully understand, there is something about "leaders," especially self-appointed leaders, and most especially those who are drawn to intensive participation in organizations, that tends toward liberalism. We see this in politics all the time, of course: it is one thing to vote for conservatism, something else entirely to get it from our elected leaders.

All of which makes me especially thankful, this year, for democracy, limited government and free enterprise: the best measures yet devised to protect us from our leaders."

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois guaranteed he lost my vote in his next re-election campaign, by comparing actions of our armed forces guarding captured terrorists at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to those of Nazis, Soviets, and Pol Pot.

Here's the key quote: after reading an Email from an FBI agent critical of things seen at Guantanamo Bay, Durbin said "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings."

This was too much even for the Daily Kos, the most popular left-wing blog: "I came unhinged and called Sen. Durbin an "idiot" for his violation of the Hitler Rule, which holds that a politician must never, ever, compare anything or anyone to Hitler or the Nazis, no matter how apt the comparison. Durbin's comparison was not apt, however."

What Kos knows, but many recent angry left-wing commenters appear not to know, is that in an Internet "flame war" (argument), whoever first mentions Hitler automatically loses.

Here's a collection of related links, from Michell Malkin, a well-known conservative blogger. Sample link (original source Power Line):
"What's unusual about Durbin's lie is that it slanders his own country. Normally that kind of slander is uttered only by revolutionaries seeking the violent overthrow of the government."

Update: Finally, after a week of stonewalling, the Sun Times is reporting on something approaching an actual apology from Senator Durbin:

"'Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line,' the Illinois Democrat said. 'To them I extend my heartfelt apologies.'

Durbin said in his apology: 'I made reference to Nazis, to Soviets, and other repressive regimes. Mr. President, I've come to understand that's a very poor choice of words.'"

Senator Durbin appears to be, despite his #2 rank within his party, a slow learner.

Update2: The Instapundit explains, using Salon as a source, the difference between real apologies that make things better, and conditional semi-apologies that make things worse. Guess which type best fits Durbin's "apology"?

Update3: By suggesting we cut and run from Iraq this week (Thanksgiving 2005), Barak Obama also made me unlikely to vote for him while the world remains dangerous. On the other hand, at least there was some nuance in Obama's statement, suggesting the Obama statement was opportunistic rather than stupid.

Via Instapundit, Mickey Kos put it this way: "Someone who works for Ralph Nader once described to me a brilliant technique of his: When he heard a rumor that the government was about to do something, he immediately called a press conference and demanded that it be done."

One Hand Clapping further explains What the Dems are really up to, closing with this comment from Winds of Change: "On November 7th the Defense Department announced for all of the world to read the troop rotation plan for Iraq for mid-2006. This plan reduces the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq by half.

We discussed this announcement on our blog back then, well before Mr. Murtha’s speech"

Pepsi's president appears to have recently delivered a huge "up yours" to America in a graduation speech at Columbia University.

Power Line has the details from Wes Martin:
"After talking of her childhood back in India, Ms. Nooyi began to compare the world and its five major continents (excl. Antarctica and Australia) to the human hand. First was Africa - the pinky finger - small and somewhat insignificant but when hurt, the entire hand hurt with it. Next was Asia - the thumb - strong and powerful, yearning to become a bigger player on the world stage. Third was Europe - the index finger - pointing the way. Fourth was South America - the ring finger - the finger which symbolizes love and sensualness. Finally, the US (not Canada mind you) - yes, you guessed it - the middle finger.

She then launched into a diatribe about how the US is seen as the middle finger to the rest of the world. The rest of the world sees us as an overbearing, insensitive and disrespectful nation that gives the middle finger to the rest of the world.
...
No talk of what the US has done for the world throughout its history. No discussion about the ills that have been cured and the rights that have been wronged by the US. Just how wrong we are for the way we are perceived and how right they are in their own perceptions of the United States."

It's hard to decide which offends me most: writing off Africa as insignicant apart from pain it can cause, stereotyping South America as hot-blooded, or giving the middle finger to America and finding nothing at all good to say about her adopted country.

Tennessee One Hand Clapping concludes, and I fully agree "...I don’t think Pepsi gets another dime of mine."

Now what will we do with all these "GOP: Choice of a New Generation" tee shirts?

Update: Here's a link to the full text of the speech, as published by Pepsi. It isn't worded as badly as first reports indicated, but I'm still offended, as are many others in the blogosphere. Typical of the criticisms is this from Rev. Donald Sensing:
"...let me take the pledge against Pepsi’s products not because of what Ms. Nooyi said but because she said it so badly...

