In the recent SCotUS decision on the Indiana voter ID law, I have found common sense, outrage, and humor.  STORY HERE  but make sure you scroll down to the humor part...

First, here's what the law that was challenged requires:

The Indiana law, adopted by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2005 without a single Democratic vote, is regarded as the strictest in the country. It requires a voter to present a photograph as part of an unexpired document issued either by Indiana or the federal government, a requirement that in most cases can be satisfied only by a current driver’s license or a passport. The state’s motor vehicle agency provides a free photo ID card for people who do not drive, but obtaining it requires a “primary document” like an original birth certificate or a passport.

That's common sense.  For all you fuddy duddy leftists screaming about Republicans wanting to disenfranchise voters, there are exceptions to this law, but tell me something:  If a dead person votes (or an illegal alien) and they oppose my vote, aren't I the one that is disenfranchised?  Don't I have rights?

The plaintiffs argued that the state had failed to justify a requirement they said would place a special burden on thousands of eligible voters in Indiana who lack driver’s licenses, a group that disproportionately includes the poor, the elderly and people with disabilities.

That's an outrage, to me.  The State of Indiana DMV gives away free ID cards, and special exemptions are granted to people who object to being photographed.  Elections are held infrequently, and any person who desires to vote can make arrangements to get an ID card in advance.  EVEN IF THEY FORGET, they can still vote with a provisional ballot that will STILL BE COUNTED so long as they present acceptable ID at the county clerk's office.  Sheesh...

Here's the funniest line in this whole article, and I was quite tickled to read it.  Remember that the "plaintiff" in this case is the Democrat Party of Indiana....  LOL

Writing for the 2-to-1 majority at the appeals court, Judge Richard A. Posner agreed with the plaintiffs that the law would have the greatest impact on people who were “low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates.”

Makes you want to be a Democrat, doesn't it?  Are the Democrats "for" the poor people, or do they have a vested interest in keeping people poor?  If "people who [are] low on the economic ladder" and are "more likely to vote for Democratic" candidates....  Where is the vested interest in helping them move up the economic ladder of success?  There is none, and they govern that way.

Now, let me speak to those who are poor, indegent, and lack a driver's license:   How many promises have the Democrats made over the years to improve your life?  Meager social security raises, ineffective leadership, and wasteful, moronic programs that are broken from the beginning and bankrupt in the end are all you've had to show for your 60 years of votes, and still you fall for their deceit.....  If voting is important to you, take the time and make the effort to get a free ID card.  If you need a ride, call the Democrats or Republicans.  They'll be glad to give you a ride and get you registered.  :-)

There is a better way to change your situation, though, and that way is through the Platform of the American people at American Solutions.  Effective government that uses modern technologies and business processes will work where single party solutions have failed you.  American Solutions offers common sense, apolitical, morally sound and widely accepted solutions that will transform government from the bottom up, and it will solve the problems caused by an outdated, partisan, broken bureaucracy that you now suffer through.  Government is not the solution, government is the problem. 

Since the ruling of the court was a splintered decision, and not a majority or plurality, it cannot be used as precedent.  That means we'll see more challenges to ID laws swamping the court system, until more convincing evidence can be brought forth upon which the justices can stick their necks out and decide.  Nice.  As usual, I'm in the Scalia camp on this one:

The three others who made up the majority, Justices Antonin Scalia , Clarence Thomas , and Samuel A. Alito Jr. , said in an opinion by Justice Scalia that the law was so obviously justified as “a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation” that there was no basis for scrutinizing the record to assess the impact on any individual voters. “This is an area where the dos and don’ts need to be known in advance of the election,” Justice Scalia said.

Well no duh.  How this ever made it to the SCotUS is beyond me.  This was high-school civics 101....

Here's my take on this Newt and Nancy commercial that seems to have caused what Sir Wallace (Wally, to those who know him) would call Grumblings Of Disapproval From The Well Of Parliament....

It's not the message.  We are the most innovative society on Earth, and always have been, and we know Newt knows this.  It's not about global warming.  Newt doesn't espouse the human-caused angle, and I'm sure he knows the Earth isn't warming anyway, as he's a very bright man. 

If I had to put my finger on a single reason for the grumbling, it would be the image of Newt Gingrich sitting, smiling even, at a person many of us perceive as our nemesis.  Newt vowing to work together with Cruella DeVille is, to a lot of conservatives, very much like McCain's "reaching across the aisle" on immigration:  A betrayal.  As my dear friend Hyrum Laney will tell you, you can have philosophical disagreements with each other about many things, fight like hell about them, and still go out for a beer together afterwards.  But once you've been betrayed by someone, it's hard to look a man in the eye with the same measure of respect you once held for him.

