Random Musings

What Really Matters?

More of Them’s that don’t.

According to exit polls of voters for the Democratic Party Primary, conducted by the DNC, race matters to poor, ignorant southern democrats. Polling experts toss some caution to these results, saying that people are frequently reluctant to admit to racial bias when asked, saying what they believe is socially acceptable. They call this the “Bradley effect” after failed candidate for governor of California Tom Bradley, who lead in the polls but lost in the election. Now oddly the “Bradley effect” is not mentioned in connection with the historic landslide victory of the Governator, who the pollsters predicted would not stand a chance (and they were wrong on every angle). Or any other time the voters ignore the polls and elect who they want, in deference to the experts. Ah, but that’s another story.

One way to interpret the “Bradley effect” when considered with these polls about ignorant southern white democrats voting for Hillary is that the more educated, enlightened northern democrats are more likely to lie about their feelings about race than those poor, ignorant southern democrats.

Of course, according to the same poll, nearly one in three blacks said race was significant in choosing their candidate (33%). Eighty-eight percent of blacks who said race was an important factor voted for Obama, compared to 81 percent of those who said they did not consider race. Now I don’t want to cast aspersions on the methods, but if 33% said race did matter and 81% said did not consider race, that’s 113%.

An interesting observation when you listen to democratic analysts talk about the race effect is he implication that when white people choose a candidate because she is white, they are closet racists, but when black and Hispanic voters turn out in force to vote for a black candidate, they are not. That seems rather, well, ignorant.

My Mom and Dad wanted to raise children in a country that did not judge people by the color of their skin, the particular god they believe in, or the circumstances into which they were born. They raised a son who accepts people for what they are, bases acceptance on what they do, who respects (and enjoys) different cultures while finding common ideals. A son who hopes his son will live in a world that preserves individual liberty, and judges people not by the color of their skin, their religion or the circumstances of their birth. Apparently we have a long way to go.

Well, I’m an educated, southern thinking democrat who doesn’t think gender, race, age or show size has anything to do with the presidential race. I don’t like Clinton (either the current or the past) because of her policies, her voting record, the way she has trampled the United States Constitution as a member of Congress, how she’s trampled nearly everything else I believe in (human rights, god, football…). I don’t care for Obama as a candidate because from what I can see, he is way to much like Clinton. Lest you jump on my case for supporting McCain, wake up and read the postings: McCain is way to much like Clinton and Obama for me. The main difference right now is that he is saying a lot of the right things (but what he has actually done so far doesn’t distance him from those others as much as is speeches may seem to). No, I’m a man without a party in this race, unless some miracle happens and Ron Paul emerges as a candidate somehow.

Maybe this explains the democratic party line about gun control. Knowing that most southern democrats own guns (as do a majority of American of adults, according to the BATF figures): they are trying to drive all those ignorant southern democrats out of the party.

I performed my own “exit poll” following the primaries in California. According to my completely random sampling of the registered republicans I know (there are some in Santa Cruz County, at least up here in the hills), 98% said they would have voted for Condeleza Rice, had she been on the ballot. When asked if “race matters” 110% answered “no” (several respondents said “hell no” for extra credit). When asked if gender mattered to them personally, all but one said “no” and half added “at least with respect to serving in public office” and had another glass of wine.

In the same survey, we found that republican’s supporting Ron Paul were 10 times more likely to be drinking beer than wine, with McCain supporters drinking greater quantities at the time. Of the respondents who said they voted for McCain in the primary, when asked “why” 90% sited a belief he had the “best chance to beat those democrats” as the primary reason for their vote, with 10% responding “I have no idea”.

[Reference 1: Exit polls in Democratic primaries conducted for The Associated Press and television networks in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Vermont. In these states, 24,657 voters were asked how strongly they considered race, including 16,764 whites and 5,366 blacks. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 1 percentage point for all people and whites, 2 points for blacks.] [Refernce 2: a polling a sample consisting of a dozen of my personal acquaintances who openly admit being registered republicans, following the primaries in California. In the spirit of full disclosures much of this polling data was gathered under the influence of alcoholic beverages, and/or in the presence of cigar smoke.]
04/08/2008 BAR

Please Standby

This Space Reserved

04/08/2008 BAR

Does the Media Control Elections?

Media Changes And Them’s that don’t get it.

If you read the mainstream media you get the impression they think that they do. Get it, that is. They’ve called the primaries: it’s Rudy versus Hillary. That with no results in, yet. Media is changing, profoundly. The “mainstream” has in many areas lost their grip, both on the markets and on their wits. The web-sphere is driving print media nuts, as they see circulation dwindle. Some are finally embracing the web as the new media, and trying to control it the way they have print. Coming late to the party, and still for the most part missing the point, it is proving harder to dominate than the big boys thought.