And the message is - don’t be like those guys. Yee-hah."

Anyone wishing to may contact Pepsi at:
PepsiCo, Inc.
700 Anderson Hill Road
Purchase, NY 10577
(914) 253-2000
boardofdirectors@pepsi.com

Update: It appears President Bush didn't get the memo on this, as the blogosphere was recently upset to see Ms Nooyi's name on the guest list for a White House dinner.

Update2: The Pepsi board also apparently failed to get the memo, or perhaps agrees with Ms. Nooyi as to which finger is ours, as they have just promoted her to become Pepsi's CEO.

A year later, the boycott continues.

For more, see this comment from PowerLine reader James Siegler:
"Just a comment regarding the WSJ article on Ms. Nooyi. The first "scene" in the story is her introducing Harry Belafonte at a Pepsi diversity function. THAT tells one a whole ... lot about her and Pepsi. Belafonte is one of the worst race baiters and lovers of despots around. Based on his public statements about our president and the US, his world view fits in rather nicely with Ms. Nooyi's "middle finger" beliefs. Her Columbia address was not some aberration, but it reflected exactly who and what she is."

Lots of comments on the faculty discussion list yesterday about this link, which purports to show that folks in blue states generally have higher IQs than those in red states.

What astounded me about the discussion is that no one mentioned how racist and intolerant the same folks consider it in other contexts to rate folks via an IQ test.

Somehow, they also neglected to mention that according to military records released by both, the red state candidate had a higher IQ than the blue state candidate.

There's a long history of Democrats calling Republican candidates stupid, but saying the words doesn't make it so, and also doesn't promote either the healing of the nation or the self-reflection necessary for Democrats to ever win elections again.

A much better response was posted here.
"During the 1930s, union organizers were taught never to blame the workers if an organizing campaign failed. 'It's not their fault for not understanding,' the organizers were instructed. 'It's your fault for not explaining it clearly enough.' It is a motto today's liberals and progressives would do well to hang on the walls of the political campaign war rooms in the elections of the coming years."

Update: I remind myself of Jeff Wall's epitaph from time to time: "No one cares how much you know, until they know how much you care." Being smart, or even an expert, gains no points with folks who suspect you may not value them and their views as highly as your own.

David Lebedoff, via Powerline, suggests this may be the reason for Democratic party defeats in November.
"They are voting against the Democrat in election after election, because they think that the Democrat thinks that they're stupid.

The silence about values turns off even more voters than does the habit of calling "stupid" anyone who disagrees with you."

It seems to me that Democrats drew exactly the wrong conclusion from the 2000 election: rather than moving toward the center, as President Clinton had, they became newly devoted to the purity of their principles. The Republicans, on the other hand, did move toward the center after their loss in 1996, and continued to highlight their Centrists at the New York convention this year.

Job one for the Democratic party after this election is to make it impossible for extreme partisans to dominate the next Presidential Primary season.

Based on constitutional amendments in defence of traditional one man and one woman marriage passing in all eleven states considering the matter, it looks like supporting Gay marriage may now be even more dangerous for candidates than tinkering with Social Security or the right to keep and bear arms.

A bright spot for Democrats is new Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Given the number of suburban yards here sporting both Bush and Obama signs, Both Democrats and Republicans will do well to listen to Obama.

On the Republican side, job one is to replace aging Supreme Court justices. I hope nominees will favor "original intent" over "living document", and that neither party will focus on a single issue such as abortion. For supreme court justices, as for Presidents, the defining issues of their tenure are unlikely to be predictable at time of nomination.

There is also a clear message for President Bush in yesterday's election: we now have a mandate to finish strong in Iraq through the January elections, but not to invade additional countries--even in the name of a good cause like ending genocide and slavery in Sudan.

I call on those who opposed the President this time to support him and our soldiers. Whether Al Queda was in Iraq before no longer matters. It's there now, and must be dealt with, better there than here, not only for our own sake but for the sake of all in Afghanistan and Iraq who have trusted promises of freedom.

That done, I next hope to see a period of sober reflection. With Iran's mullahs hoping to become a nuclear power soon and North Korea twitchy and unpredictable as ever, let's let a day's problems be sufficient unto the day, rather than seeking out new adventures.