I can tell you though, the single quote that defines this event for me and makes it into a much smaller issue.  "What is the primary purpose of a political leader? To build a majority. If voters care about parking lots, then talk about parking lots."  Newt was right on that point, and he's right on this, but some people don't like the venue in which he chose to deliver it. 

Voters care about the environment, a lot.  We need to have solutions to these problems, and it's better for all of us (taxpayers and businesses alike) to have a capitalistic solution instead of a governmental solution.  If we do not participate in this, we lose those voters who care about it, and we lose out on a tremendous opportunity to change our fiscal and environmental future in a meaningful and substantial way.  If we do not stand up and lead on this issue, or on other important issues like immigration, healthcare, fiscal responsibility, taxes, etc., how can we ever build a governing majority that will truly save the Earth, in ways far more realistic than are currently being discussed?  How can we appear to be leaders when all we do is participate in the sandbox diplomacy of partisanship?  If not us, who?  If not now, when?

We'll have to work with "them" on the issue, for sure.  Some people just don't think we're at that point yet, and given the track record of having sand kicked in our faces by people we really don't believe want the best for this nation, it'll be a while before they earn the right to sit next to Speaker Gingrich and smile that lousy, cat that ate the canary smile.  Without it costing him 10 points on public approval, anyway. 

But that's just me.  I could be wrong.

With all the qualifiers he could muster, Anatole Kaletski of the London Times has stepped right up and said what “senior Democrats” (I don’t know who he means by that) want to say but don’t feel they can, in the story: YES IT’S POLITICALLY INCORRECT BUT RACE MATTERS. 

So, a British socialist says it for them, and they don’t have to.

“Worse still, this result underlined the fear that senior Democrats have long been aware of, but have never dared to express in public: America may not yet be ready to elect a black President…. Mr Obama may by unable to carry large industrial states with socially conservative white working-class populations simply because of his race.”

Anatole, it has nothing to do with race.  It has to do with Barack’s liberal politics and incredibly poor choice of friends, which is poor even for a politician.  And besides that, but you're already wrong...  Obama HAS carried those populations in many "white" areas of states, among the most important demographic to him: DEMOCRATS.

It’s amazing to me that the Brits continue to comment on American politics like they understand the process.  Thier ignorance of our political system is astounding.  It is liberals who are making this campaign be about race, all in the name of electing Hillary, or defending Rev. Wright, and it’s laughable. 

But again, this election is not about race, despite the wishes of the Clintonistas.  America would gladly elect any candidate, of any race or religion, so long as that persons morals, values, and ethics are in sync with voters.  In general, Americans have done a pretty good job when choosing between the lesser of two evils, and Senator McCain is certainly the lesser candidate this year.  (That was for Ansell and Hyrum.)

Mr Obama's supporters have chastised Mrs Clinton for turning to “negative campaigning” and “scorched-earth” strategies in her desperation to stay in contention.

So long as Barack is allowed to “say” change and isn’t asked to define it, the world is in harmony.  Question anything about the experience or electability of the Hope from Hope, err, Illinois, and it’s called “scorched-earth.”  Pathetic.  What does Kaletski think about the McCain campaign’s future strategies?

Most of the evidence so far suggests that the Repulicans will find it much easier to frighten voters about the prospect of a President Obama than a President Clinton …  The Republicans will have no such compunctions about the fairness of launching personal attacks against a potentially vulnerable Democratic candidate..

So, when liberals use baseless attacks, innuendo, race baiting, voter fraud, propaganda, and outright lies about a Republican, it’s called a “nuanced message,” or tough politics.  If a Republican dares to question a candidate’s relationship with an avowed hater of America, a bomb-throwing minister, or a slum lord businessman, we’re “frightening voters” or using scare tactics.  That’s probably the most pathetic line in a piece of journalism I’ve read in quite some time.

Here’s the options for Barack:

He loses the nomination to Hillary.  If Barack fails to overcome the Clinton oligarchy, it will throw the Democrat party into chaos, leaving them as an unviable party for the next 20 years or more.  Look for a Republican majority in both houses come 2009.

He wins the nomination despite Hillary.  This is the likely scenario, and it’ll be fun to watch.  If this occurs, it will be a great boost to Barack’s legitimacy, since it will mean the defeat of the Clintonistas who are deeply entrenched in the Democrat party’s command and control apparatus. 