When we had the recall election in California and elected the Governator, the media missed it completely. Don’t do the revisionist history on me, Bubba, I was there (here). The facts, which are not so much talked about anymore, show that no one listened to the news print experts. No one in the media (mainstream or not) took Arnold seriously at all. I think a few of his opponents were a bit quicker on the pickup. Even on the day of the election, they were flat out stunned. It was comical to watch the returns come in: exit polls showed the leading democrat in the lead (who would have guessed otherwise, this is California after all)…then the real votes began to be counted. First it was a lead. Then it was a landslide. In the end, the candidate loathed by democrats and republicans equally took the election with the largest margin in California history. They “experts” tried to explain it away as the result of low voter turnout. Alas, when it was counted, we had more votes than in any election for governor, ever. On every count, the experts got it wrong.

That election showed clearly two points I think will be significant moving into 2008. In California, we always assume a slam dunk for the democrats. Schwarzenegger ran as a republican, but they didn’t want him either (still not so sure they do). In my inflated opinion, it was all us “none of the above” voters that put the Governator in office, and we proved that there is a formidable number if you can actually reach them. That will be key for 2008: reach the voters who have been abandoned by both parties. Arnold was the first candidate in a long time to appeal to the forgotten voters, and he proved the power that was dormant.

The media in all its fluff and flourish does not control the world of politics every time. They count on herding: like lemmings to the sea, we’ll follow their lead because no one wants to back a loser. The Governator situation was unique in that there was no primary and so we got a huge field to choose from, and it was great. It all happened so fast that inertia was hard build. But in the end every individual voters, doing what they wanted instead of what was predicted, made it happen. The same opportunity exists in 2008 if the NOTA voters come out for the primaries. We might see a Ron Paul or Fred Thompson surprise the party. On the big R side, we’re hearing about a lot of candidates. The usual sources like to show those guys as a fragmented party. On the big D side, you’ll have to dig in and do the work yourself, as you won’t hear much from the main media sources: having picked Hillary, they’re not talking about much after Clinton, Obama and Kerry: who else is there? Dig in and find out.

The primary season isn’t over yet. From my viewpoint as a “leave me alone” voter, I don’t see Rudy or Hillary as a good choice. Neither has a strong record on what counts to me: neither has done much to shrink the size of government or reel in escalating spending or intrusions in personal liberty. It seems tempting, when neither party offers a valid choice, to ignore the primary. Well, this is an interesting year with a unique opportunity. Look deeper into the pack than CNN or FOX want you to, and you might find a different story. Ron Paul has an interesting story, for example (how he qualifies as a Republican is a bit of a mystery to me, but if you read what he has to say, he offers an explanation). No on is giving these “second tier” candidates any chance. The experts have called it. Just like they did in California with Arnold.

It ain’t over ‘till the votes are counted.

11/12/2007 BAR

Stop Whining and Get It Done

Enough is Enough

I have hit the limit of my whine threshold limiter over the politicians whining about the war in Iraq, over-reaching intelligence gathering at home, and all the other things they are whining about while not doing a single meaningful thing to actually fix.

I just read an interview with a certain democratic senator critical of the Bush administration about all of this, leaving the uniformed reader with the impression that President Bush has done it all by himself. Well here is a news flash for you: it was the United States Congress that created the situation and the United States Congress that has the power to fix it. Congress is responsible for the existence of the DHS, has mandated that the president “use all necessary and appropriate force” to fight terror anywhere on the planet (PL 107-40, 2001), mandated and specifically authorized the war in Iraq (PL 107-243), and, gentle reader, has the power to change those laws any time the collective bunch decides it is appropriate. Despite the loud posturing, not one meaningful measure has been introduced in either the house or the senate to repeal the DHS, roll back the unconstitutional extensions to the war powers act, nor withdraw specific authorization for the war in Iraq. They did it with a stroke of the pen, and they can “fix it” with the stroke of a pen. Why haven’t they?

My inquiries to the various senators and representatives who have made rousing speeches on the subject are either ignored or responded to with the usual empty rhetoric. When confronted with her support for all these things (unwavering support, by the way), Hilary Clinton sidesteps the issue and attacks the questioner. In another setting, an interview with a Clinton friendly journalist, she responded somewhat more relevantly with “things have changed since then” and retreats into the bovine feces by saying that what she voted for did not authorize the scope the Bush administration has taken (which is not true - read the laws – everything that has happened was authorized by Congress. You can read the legislative history in RecentHistory-Iraq.pdf ). Well, Senator, if things have changed, why are you still voting the same line?

Another senator from California blamed the Bush administration and the “Republican controlled congress”, at least acknowledging at that point the role of congress in this debacle. Yet now, with the congress controlled by her party, this particular senator hasn’t taken any action whatever to end the war, abolish the “all necessary and appropriate force” provision or eliminate the DHS. What’s the excuse today?

The answer is in power. Not the kind we get from fossil fuels, rotting corn, or solar arrays. It’s party politics as usual: the issues of “Homeland Security”, the war, and all the rest are tools to get more Democrats elected. Its old news: create a crisis, blame the other guys, and promise to fix it. But folks, we need more than promise, we need action, and there hasn’t been any: non-binding resolutions make good fertilizer, but do not bring a single soldier home. If you really want the war to stop, don’t yell at me, take a look at the facts. Pelosi and her crowd can end the war, and haven’t. They won’t. They need the war to rally against. They need it to win the white house in 2008. Think about that when you read how many soldiers and civilians died today.