Fiscally, it's time to end deficit spending. Deficits make sense in time of recession, but we haven't been in one for quite some time now. In good times, we run surpluses, to prepare for future bad times. The mantra I want to hear is "Fiscally conservative. Socially liberal" in the sense of helping the downtrodden while preserving seed corn we'll need to plant next year's crop. That may require a veto or two.

Finally, this is a time for all of us to be both humble and teachable. As soon as I got home today, I took down my Bush yard sign and removed my Bush car sticker, not because I'm embarrassed, but because this is no time to pour salt in fresh wounds. Yesterday we were partisans. Today we are Americans.

Update: Some Democrats are suggesting the reason they lost is that they weren't sufficiently angry and mean. Quite the opposite, in my opinion -- I've heard entirely too much about what you're against--for years. Please recall how ineffective that approach was for Republicans against President Clinton, and give it a rest until you can be for something.

Update 2: John Tabin has some good advice for Republicans, to go along with all the advice everyone has been offering Democrats:
"First and foremost, don't buy the 'moral values' hype" and "If the president has a mandate for anything, it's the continuation of his forward strategy in the war on terror." He agrees that "a shift toward originalism in the judiciary is a good place to start" and beyond that "Federalism lights the way... The recognition of gay unions should be entirely a matter for the states, and state parties should be free to differ as to the proper political approach; if a constitutional amendment is necessary, it is to restrain the courts rather than to define marriage for the nation. (Senator Orrin Hatch was toying earlier this year with introducing an amendment that would be ideal.) Likewise, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade ought to be the end-point of the pro-life movement on the federal level; abortion after Roe should become -- as it was before Roe -- a state matter."

Here's a fun quote from blogger Will Wilkinson:

"Republican vigilance about keeping illegal voters from voting is democratically equivalent to Democratic vigilance against Republican attempts to suppress the legal vote. Republican vigilance has the semi-intended side-effect of suppressing likely Democratic votes. And huge Democratic registration and GOTV drives have the semi-intended side-effect of canceling out a large number of Republican votes with illegal ballots. I bet I can tell from your party affiliation which you think is worse."

The rest is here

I've just received a popular free publication that makes an excellent point. To ensure that point registers, please read first. Then I'll reveal the source.

"What we're seeing in the marketplace of ideas today is a disturbing growth of incivility that follows and confirms the broken windows theory. Alas, this breakdown of civil norms is not a failing of either the political left or right exclusively. It spreads across the political spectrum from one end to the other.

If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must first govern our tongues and our pens. Restoring civility to public discourse is not an option. It is a necessity."

I agree completely. And now, the source: Edwin Feulner, in the July issue of Imprimis For a free subscription, click here.

Update: In this regard I was very proud of my family this weekend. At our annual reunion, everyone was appropriately restrained and polite in discussing our many real differences regarding this Fall's election.

Lately it seems no amount of contrary evidence is sufficient to shake the faith of mainstream media in certain "facts". Among these:

1. There never were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, even now that we've found some.

2. The United Nations is the only way to solve international problems, even when it is proven corrupt and responsible for genocide in places like Rwanda.

3. Whenever bad things happen, blame America first.

4. America may morally only involve itself in places of no possible national interest.

5. All Republican Presidents are stupid and dangerous. Since Clinton, they also lie.

6. Nothing matters but Democrats winning the next election.

7. Every war is Viet Nam.

8. Every crisis is Watergate.

9. We must be tolerant of everything and everyone except White males, Christians, Jews, gun owners, scientists who experiment on animals, conservatives, and anyone who disagrees with us.

As I've suggested before regarding other topics, this sounds more like religion than science.

Robert Alt has noticed too, and offers "The Liberals' Creed."

What I don't understand about all this, is why centrists and conservatives with money put up with it? P.J. O'Rourke's famous law of economics is that "you get what you pay for", so why do folks who don't agree pay for such papers and magazines, continue to view such TV programs & movies, or tolerate such behavior by employees in media companies they own? Why do such parents still donate to or pay for their children to attend colleges where "liberal arts" means "only liberal views allowed"? Why do such investors invest in companies putting out such garbage?

A recent Yahoo News headline caught my attention. It reads as follows: "Bush's Backing of Rumsfeld Shocks and Angers Arabs."

Seeming to remember a lot of such stories lately, I did a Google search on the phrase "pleases Arabs" and found 2 hits, both pointing to the same story, which turned out to be a comment in an Armenian listserv about our displeasing Europe rather than about pleasing Arabs.