If he becomes the nominee, it is unlikely (barring any major gaffes by McCain) that he would win in November.  Again, not because of his race but because of his politics.  Once he defines what he means by “change” in a substantive way (like on Chris Wallace this Sunday), the bandwagon will start losing horses, fast.  The impression that he is an erudite legend among men will soon be replaced by the reality that he can’t put 10 words together in a sentence if it hasn’t been scripted and practiced, and the fact that he has used up about 14 minutes of his 15 minutes of fame.

And if he wins the Presidency?  Guys like Kaletski are going to have a lot of crow to eat.

After devoting a few weeks to college, family, and friends, I'm back!  Sorry for my absence, and to any of you who sent email to my full box....  You may resume spamming me with the good stuff again.  :-)  But, I digress....

Former President Carter...  is living proof of what happens when you elect an unqualified man to be your President, no matter how "honest" you think he is.  Honest liberals are still bad for America.  Each man who holds that office leaves behind a bureaucratic legacy that lasts for at least a generation, and Carter's legacy is the gift that keeps on giving to liberals, terrorists, and anyone who generally hates America.  Senator McCain would do well to make a campaign promise to revoke Carter's visa.

Barack Obama...  Since the "outing" of Rev. Wright, Obama has made one misstep after another.  He is losing the mystical aura of political sincerity he once had since being forced into a campaign based upon race, religion, class, and now caste, rather than hope.  A tiger is a tiger, and a liberal is a liberal.   Whether it's Obama, Carter, or Clinton, it matters not.  The words used by Obama are simply a view behind the curtain of the Wizard of Oz for the average American, once again exposing the true to their core (but normally hidden) arrogance of the left.  We are the Left's version of the bourgeoisie, to be looked down upon and scorned for our ignorance and uncleanliness.  Apparently.

Hillary...  Bill won't shut up, which is her largest problem right now.  Her chances at the nomination are about as good as an unguarded Olympic torch being carried through the middle of Tibet in a hurrican (or San Francisco on a sunny day for that matter), but with each day that passes between now and the Democrat convention, the unthinkable could happen for her.  Certainly, the worst thing for the Democrats would be for the super-duped delegates to give the election to her over the votes of the states.  In my opinion, that would effectively end just about any chance a democrat would have at the White House in 2008, and possibly in 2012 as well.

McCain...  The first Republican nominee in my memory that has to run to the right <after> securing the nomination.  The question is not whether he now supports the Bush tax cuts.  The question is, is he willing to propose (intelligent) tax cuts of his own to heal our nation.  Likewise, it's not whether or not he thinks the borders should be secured, but will McCain be proactive in securing them?  Straight talk is one thing, but if it could be used as a talking point for the Democrats, it's probably not a good thing to be straight about...  Blaming corporate greed for our current woes is like complaining that the captain of the Titanic should have been more careful while they're lowering the last lifeboat into the water...  If the SS America is sinking, we need someone to bail water...

That's it for now...  I'm working on some other observations I've had lately that I hope you'll appreciate.  It's good to be back.  :-)

BRITISH AIRWAYS BRINGS IN FEDEX TO REDUCE BAG BACKLOG

When I first read this story, I was instantly reminded of NEWT’S PRESENTATION regarding The World That Works and FedEx.  Basically, British Airways is shutting down 25 inbound and 25 outbound flights (340+ will operate normally) so that FedEx can sort out the $8.5 BILLION DOLLAR BAGGAGE SYSTEM failure (a DCV system, more on that below) at Terminal 5.  Reading through the marketing hype on that document is eerily reminiscent of the failure of people, politics, and failed utopian schemes we’ve seen before.  Once again the bureaucracy repeats a historical failure, refusing to learn from those who failed before.

Initially, it looked like they “got” it.  A lot of people (me included) are or were under the impression that FedEx was being brought in to “fix” this problem for Heathrow, as evidenced by the rise on stock on this news.  Unfortunately, that’s not the case.  A careful reading of the article and the BA link will show that FedEx is simply tasked with returning the 20,000 pieces of luggage to their rightful owners, and the flight delay is so that they have time to grab and process the luggage, and will not be helping Heathrow actually make the system work as planned.  The BA Terminal 5 info is HERE, and if you’re one of those unlucky saps who lost luggage, you can claim it HERE.

This isn’t the first time this has happened, and not the first time it has been tried.  In the early 1990’s, a similar incident happened at the DenverInternationalAirport.  A hideously politicized debacle where the baggage system was an afterthought, politicians used it to enrich friends, and money flowed from the taxpayer’s pocket like water from a spigot to pay for it all, and still is.  Please read THIS IMPORTANT ANALYSIS by Cal-Poly. 