That’s not an endorsement of the Republicans, either. They were part and parcel to making the mess, too, and have stood in the position of being able to fix it and haven’t. Now, keep in mind that the president can’t fix it all by himself, it is Congress who makes war. The answer is in the constitution. Find candidates who believe in it and will abide by it. The problem is you won’t find many in the usual sources.

I for one fear the DHS more than anything to come around in my lifetime. Even the name “Homeland Security” should concern all of us. You don’t have to go that far back in history to find the clues. That anyone, from either party, is willing to tolerate the situation is frightening. Guess what? Not one member of Congress voted against it, not one has voted against expanding the powers of DHS. It wasn’t Bush who created it, it was Congress. It is Congress who continues authorization and funding. They gave Bush the keys and looked the other way.

I’m tired of the same old politics, brokering power and paying with the lives of American Soldiers and the core freedom they are fighting to preserve. I’m just as tired of self proclaimed liberals and progressives who defend the bastids that are doing it. Bush Hatred Syndrome has blinded too many to the fact that “their guys” are making it worse every day, and that the politicians they hold dear sold them out long ago.

11/12/2007 BAR

Wreck a Ferarri, Save the World

The Europeans are so far ahead of the US on environmental policy and social equality. Here’s another fine example: they want to ban high performance exotic cars, specifically targeting the ones produced in really low volumes such as Ferrari. Oh boy, how progressive.

Let's outlaw sports cars. They emit too much CO2. Besides, they are vulgar, gaudy displays of wealth and opulence, and who really needs one? See, not only can we save the planet, we can cut economic inequality. See, it's all good. All you have to do is suspend reason, shift you're grey cells to idle, well ok, forget you have any brain. Low volume producers like Ferrari are the targets. Let's see, save the planet because there are SO MANY of those high performance sports cars driving so many miles per year that if you stop them all ... you couldn't even measure the difference in global CO2 emissions, or any other kind of emissions, even the ones that are harmful.

Well, heck we know the carbon war isn’t really about saving the environment, it is about "economic inequality", So let’s shut down all those factories that produce exotic sports cars, which of course cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (or Euros) more than any descent working person can afford. What do those factories do anyway, but employ honest working folks by extracting outrageous amounts of money from the very few who can afford it (those would be the people with way too much anyway) and use it to pay all those ordinary working people, thus redistributing wealth...

But isn’t that the point of economic equality, to take it away from the people with way too much and give those with less? Well you might think that but here’s your problem: you are thinking! Told you, you had to stop that. Redistribution of wealth is only properly accomplished by governments! Only when the government takes it away and decides who to give it to can it be correct. You see, private companies like Ferrari are corrupt because they are, well, private. And we all know governments are never corrupt, existing only for the common good.

Thems that get it, and thems that don’t...

Who should decide what you need?

When I was a wee tike, my Mom and Dad were responsible for figuring out what I needed to be a kid and how to provide those needs. That concept seemed easy enough to grasp. With basic needs met, we were able to grow. We could focus on "wants" which leads to exploration, expanding our knowledge and seeking new experiences.

But in the modern world, that doesn’t cut it. The value of "want" has been reversed. Some people believe we should be restricted to "need", and usually they think they know what the rest of us need

This is one of the most important, perhaps the most important, question we can ponder. A lot of politics comes down to this simple question: who should decide what you need? Some believe that only a Government can decide what you need. As you might have guessed, I don’t.

For years I’ve warned people who look the other way when freedom and personal liberty are disposed of for the common good. When the objects or activities under attack were not something they felt they "needed", they felt it would not affect them. When someone else comes under attack, and we fail to stand for principle, if we only think about what "affects me", we are adversely effected. History teaches us when personal liberty is taken away, it will effect you, whoever you are and whatever you love, eventually.

The "common good" is usually used to bludgeon individual liberty, which apparently in the eyes of some, is the real problem. If you look deeply into environmental policy, for example, much of it looks frighteningly like people who think they know better how you should live using "save the planet" as the justification to strip you of your individual freedom and force you to conform their idea of what other people should do. It is also a frightengly consistent pattern that those who ask you to give up your "luxuries" (defined as stuff you don’t really need) are seldom going to give up any of their own luxuries.

Here’s the problem: I don’t believe in lowering expectations. I don’t see that attitude leading anywhere good. I am suspicious when "conserve" is used to mean "you should not have a choice". I believe all common good begins with the value of individuals with the freedom to do the right thing. I believe people are motivated to do good, and better, when they have the opportunity to raise expectations and lifestyle. I don’t want my kid to settle for a lower standard of living, or lower level of personal integrity, fewer choices, less freedom, or fewer toys.

Life is not about the destination, because we all end up in the same dark, cold ground. It’s the ride, Bubba: life is about what you do along the way. Surviving is not living.