To confim my suspicions, I then searched Google for the phrase "angers Arabs", and found 1,160 hits.

So the next time you hear that something we've done has angered Arabs, just remember that according to my unscientific Google searches, the odds of angering Arabs may be 500 times the odds of pleasing them.

At the suggestion of Paul (a friend in the legislature), I've just finished reading the new book Radical Middle:The Politics We Need Now, by Mark Satin. It's an excellent book that discusses new ideas which creatively and pragmatically use the best from both sides of the usual political divide. (In other words, this is not just a try at getting extremists to meet halfway.)

Satin starts with 4 guiding questions:
1. How can we give ourselves more choices in life?
2. How can we give everyone a fair start in life?
3. How can we maximize our potential as human beings?
4. How can we be of use to the developing world?

He then fills these out with proposals to provide:
1. More choices:
A. Universal preventive health care (implemented like auto insurance)
B. Law reform as if people mattered
C. Energy independence (work on 7 alternatives; develop whatever works)
2. Fair start
A. Great teachers
B. Affirmative action based on need, not skin tone
C. Jobs and startup-savings for all
3. Maximize potential
A. Corporations we can be proud of
B. Biotech - with adult supervision
C. Universal service
4. Help the developing world
A. Globalization - with savvy & feeling
B. Humanitarian military intervention
C. Tough on both terrorists & the root causes of terrorism

I really like the values, and a lot of the proposals. There's a potential here for "the next Ross Perot," who may not have won his election, but did define the terms of debate on his key issue -- the Federal Deficit -- for a decade. If I were running either of the two major political parties, I'd be all over this book, considering how to make the big tent of my party extend enough to include these issues and the people who care about them.

I'll have more to say about several of the individual subject areas eventually.

John O'Sullivan, columnist and former editor of National Review offers this proposed Sullivan's First Law: "All organizations that are not actually right wing will over time become left wing." John Leo, whose article here explains O'Sullivan's Law, offers "Leo's amendment to O'Sullivan's First Law: Any organization with 'women' or 'girls' in its title will tend to become part of the cultural left in general and the abortion lobby in particular."

I'm inclined to agree. As a child I was an avid reader of Consumer Reports magazine, and even as a young adult considered getting a lifetime subscription. Now I no longer subscribe because I don't want even a penny of my money to support the political side of their efforts. Yes, my own views have changed some over time. But I'm convinced theirs have changed more.

Similarly, I once looked forward to the day I could benefit from the discounts available to members of AARP (American Association of Retired People). But now that I'm old enough to join, I'd rather eat a rivet.

I was even once a contributing member of the NAACP, until I realized that it has effictively become joined at the hip to one political party, even though its doing so guarantees neither major political party will pay its goals more than lip service -- on the one hand because it already has NAACP's support, no matter how little it does, and on the other hand because it can't get that support, no matter how much it does.

More recently I stopped supporting my formerly-favorite charity, the Heifer Project, when they got involved in Arkansas politics regarding former President Clinton's presidential library.

To my list, Leo and O'Sullivan add UNICEF, the Girl Scouts, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Ford Foundation, the Episcopal Church, and the League of Women Voters, as groups that now support causes far from their original mission.

From O'Sullivan's Law follows this caution -- don't support a charitable cause just because it has a good name, or even because it previously had a good reputation.

By the way, if anyone knows of a greener alternative to being a member of AAA, that still provides a bail bond feature, that's a group that has veered so far in opposition to sensible solutions for transpertation problems over the years that I can hardly bear still being a member.

Update:
As an example of this, WorldNetDaily reports a recent issue of Consumer Reports on condoms, in discussing abortion, referred to a young life about to be snuffed as "uterine contents". They add that the CEO of Consumer Reports used to head the Maryland chapter of Planned Parenthood.

Update2:
The mechanism of how groups become one-sided politically may be explained by George Will:
"This gives rise to what [Mark] Bauerlein calls the 'false consensus effect,' which occurs when, because of institutional provincialism, 'people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population.' There also is what Cass Sunstein, professor of political science and jurisprudence at the University of Chicago, calls 'the law of group polarization.' Bauerlein explains: 'When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs.' They become tone-deaf to the way they sound to others outside their closed circle of belief."

Update3: I got another membership invite from AARP today. Funny that they now want to hear from me, when they could not be bothered to respond to me earlier this year when I asked about their own solution to making sure Social Security is still there for the next generation since they so dislike President Bush's proposals.