Fortunately for Coloradans, that albatross only cost “hundreds of millions” instead of the billions spent by Heathrow.  While the studies have not been done on the aftermath at Heathrow yet, let’s examine the system at the root of the problem, the Destination-Coded Vehicle (DCV) and Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), which has been a pet peeve of mine for a while, and is considered “the future” by many socialist utopian-dreaming fools.

HERE is a link to a good article (if you forego the personal opinions of the author) regarding PRT and DCV systems, and here is the utopian viewpoint at HOW STUFF WORKS.  If you can’t find the time to read the links, here are some of my favorite quotes that paint a pretty good picture of why PRT/DCV fails and why it is so beloved by politicians and airport planners, taken from the Cal-Poly analysis:

Media Fiasco:

“In March of 1994, the installation staff ran the BAE system for several media groups. Faults throughout the entire baggage system destroyed bags and flung suitcases out of telecars. The next day, phrases like "bags were literally chewed up," and "clothing and other personal belongings flying through the air" hit newspapers.”  (oops, C2)

Later, More Oops:

In late August, Glen Rifkin of Forbes wrote, "Throughout the day, workers are seen unclogging tracks lined with bags that have been cut in half." Morale was low among the installation crew. When asked how the test bags were damaged, one worker replied in mock horror, "It's not eatin' bags. A truck ran over these outside."

The Cause From an Engineer’s Standpoint:

Ginger Evans, director of engineering for DenverInternationalAirport, claimed that BAE didn't pay enough attention to the programming issues early enough in the design process. She believed that alleged troubles with building access or mechanical issues weren't the problem. "It's that the programming is not done," she said…. “While writing code for the communication, tracking, and other numerous applications, the software grew more complicated. As a consequence, the code completion agenda experienced the threat of becoming unmanageable due to escalating levels of complexity.”

The Microsoft Component:

Some critics cite BAE's equipment choices as factors of the system's failure. Regarding the distributed 486-based PCs, Carl B. Marback states that, "when you combine DOS' quirks (my DOS PC still crashes regularly) and the uncertainty of PC software (I get lots that doesn't work) with third-party things like Novell and network hardware, where is the 'managing vendor' to sort it all out?"

The Ugly Reality of Politics:

George Rolf, an urban planning professor from the University of Washington, said that publicly run projects like DenverInternationalAirport encounter problems because "you have two distinct processes going on, one political and the other technical, and they have little to do with one another."

One example of this claim is Denver's refusal to award the job of operating the baggage system to BAE, the only company that well understood it. … Essentially, Denver officials suspected that BAE would not hire enough minorities and women, although BAE said they would. Richard Woodbury wrote, "In the wake of political infighting over who should get the lucrative contract, it went to an outsider, Aircraft Service International of Miami, which has had to race to fathom the system in a few months."

Gee, that’s rather surprising…  The World That Fails relies on the nobility of diversity to reinforce bad political decisions every day…  Even when the “right” answer (if there was one in this case) is put before them (politicians), they make the wrong choice based on some deeply held delusion that fairness and diversity will make it all better.  *sigh* 

Then came the corruption, greed, and the cover-up:

A Denver insider declared, "It was raw greed. Everyone wanted a piece of the contract moneys. The city lost control at the outset, and the project was destined to run amuck.

Mike Boyd, an analyst who heads Aviation Systems Research Corporation in Golden, Colorado said, "This is an airport built for politicians, not for airlines. When you look at the numbers and what they're telling bond houses, it is absolutely shocking. None of the significant numbers that the city has been putting out since the airport was started have held true.”

Other political troubles included Denver's alleged falsifying of temporary certificates of occupancy (TCOs) in the midst of the baggage system crisis to appease the airlines, and a lawsuit with the Park Hill Neighborhood Association barring a partial airport opening. Consequently, in January of 1994, both the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenaed key DenverInternationalAirport documents. In February of 1994, the U.S. attorney's office sent investigators to Denver to interview city officials and probe into alleged wrongdoings. In August of 1994, a federal grand jury began investigating the DenverInternationalAirport for fraudulent contracting, trading, testing, and construction financing practices.

And then we bailed them out:

In late October of 1994, a congressional auditing agency became involved in DenverInternationalAirport's financial woes. The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that despite Denver's delays and losses, the city's chances of avoiding default were good.