Well, that’s the way I see it.

When People do the Right thing for the Wrong Reason?

Is it still the right thing? Today’s "them’s that don’t" list is headed up by whomever came up with the Trojan "pig" add, maybe whomever at NBC, ABC and all the other media outlets decided to run it, but topping the list is some Bubba at Fox who wrote Fox’s reason for not running the ad.

The ad in question suggests graphically that all men are pigs except for those that use Trojan condoms. As a monogamous male married person I find that assertion profoundly offensive. I am not pink, four legged nor do I "oink" and only occasionally do I squeal. The television networks have a right to refuse advertising which they feel is in poor taste, or run with it. I see no reason why freedom of the press should prevent them from occasionally using that freedom to choose NOT to offend me. Yes, I loudly and frequently defend their right whatever crap they choose, without interference from government. As a viewer, I feel compelled to let them know what offends me when I see it, and avoiding such material however I can (the OFF switch works pretty well, as does the DVR).

Fox and CBS elected to reject this ad, and presumably, the dollars which came with it. Good for them. CBS made a simple statement that they did not feel viewers would find it appropriate. Reasonable enough: offending half of the human race isn’t always the best thing for ratings (which drive ad rates). I might have thought the same about Fox, but nooo….Some Bubba had to ruin the illusion demonstrating ignorance of the highest order with this justification for rejecting the advertisement. Fox says:

Huh? OK Bubba, let’s start with the definition of "contraceptive", OK?

From "contra" as in 'against" or "to stop", and "conception" which, well, if you don’t know what that means please don’t be doing any of it. By definition, contraception is the prevention of pregnancy. Period, end of sentence. Sure there are other potential protections provided by some forms of contraception. But the definition of the word, the purpose for which condoms were invented, the main reason many people use them, and a significant effect of using them, is pregnancy prevention.

The irony here is multi-dimensional. I suspect the Fox spokes person was trying to avoid offending people who object to birth control. I’ve been told strict Catholics don’t approve of any method of birth control except abstinence. What exactly are the "health benefits" of using condoms if you abstain from sex? Abstinence is an effective way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases as well as conception. Nice work, Bubba.

OK, for the sake of argument, somewhere there are people who’s belief system objects to contraception but not promiscuous sexual activity. There must be such a group somewhere. So, if we just don’t mention that condoms happen to be contraceptive, well, those folks will not notice and happily use condoms? They won’t be offended by pigs without condoms. See what I mean? The more I think about it, the more profoundly ignorant the statement appears.

And of course those who don’t believe in birth control won’t be offended by the use of condoms to prevent AIDES, nor by the ads for sex enhancing prescription drugs that run every 6 minutes during prime time and NFL games.

Meanwhile, in trying to sidestep the contraception issue, you’ve suggested that it is OK to assert all men are pigs. Since all the pigs were the same color, are you suggesting that all white (or pink?) males are pigs? There’s probably more things wrong here, but I’m still hung up that someone with "communications" in their job description doesn’t know what word "contraception" means (nor apparently knows how to use a dictionary).

What about the other networks? Apparently it’s OK with them (so long as the check clears). Seeing that ABC is running with Trojan makes me think what Walt Disney would say about it. At least they haven’t given any profoundly ignorant statements justifying their actions. Just shows how enabling the DVR can be.

I’m still waiting for reaction from the National Association of Porcine Singles (NAPS) objecting to the implication that pigs are irresponsibly having unprotected sex. At least they’ll have Fox on their side.

What Is the Constitution: Law or Suggestion?

Legal scholars are discussing the possibility of Arnold Schwarzenegger running on a Presidential ticket. Those of you who had third grade outside California or New York will recognize that the Constitution conditions eligibility to be president on being a natural born citizen. Some of you may know that Arnold was born in Austria, which those of you who stayed awake enough in geography class will point out is not part of the United States. Go to the top of the class. But the question has been raised, could someone pick Arnold as a presidential running mate in 2008?

For review:

Pretty clear: you have to a natural born citizen (or over 221 years old) to be President. While Article II, Section 1 has been amended by the 12th and 20th amendments, neither changes this requirement. So, could Arnold be President or VP? Sure, with an amendment to the Constitution. Congress may propose to the states such an amendment and when 3/4ths of the states ratify it, Arnold would become eligible. Twice already this article has been amended, so why not try again?

Some law professors don’t think an amendment is necessary to get Arnold into the Whitehouse. They are suggesting a way around the constitution, other than the correct way. Columbia University Law School professor Michael Dorf said this to a news service inquiry:

"The law is very clear, but it's not 100 percent clear that the courts would enforce that law rather than leave it to the political process,"

Is professor Dorf suggesting that we ignore what is in the constitution completely? It sounds to me like he is suggesting that if voters elect an ineligible president, we should let it ride. This requires ignoring the 20th amendment to the Constitution, which specifically provides for the case that a person is elected who is ineligible to be president: Congress has to pick someone else. So this suggestion by Prof. Dorf can’t lead to Arnold as President or VP, but it could lead to Congress selecting someone who didn’t even run, nor received one single vote. Hello President Bloomberg?