It's always easier to complain about the ideas of others than to come up with better alternative ideas. But if all AARP wants to do is whine, they will have to do so without my money.

An interesting issue was raised at work today. One of our token moderate and/or conservative professors wrote as follows:

I'm confused. Just what constitutes "human rights"? I have been seeing this term thrown around very loosely [in the staff Email discussion list], and in many other venues lately. It appears to me that if someone does not like a law, or a situation, or the color of the sky, it violates their human rights. People who are for gay marriage are yelling that its prohibition violates their human rights. I, similarly, can say that legalizing gay marriage violates my human rights.

We do indeed now have a problem defining human rights. To the founders of this country such rights were inherent in the Created order. But many in our day attribute creation to pure chance, as opposed to intelligent design.

The best responders at the university could do today in responding to the question was to quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948.

No offense, but the moral authority of saying "a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats agreed on this list of rights" is much less compelling than our Declaration of Independence beginning with the words "We consider these truths to be self-evident..."

It's all very well for Post-Modernists to value tolerance and diversity above other values. But with no recourse to God as the source of such ideas, all who feel differently are welcome to reply "That's just your opinion. What gives you the right to dictate my values?"

Call me a throwback if you like, but I still consider human rights to be inherent in humanity by virtue of our intelligent design, and limited to those rights whose "rightness" is obvious to anyone capable of common sense.

Just as evolution has favored physical characteristics that work over those that fail, so also thousands of years of civilization world-wide have established some values as more fundamental than others.

Although I have no personal problem with Gay marriage, I'm troubled by the idea of claiming it is a "human right" when so far as we know it has never been considered so in the laws of any nation throughout recorded history.

Donald Sensing just dove into the current controversy about Gay marriage with two great articles. In the first, "Separating the legal and the spiritual in the wedding business" he recommends we revert to the practice 500 years ago of separating the legal shorthand a wedding represents to the State from the religious concept of marriage.

In this view, any couple interested in the legal relationship would obtain it via the State, and only those couples interested in a religious marriage would involve a faith community. Sensing reminds us that nothing the State does can force a faith community to accept an unwanted form of marriage in the spiritual sense, but in a free country there will always be "churches" willing to provide a desired ceremony.

In the second article, "The 'gay marriage' controversy" Sensing responds to his many critics, suggesting this battle was lost 40 years ago with the widespread availability of the birth control pill. That destroyed a long-term social contract which traded a woman having sex only with one man (so he could know the resulting children were his) with the man supporting her and their children to adulthood (since pregnancy and child care are not otherwise condusive to economic well-being.) Once only an economic partnership agreement remains, with children no longer a factor, apart from faith issues why can't Gays also be allowed such partnerships?

My only complaint about the current situation in San Francisco and Massachusetts is that our freedom and civilization may not long continue if State laws may safely be flouted by localities, or overturned at any time for any reason by any judge so inclined.

When caring for youngsters, I occasionally have to ask them to use "the other left hand."

Donald Sensing today pointed out an article illustrating several surprising and needed reminders of how to be a true leftist. For those of you on the left who suspect it's a left-bashing article, au contraire, the author writes as a proud leftist.

Here's the link to A Friendly Drink in a Time of War, by Paul Berman in Dissent Magazine.

No matter where you fall on left to right political scales, if you think about politics at all, this is a wonderful short article. Highly recommended!

Here is an interesting political quiz
politicalcompass
It can be completed in under 5 minutes, and places you on a two-axis scale that makes more sense to me than the usual left to right line. For what it's worth, I score near the middle on both axes.

Hence, "Man in the Middle".

Update: A state rep who sometimes reads this blog just suggested another quiz, called "Useful Voter Guide: Are You A Democrat Or A Republican?" That quiz says I'm a "Middle of the Road Independent", but try it for yourself here.

Update2: Two years later, just after reading F. A. Hayek's brilliant 1946 classic "The Road to Serfdom", I retook this test, and find I'm now still smack in the middle between conservatives and progressives (Hayek reminded me that neither is entitled to the term "liberal"), and measurably more Libertarian and less Authoritarian than before. If you read only one book in the next decade, Hayek's would be a great choice.

Also, the Middledaughter (in law), with whom I regularly enjoy disagreeing politically, just took the same test, and scored exactly the same as me on both axes. We were both surprised, and feel sure that although on average we agree completely, that we couldn't have answered all the questions the same way.