In the end, my favorite quote remains from the professor at the University of Minnesota, as he points out that over $230 million was spent on the PRT/DCV system at Denver was scrapped, and then replaced by the normal tractor/trailer system for another $70 million on top of that.  Won’t we ever learn?

The Denver International Airport Luggage Handling System answers the question "if only we had unlimited money and could build PRT however and where ever we want with the best and the brightest in America..." And the answer is: complete total system and financial failure, ruin for companies involved in the project culminating in backbreaking financial obligations on the public taxing and bonding authorities. United Airlines went broke, the engineering firm, BAE (Boeing Airport Equipment) the largest of its type in the US at the time, failed and was sold. The taxpayers of Colorado have a burden of hundreds of millions of dollars for 17 miles of rusting track and thousands of little dead pods.

Sure, PRT/DCV is a great idea, but we’re either not there yet or it’s one of those things where the cheaper, functional system should be used because it just works.  And when all the crying is done, after the billions wasted on a system that was built around Terminal 5, my 2 cents says that they’ll bus baggage around on little tractor/trailer trains like they do everywhere else.  There is no utopia.  Never forget that.

Jeff

I haven't had this much fun in a long time..

Here's the story:  SADDAM PAID FOR LAWMAKER'S TRIP

Here's the lead-in:  Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

Here's the quote:  "Obviously, we didn't know it at the time," McDermott spokesman Michael DeCesare said Wednesday. "The trip was to see the plight of the Iraqi children. That's the only reason we went."

From www.sourcewatch.org, regarding the trip and a possible quid pro quo:

After his visit to Iraq, Rep. McDermott received a $5,000 contribution to an unrelated legal defense fund from Shakir al Khafaji, an Iraqi-American businessman with alleged ties to the Oil for Food scandal. McDermott returned the contribution in 2004 after it was questioned in the media. Aides asserted that Rep. McDermott had no prior knowledge of Khafaji's alleged connections to Iraqi oil money.  (LINK TO FULL DOCUMENT)

From David Postman's Seattle Times blog comes a quote from the weasel's office:

I just spoke with McDermott spokesman Mike DeCesare.
He said McDermott was invited to Iraq by the church council, not the Michigan group.
"Jim was asked time and again by the folks there to go see what others had seen and were concerned about, which was the plight of Iraqi children," DeCesare said. "That was the genesis of the whole trip."
He said his recollection was that the funding of the trip was worked out after McDermott accepted the invitation. When he was told who paid for it, he reported it as required on disclosure forms.
"We've been straight forward about it because it's a pretty straight forward thing," he said. (LINK TO FULL DOCUMENT)

Yes, Mr. DeCesare, giving aid and comfort to an enemy of your nation, a known mass murderer and brutal dictator, in a time of war is a pretty straight forward thing.  When you do it, you have to make sure you avoid any "appearance of impropriety." 

From Me:  These three congressmen knew what they were doing.  They're all big boys and are used to playing games in the grownups world.  No congressman would ever get on a plane funded by someone else without being relatively sure of who was paying the tab.  If this is not the case, then our system is more broken than even I imagined.  Show me McDermott's personal emails regarding this matter, and the text messages from his Blackberry and I'd bet you a dollar you'd puke.

They knew what they were doing, and who their trip would benefit.  They knew where they were going and under what pretext their "mission" would be viewed.  They knew this would receive scrutiny and they took the money anyway, and then took more after the fact.  I'd assert that this kind of thing goes on all the time, and it's no surprise that in this case it's a demorat. 

I'm a big fan of profiling.  I think that we ought to go through the donor lists and examine monies accepted by *any* congressman or senator *regardless of party affiliation* from any potential terrorist front group or organization allied against the United States.  After you do that, make a comparison to their voting records prior to receiving the donations and see how they voted after that.  If there is any sign that they have been influenced by enemies of our state, they should be asked to resign and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if any violations are found.

My guess is that you'd only have to do this once or twice to get their attention.  After that, there would be a mass retirement party and we could get back to the business of being the mightiest nation on Earth.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/south/epaper/2008/03/25/m1a_cheerleader_0324.html

Edited...

There's something wrong with us, and the way we look at life.  The way we look at beauty and the way we handle strife.  There's something in this nation now that's very wrong to me. We can't solve all our ills with doctors schilling pills, or plastic surgery.  Stephanie Kuleba was a bright young girl with dreams, but she'll never get to chase them now, 'cause life's unfair, it seems.