A Yale Law professor, Jack Balkin, is quoted as saying that an ineligible candidate such as Schwarzenegger "can run every four years if he wants" and adds "I don't think it's ever been tested in the courts," and calls this requirement of the Constitution a "terrible rule" which should be dropped. According to other "experts", this rule is not "rock solid" because it has not been challenged and ruled upon by the courts. By that logic, most of the Constitution is not "rock solid", at least those parts so well written no one has any doubt about what they mean. This scares me very much: we’re saying the Constitution means nothing except what the courts have decided it means. I’m sure that makes sense to law professors and their students.

Believe it or not, this may become a real issue: there are people arguing that as America has become more diverse, the requirement to be a natural born citizen is obsolete. These people seem to forget that the guys that wrote those words were all immigrants. Our nation 220 years ago was pretty diverse, culturally. It was surely a very different mix. Those immigrants who defined our federal system knew things would change and so they provided for amending the constitution.

But rather than suggest the right thing, an amendment to the constitution, some people are suggesting we can interpret away the requirement instead. That scares me. And it should scare you, too. Don’t get me wrong: Frankly, I think it’d be great if Arnold could run, it’d be as much fun to watch as his run for Governor, maybe even more. I’d even buy a "Governator for President" tee shirt. What scares me is the growing ease with which politicians and "legal experts" get away with ignoring the constitution. Remember, each and every elected official, holder of an appointed position, or person acting on there behalf are bound by an oath to abide by and defend the Constitution. It seems many of those people seem to have forgotten what "bound" means. Our Constitution is what defines us, what protects us from over-reaching governments, and provides for us to keep ourselves free. Allowing our government to operate outside the confines carefully defined in the Constitution is a bad thing.

Too many times our politicians define “respect for the law” as figuring out what they can get away with, despite what the law actually says.

And they seem to think the American voters will fall for it.

Rudy Doesn’t Get It

This one probably belongs on the 2nd amendment page, which isn’t done yet. So here it is. I know some people who favor Rudy because of his record as a competent administrator. Talking as fellow conservatives (at least they each claim the label), Sean Hannity queried Rudy on his gun-control. I’ve already pointed out that RG is no friend of the 2nd amendment based on his past. He argues that different solutions are needed in densely populated areas like NYC compared to suburban or rural places. Then he demonstrates his own density: When he says that gun control is appropriate in "...a place like New York that is densely populated or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem..." he squarely places himself in the "them’s that don’t" category on this one.

News Flash Rudy: Disarming the population results in more crime, not less. Proven over and over, in NYC, in the U.K., in Australia and in New Orleans (where the crime rate shot up to become the highest in America, perhaps the world, after weapons confiscation).

The bottom line: Rudy, like all good elitists, doesn’t trust us common folk. He’s demonstrated that he believes most of us are criminals needing only the arms and opportunity to do bad things. Well Rudy, I believe the opposite: I believe most people are good, honest and honorable. Too many are misinformed by the likes of Rudy Giuliani, however. Another news flash: of those 290 Million people who don’t live in NYC, Rudy, over 80 million own guns and think they can be trusted. I don’t expect Rudy to "get it", although he might try and pretend when he figures out that the gun vote might be the key to winning this election. Let us not forget who launched the first abusing lawsuits against gun makers, who "stepped up" gun banning in NYC, and who took his gun-banning rhetoric on the road in 1993, 94, 95, 97, 98, 2000, and beyond.
3/20/2007 BAR

First Amendment Attack...by the Press?

Increasingly, the power of the press is being taken over by the people. And some media giants don’t like it one bit. A growing number of "probes" are being launched against web sites that enable ordinary folks to express their opinions. Major news outlets like the NY Times and CNN tell us about internet abuses. We're being told that we need standards for what is reasonable and civil. I find it interesting that people who make their living by freedom of the press are quick to suggest controls over the internet. Fear is a dangerous thing. In this case, the fear that the internet is eating their lunch is completely understandable: it is.

In a recent Yahoo News article, they talk about the evil of anonymous message boards. Coming dangerously close to suggesting the host of the site should filter content, they stop just short of suggestion They point out they removed their message boards. The tone is clearly a warning: anonymous posting is a bad thing. Free speech is a dangerous thing. How about anonymous ballots?

We’ve got a new op for trial lawyers. Practices are being built around going after people who say unkind things on-line and thus cause harm to others. The definition of harm is both tricky and dangerous. I’m not going to criticize trial lawyers here (not without my attorney present). I’m must pointing out what’s happening. Certainly, anonymous posters are not any fun for the lawyers.

Well here’s your problem: The first amendment is an individual right, not a right reserved to well organized, well funded commercial interests. For perhaps the first time in history we have a medium which allows every individual with an opinion access to millions of others who may choose to read, watch or listen to what is posted. I believe this is a good thing. It is not without peril, liberty is dangerous. Especially for the smart people who don’t trust the average folk.

By the way, there’s nothing anonymous on this site. Y’all know who I am.
3/20/2007 BAR

Hillary and Barack Finally Speak: Duh!

Hillary and Barack finally said what the world was waiting to hear: they do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. I really hope you appreciate the restraint it is taking to avoid excessive sarcasm here. What I find interesting is how upset so many people have gotten over how long it took for the top democratic candidates to state the obvious. Now that they’ve said it, of course, some people can get upset that they said it. Well get over it, all of you: It is blindingly obvious where these two, claiming to be liberal democrats, stand this one. Whether or not you agree with General Pace, what the heck do you expect?

Why are we even talking about it, didn’t we settle this already? When Clinton (the male) was President, didn’t he declare that gays in the Military are OK? Oh, right...he said the military should look the other way if y’all keep quiet about it. He didn’t actually use his authority as President to change the military’s rules. So what General Pace said is an accurate description of what’s in the current military rules. Well, there’s your problem...
3/16/2007 BAR

Will Pace get Fired?

General Peter Pace told the press that he believes homosexual acts are immoral behavior, and that the military should not condone immoral acts. He’s stirred up controversy, and it has been suggested he should resign over the statement. The Secretary of Defense said he shouldn’t have said it, and gay rights leaders are saying he should keep his opinions to himself, and are calling on the SoD to oust him.

Well, I guess you best only express opinions which we agree with, General.

The Secretary of Defense does have the authority to tell an active General Officer what’s OK to say in public, and when to shut up. Not that it always works: We’ve had lots of Generals in the past who said what they thought, anyway. That list would include the most innovative military leaders in our history, too.

Pace said he was raised to believe that homosexual acts are immoral, as is adultery. He also said he’s OK with the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy now in place: if you don’t look, act or admit to being gay we can’t ask. The thing is, under the military rules, Pace is correct that both homosexual acts and adultery are identified as immoral under the code. The "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy didn’t change the prohibition on sex with a person of like gender, between unmarried persons of any gender, or persons not married to each other. You can be gay, so long as you don’t do or say anything about it. Which is the same as adultery under the rules: just don’t do it.

The military’s code of conduct, then, suggests an opinion not so unlike what General Pace's. Perhaps some day Congress or a President will take the actions necessary to change that opinion.
3/16/2007 BAR

Fire the AG?

Hilary Clinton, along with a lot of other politicians claiming to be liberals, are calling for the resignation of the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales because some attorneys were fired during his watch for what are alleged to be political motivations. Holy campaign stunts, Batman! A political appointee acting like, well, an political appointee! Hello? Who was the last pres who didn’t reward happy campaign campers with cushy appointments? Yeah, it is slimy. ..but last I checked, no one died as a result.

Hilary didn’t think AG Janet Reno should resign just because some underlings made a string of horrifically bad decisions in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Catastrophically bad decisions which resulted in death for dozens of people, people who, as it turns out, had broken no federal laws. In Hilary’s stated opinion at the time, this wasn’t reason for the AG to be fired, just because her underlings screwed up. I guess AGs are held to a higher standard today. Or would it be that AGs appointed by Republicans are held to a different standard? Wouldn’t that make the firing of Gonzales politically motivated?
3/14/2007 BAR

Soon, when I get around to implementing it, you'll get your chance to tell me what it's all about! Check back real soon....
3/14/2007 BAR

Maybe They Heard Me

The Democrats in Congress are circling the wagons and making war on Bush’s war. They are saying they’re going to put a stop to it, and soon. No not the posturing (that’s politics), the war this time. They’re using the October 2007 deadline from Rep Jackson-Lee’s house resolution (the one no one co-sponsored). They are threatening a new resolution to insist on it, and low and behold, they’re threatening to make funding contingent on having a withdrawal plan. Could it be they’ve finally found their collective butts with both hands (well, one at least)? This could be good news…if they actually do it. As observed on this page, so far it’s just been talk. Forgive me for being skeptical, but that’s my job as chief skeptic and scribe of the obvious. Of course they are threatening to make funding conditional, not actually cut funding. But it could be a start of real opposition. So far it’s been just talk: They’ll threaten Bush with opposition, Bush knows they’ll pass any spending increase he sends to Congress, and so it has gone.

If you think it’s time to quit or get off the pot, so to speak, then write you’re congress-persons and tell them to get on with it. . If you think we need step up our forces to get the job done, or you think we should wipe the sand clean and start over, express your view to those you’ve elected to represent you. JFDI. Make it clear your next vote depends on how they vote, not just what they say.
3/8/2007 BAR

Weapons of Mall Destruction (WMD)

A man goes on a rampage at a shopping mall in Augusta, Georgia: Reported in the Augusta Chronicle, the alcohol influenced SUV wielding perpetrator broke down the locked doors of the mall, causing extensive damage as he weaved his path of terror from one end of the mall to the other. Miraculously, no one was hurt. It was a miracle, and perhaps a side effect of his timing: his rampage began after the mall was closed and thus no one was around. But had be attacked when the mall was a bustle with teenage shoppers, well, we dare not speak of it here (we’ll leave that to CNN). Can we dare oppose the obvious need for greater SUV control legislation? Would a mandatory 10-day waiting period on the purchase of SUVs be the answer? Not in this case, as it appears the SUV-man had owned the vehicle for some time. It was not reported how many other vehicles the perpetrator also owned or if any other weapons were found at the scene. Spokespersons for the influential special interest National SUV Association were not immediately available or comment.
3/8/2007 BAR

Liberal Democrats Revolting?