Why is it that we poison kids to make them think see their flaws?  The answers that they seek in life cannot be found in bras.  Why can't we teach them early on to value what they are?  That it's not about the clique they're in, or money, drugs, or cars…  Give them wings when they are young, this is what I say.  Let them learn to soar beyond the troubles of our day.  Teach them first to look within and they'll be far less apt to need.  Teach them how to love themselves, a much more noble deed.

Sculpted forms are quite the norm in our cultural industry.  Nowadays it’s airbrush beauty that fools us constantly.  That girl you like?  She’s a dream, but it ain't nothing but a show.  A plastic package, the sculpted wreckage of a weary, drifting soul.  They look so happy, look so young, and you want to be like that, but be careful what you wish for ‘cause that’s not quite where it’s at. The truth behind the devil's lie is that you can't trust what you see.  Unlike the shell we idolize, inside there lies a different tale, it's one of misery. 

I don’t think the Biz will change, they’ve got it good you see.  There's money in the shape of flesh, in magazines and movies and the crap that’s on TV.  Heath Ledger simply overdosed, our latest Norma Jean.  He went away while in his prime, just like a young James Dean.  Is that the fame and fortune that we want our kids to chase?  Do you try to get it through their heads that this is not a race?  This young lady gave her life for vanity and grace, but all along it was right there in the smile upon her face.

How many more are out there that we'll sacrifice in vain?  How many Stephanies before we finally stop the pain?  How long until our sanity comes back to us again?  Or will our wicked tendencies overtake us in the end?  I suppose the answer we all want, surely must be "why".  Everybody knows the answer:  Stephanie didn't have to die.

The lawyers and the doctors will be fighting for a while. Whatever comes of that, it won’t bring back her smile.  The talk shows are like jackals and I'm sure that they’ll inform.  It’ll rain and pour and then will pass, just like a winter storm.  Then we all can lay back on the couch until we’re fat, while we watch another Baywatch and wish we looked like that.

Jeff Newcomb
Concepts2

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person." --Barack Obama

I say:  In the coming years, as we struggle to move our government into the world that works for our posterity, must we carry the hatred, racism, bigotry, and intolerance of the last generation on our backs too?  What has been done cannot be undone, but the future is very bright for all of us if we will only reach ahead for our better days.  Let hatred die.  Let racism wither on the vine.  Let Freedom ring.

Dang, that almost brought a tear to my eye.  Anyway...

Obama's statement is an argument designed to draw people into the embarassing conversation of "well, I know plenty of black people" or "I have many friends who are black, and..." changing the focus from what he holds in his heart to the color of his skin.  I don't want to participate because race is not important when choosing a President, nor a Senator or Congressman, city counselor, or dog catcher.

Turning this into a campaign about the racial divide in America, at a time when our nation faces so many serious problems, is a lose-lose proposition for Obama and for us.  No person can erase the past.  No politician can reach into the heart of any racist person and rip out any racism that may hid there.  Obama was unable to do it with Reverand Wright, a friend and mentor of 20 years, so why should anyone else be expected to do so?

The longer we focus on tit-for-tat racial and political sloganeering, the further we are from effecting real change in America.  We have some serious problems with our energy policy that are going to take a substantial debate among the American People, and even if we start having that debate today, now, it will take several years to solve.  Perhaps our greatest problem is terrorism, but we have an economy that is rapidly growing in importance behind that.  Other than offering solutions that have failed us time and time again, we're no closer to solving either.  Engaging in an irrelevant debate on race at this time is a waste of our breath.  Can a black man be President?  Yes.  Can a woman be President? Yes. 

Great, now let's have a debate about what we think about the other 3.1 trillion problems America has right now. Substantive debate, with difficult questions that require "core belief" type answers.  Here's a few questions I've made up just for fun.... 

Senators Obama and McCain, where do you stand on making English the official language of government?  Please tell us yes or no first, and then why or why not?

Senator McCain, you've said recently that you would have border states certify that their portion of the border is secure.  What legislation would you offer to help them do that?  And when would you offer it?

Senator Obama, do you favor eliminating the capital gains tax and making the permanent elimination of the death tax?  Why?

Senators, can you name 5 things we could do to increase investment in America, stabilize the dollar, and lower our trade deficits with China?

Senators, both of you are on record as supporting some type of "path to citizenship" for people who are currently in the US illegally.  If you become President, how long do you expect it to take to accomplish this goal, and what obstacles do you believe will be the hardest to overcome as you work to implement a "path to citizenship."

Senators, what would either of you do to lower the price of gas in the first year of your administration?  What is a good price you'd like to see the average American pay for a gallon of gas?