Liberal Democrats in Congress want to end the war now. I know this because they said so, over and over again. It’s all over the news. Liberal news, conservative news, they’re all reporting the loud orating. They keep saying it, as if the more repeated the more likely it is I will forget that they’re actions have been supporting the war since it’s inception. Sadly, the congressional record is quite clear. For the last 5 years few on either side of the party line have voted against more money, more troops, more war.

Well, one house democrat has actually done something besides talk: Rep Jackson-Lee (Sheila) of Texas has introduced in February a house bill (H.R. 930 IH) to actually end the war in Iraq. Her bill calls for action to commence immediately. Her bill outlines a diplomatic "surge" mandating that it is time the warring factions in Iraq just get along. Having read it, I’m not sure it will work, and that would be a great thing for our paid Congress persons to debate. Ms. Jackson-Lee has given this bill some teeth, not just empty bark like the non-binding resolution that has gotten so much attention. This bill repeals the specific congressional authorization for the Iraq deployment of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and withdraws funding for military deployment in Iraq. As written it doesn’t address the 2001 extension to the war powers act (Public Law 107-40) which provides the "whatever force is necessary" authority to the president. To be really clear, Ms. Jackson-Lee should amend her bill to also repeal PL 107-40. That would give it a Texas sized bite. If you are ready to force withdrawal now, this is the bill for you.

You would think from all the huffing and puffing going on lately that Ms Jackson-Lee would have broad support for her Bill. The fact is she stands alone. The bill has no co-sponsors and has gone absolutely nowhere in the month it has been on the table. Not so much as a lively debate, or even a caring yawn. Instead we’ve been treated to a circus centered on a non-binding resolution ("we think the war sucks but we won't actually risk being accountable for stopping it") that barks but by definition has no bite.

If you’re anti-war and ready to see it stop, get with our Reps and tell them to get with Ms. Jackson-Lee and push this thing through (after fixing that one glaring omission). If you think the right thing to do is increase the military push to get ‘er done right, tell your Reps to take a stand. If you’re from the great state of Texas, whether you think she deserves a pat on the back or a slap upside the head, either way, call Rep Jackson-Lee and let her know what you think: I’m sure she’d like to know someone at least noticed.
3/7/2007 BAR

Give Hillary a Break

Message to everyone: I don’t give a rip what Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis was about, no matter how radical, provocative, brilliant, dull or stupid it may have been. She’s done more than enough in the last decade to indicate where she’ll try to take us if we elect her. I don’t think she’ll change profoundly in the next decade. You need to go back 30 years to know Hillary’s location on the political spectrum? Now give me a break.

I don’t even remember what my senior thesis was about. I’m pretty sure it was lame. If anyone cared to find it and dig it up, it would likely be embarrassing. So you think the Clinton’s abused the power of office by having it suppressed? Yeah, so that’s the worst abuse of power you can find to worry about? Old news: Congress makes laws and exempts themselves from those laws. Politicians act like they’re better than you and I, gravity makes it appear as if the earth sucks, that’s the way it is: Get Over It.

Here’s a radical idea: focus on what actually matters today. A clue for the Bubba’s of the media: It’s her ideology, the policies she’s pushed before, and her voting record in Congress that predict what she might do as president. Either you think government control of healthcare is a good idea or you don’t; either you think she is capable of leading the country in time of war and crisis, or you don’t. Talk relevant: look at voting records. For the three most hyped candidates so far who have a congressional record, on every vote on the issues I think are important, they all voted the same. There’s a case to get on, Bubba. If you don’t like Hilary, find a candidate to endorse who actually is an alternative.
3/6/2007 BAR

Maybe Not so Boring After All

I’ve said so far the candidates for President in 2008 that have gotten press attention have one thing in common: they bore me. Today James Gilmore tosses his hat in the ring for the Republican presidential candidate. I think it is safe to say he will be running as a “Regan Republican”, as he used the phrase 25 times in the 5 minute interview. He also described himself as a “real conservative”, appropriate as he announced at the Conservative Political Action Convention. Surrounded by NRA members he seemed to feel comfortable admitting that he is a supporter of the 2nd amendment and a gun owner. Since 80 million people in the U.S. own a quarter of a billion guns, and most of those 80 mil are of voting age, I think there are votes to be had by not apologizing for liking gun owners. If Gilmore is as comfortable with this admission in every speech, not just when on the NRANews, I think he’ll have a shot. At the very least, an unashamedly pro-Gun candidate will stand out and make it more interesting.
3/2/2007 BAR

I don't care which party line you tote, that's funny.
3/2/2007 BAR

National Gun Fingerprinting - Possible and Irresistible

The usual suspects on the anti-gun side have gotten really excited about a national database which contains the ballistic "fingerprint" of guns, as usual suggesting (outrageously) that it will drastically reduce crime. And why not? It has all the sex appeal they could want. The success of the CSI TV shows has made IBIS a household acronym. And they can play the tough on crime card. Sure, it’s a bad idea: it’s another really expensive assault on tax payer’s wallets and gun owners rights. Sure, the security return is marginal at best. But it is really hip.