Senator Obama, you're on record as saying we should "get out of Iraq" as soon as possible.  Beyond that, do you think America's military needs to be smaller, larger, or about the same size of a force that it is today?

Senators, some cities in America are graduating fewer than 50% of their students from public high schools, while charter schools in the same areas are graduating more than 90%.  Will either of you make resolving this disparity a priority in the first year of your administration, and are you willing to spend the political capital necessary to solve the problem, even if the problem is found to be something that is politically explosive?

.............

Never happen in a million years, will it Mr. Ansell?  Wally?  Newt?

Rep. Dingle (Michigan Representative, Democrat) believes that by raising the price of gas, it will discourage consumption.  Hmmm...  HERE'S THE ARTICLE

Rep Dingle, if we raise the minimum wage, will that not discourage the hiring of workers?

(To borrow from Rush Limbaugh's take on the minumum wage):  Why stop at fifty cents a gallon, Rep. Dingle?  If you really want to lower consumption, why not raise the gast tax by $1?  Why not $5.00, Rep. Dingle?  Why don't we raise the price of the gallon of gas by $10.00 so that we truly force people from the highways so that they stop contributing to "greenhouse emissions" immediately?  No matter if we all stop driving immediately it would only have a 1% effect on the amound of CO2 emissions worldwide, Rep. Dingle....

Shoot, why stop there, Rep. Dingle?  If it is so important that WE, the US of A change our behavior "now, before it's too late," then why not make trips of over 50 miles illegal?  Why not put GPS on every car to track the driving habits and have the NSA retasked from anti-terrorism duties (you don't think terrorists exist anyway) and have them start monitoring our driving habits?

Has Representative Dingle not noticed what abusive, nonsensical tax policy has done to the state of Michigan already?  I think Newt referred to Detroit as the only place not struck by Hurricane Katrina that was in a local recession in 2006.....  And as Newt so rightly mentioned in Real Change, Einstein's take on Dingle's behavior is simply:  Doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results is a sign of insanity.  Will they ever learn, or is this part of some agenda?

How about THIS STORY?  That is why you don't raise gas prices...  If you want to guarantee the continued decline of the auto industy (ironically, it's based in Michigan), to continue to HURT the people in your district, then raise gas prices all you want.  Eventually they'll realize you are insane.

Question:   Who is more effected by the price of gas?  Low income families or "the rich"?

I'll put this into the language of a liberal, and perhaps they'll understand:

I thought you were the champion of the "little guy" Mr. Dingle?  Savior of the poor...  Why would you raise taxes on the poor?  Do you want grandmas to have to choose between buying medicine and buying gas?  To paraphrase Dick Gephardt, an old colleague of yours, do you want grandma to have to eat dogfood so she can still afford make the trip to visit her grandchildren? 

Isn't it time for you to explain your real agenda, Mr. Dingle?

Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

I listened to a very spirited water cooler discussion today regarding the Supreme Court's apparent acknowledgement that the Constitution does indeed protect the right of a private citizen to keep and bear arms.  To be honest, it was a horrible, slogan filled discussion that neither side were prepared to have.  I'm only a slight history/quote buff and was able to shed some light for the Water Cooler Warriors, and thought I'd share a few quotes with you.

These should be a lesson to Obama on how to say what he means as a politician so that there be no confusion as to what he believes, no matter what comes up:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Notice, if you will, how little the argument has changed in 234 years.  Coming from Jefferson, this is a very powerful quote.  Patrick Henry (I think he reincarnated as Hyrum Laney) went one further and commented on how humiliating it would be to deny Free Men a gun:

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry

Indeed, much thought and seriousness was given to the right to keep and bear arms.  Our first President (George Washington, for those of you in Congress) looked backwards in time to the very beginnings of our great nation and noted the usefulness and purpose of bearing arms:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."  George Washington

I like that line very much: "restrains evil interference".  Is that not the crux of the matter?  Washington and others rightly believed that evil men were more subdued and more mannerly because of the presence of weapons.  Conversely, criminals are more bold when they are assured of the absence of weapons.

But what did the Founders think an unarmed society would be like?  If they thought so highly of an armed populace, surely those convictions were based upon certain principles?  I like Jefferson's take on this:

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

Some more, just for fun:

You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. -- Rush Limbaugh 

I don't like the idea that the police department seems bent on keeping a pool of unarmed victims available for the predations of the criminal class. -- David Mohler, 1989, on being denied a carry permit in NYC

Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws...It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem. -- The late Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune

[President Clinton] boasts about 186,000 people denied firearms under the Brady Law rules. The Brady Law has been in force for three years. In that time, they have prosecuted seven people and put three of them in prison. You know, the President has entertained more felons than that at fundraising coffees in the White House, for Pete's sake." -- Charlton Heston, FOX News Sunday, 18 May 1997

What about the anti-gun lobby?  What do they think?  How can they read the words above and still demand that guns be banned, regardless of common sense and virtue?  Well, they have their reasons, and if you're going to be an effective debater on this topic, you need to know their arguments better than they do.  You have to know what their agenda is, and how far they're willing to go to deprive you of your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms:

“Gun control is here to stay across the world, including in the United States. Anything else would lead to chaos.”  Trevor Bloem

“It's a fundamental aspect of gun control. It would, for example, allow checks to be made on someone who comes to the attention of the police for gun possession in one area of the country and then moves to another area.” Rebecca Peters (Australian Gun Control Advocate)

 

“In the 100 days until the UN world conference on small arms starts, an estimated 100,000 people will be killed with arms and many more will be injured and suffer severely in other ways from armed violence. Today, people from Kenya to Canada to Chile will be calling on their leaders to demand global controls to stop weapons falling into the wrong hands.” Rebecca Peters

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. [...] The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. -- Majority Supreme Court opinion in "U.S. vs. Miller" (1939)

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous." - Walter Dellinger, lawyer for the city of DC, 2008

Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?" Justice Stephen Bryer, 2008

"More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban." Washington D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, 2008

So, you can see that the general idea is that they focus on weapons as "types" so that they can say they aren't in favor of banning "all" guns.  They believe that guns kill people, and that ordinary people (read: people they do not control) are not capable of owning a weapon.  "The wrong hands" would be civilians, I would assume.

I wonder sometimes if this isn't just one of those political issues where "the right wingers" are pro-gun, so us "lefties" have to be anti-gun to balance the fate of the world.  I've met people who are scared to death of guns, so much that they won't be in the same house with a gun, but that has to be a phobia of some sort.  I guess I'm just not wired in a way that I can understand this issue from their point of view. 

I must admit, I thought it would be easier to find notable quotables from the anti-gun lobby, but Google turned up shy.  Have any to add?  Put it in the comment section, and I'll leave you with a few parting "shots".   :-)

No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before. -- Colin Greenwood, in the study "Firearms Control", 1972

"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things."   Adolph Hitler

If the Last Temptation was to finally, convincingly deliver a speech on race, then The Passion would certainly have to be to weave into that speech more (empty) Hope.  I listened to it, then I read it, and here's my thoughts:

Going into this speech, I reviewed Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech because I wanted to see if there were any similarities.  Since I was a child, long long ago, one passage from that speech has always stuck with me, and my skin tingled as I heard these words again:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

I identified with those words because I grew up with the children of that generation, and I've lived my life giving those words meaning in every relationship I make.  I trust my friends and judge my enemies "by the content of their character."  And that passage once again has meaning today, for we are examining the character of a great orator and potential leader of our great nation, and up until today the color of his skin was irrelevant.

The first question I asked is, did he answer the questions about Jeremiah Wright?  Maybe, for some.  His explanation was strangely similar to the "it depends on what the meaning of 'is', is" debacle with Bill Clinton a few years ago.  Here's the part that clued me into that:

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

Too many "ifs" in there for my taste, and from some of the reactions I'm hearing as I type this, it doesn't seem enough.  This is the common explanation that we use when someone says something bad about our friend friend:  "You just don't know them the way I do, and if you did, you'd understand."  You've heard that before, and you've probably said it a time or two.  It made you feel better, but did it really change the other person's mind?

The Audacity of Hope is not character.  Making excuses for, and refusing to truly distance himself from Rev. Wright says something about the content of Obama's character.  He's saying that we should trust his judgement rather than our own, and I think that message rang hollow.

The second thing I asked myself is:  Was he still stuck on "Hope on a Rope" (talk of hope with no real substance), or did he discuss the content of his character that would qualify him to be the most powerful man in the world?  What of his politics?  What about solutions?  Did he offer a single word that would enlighten us as to his vision of hope?  Did he overcome the "message" of social liberalism delivered by Rev. Wright?

Obama starts out with "the children", laying out a post-apocalyptic vision of our schools and offering "not this time"as the solution.  Hope.  Obama moved to the Healthcare Card, talking about the long lines of people at emergency rooms, and "not this time."  This went on as he catalogued most of our problems, then tied himself to the "solutions" he never mentioned by saying:

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.