NRANews this morning is running interviews with IBIS users and administrators who feel the anti-gun zealots are overstating what the system can do. It contains data only on guns used in crimes. It seems pretty obvious this has no value in preventing crime: you don’t have any data until AFTER at least two crimes have been committed. So what? On CSI it enables the good guys to catch the bad guys. NRANews points out where the reports from the popular media are wrong and misleading. Great. But what the NRANews report gets wrong is the assertion that a national database is technically impossible. There’s a lot of ways to attack that problem, technically. If we toss a billion taxpayer dollars into the ring, it’ll get done: I can see the GoogleGun logo and press releases (remember you heard it hear first).

Their second mistake was suggesting the national system will be only limited to data on firearms which have been seized at a crime scene, like IBIS today. Wrong Bubba. Once the idea of a national database is accepted, the "weakness" that it contains only a tiny fraction of the 240 million guns in America will become the lever to justify national registration and the requirement for every gun in America to be entered into the database. They’ll present it as a "tough on crime" bill that too many Republicans will not be able to resist. They’ll present it as centrist and bi-partisan. And then it’ll be too late. Here we go again.
3/2/2007 BAR

Drudge Tanks Economy

Matt Drudge caused the stock market to tank this week. I report this on the authority of ABC news’ Michael S. Malone, who got it from the U.S. News and World Reports blog. I found the link on Drudge, of course. Apparently Greenspan really wasn’t out of line, but Drudge sensationalized what was otherwise an innocent remark, and created panic. But that’s not the real point. The problem with using Drudge and other internet sources for news is that we miss the filtering that legitimate professional journalists provide. By going out on the internet, we get it all, rather than just the news that the trained professionals determine we need to know. Finally, at least this author realizes Drudge didn’t do it alone: the 20 million surfers, the ones too impatient to wait for the filtered reporting, ran off half-cocked and "may have almost thrown us into a real recession", contributed a bit, too. Too much information leads to chaos and wide-spread panic, obviously.

I find it interesting that while ever so politely condemning Drudge and others, this very article sensationalizes what amounts about a 3% change in the Dow. Three percent is hardly worth jumping out of any windows. The filtering of the pop media: The 400 point drop was big news. The next day recovery was barely reported. This morning, at opening there was another 200 point drop, but by days end it was back to within 30 points of even – but it was reported as a “huge drop” that “recovered slightly” by the end of the day. With these guys there is no such thing as good economic news.

In the end, the tone is jealousy: Ordinary mortals are wielding power previously reserved for the higher order of conventional media. Now you’re starting to get it Bubba. That’s the "new paradigm" (not just a tad less than two bits). The internet enables mere mortals, not only to choose what news they need to know, but compete for attention of the masses in a way once reserved for those with a billion dollar media empire. In the internet generation, you need less than $10/month to potentially reach millions of people a day. Is the royalty of the media becoming irrelevant? Not yet. The collective Bubba of conventional media is clearly concerned. My advice, Bubba, is get used to it.
3/1/2007 BAR

Get Over It and Get On With It

Nancy Pelosi is mad at Dick Cheney for criticizing her proposals for ending the war in Iraq. Fair enough, but in her rebut to the VPs aspersions on her policy, Pelosi played the "P" word suggesting Cheney was questioning her patriotism because he said she was "playing into the hands" of the bad guys. Yet the truth is that the P-word used by Cheney was "Policy". He questioned her policy directly, and by implication her judgment. That’s fair, too.

I would like to see Pelosi debate Cheney on the issue (not whine) and then do something real. A lot of us Simple Americans would. The House and Senate can force withdrawal in a number of ways, and there’s little the VP could do about it. For example: Reduce funding, and/or modify Public Law 107-243 (authorization for troops in Iraq, 2002) to mandate a phased withdrawal. These are REAL actions that are on the table, which Congress can make happen.

Ms. Pelosi, and all the rest, stop whining and do something. Stop wasting time with non-binding resolutions, empty speeches and pointless temper-tantrum exchanges: take some accountability, and get it done. They’re talking about it, one might even say threatening, but so far nothing real. Sadly, Cheney is right (sort of): the empty talk does play to the benefit of the bad guys. And please, don’t make me agree with the VP again.

OBTW I’d like to have sent this message to Ms Pelosi directly, but she is only interested in hearing from the voters in San Francisco. Her web site accepts input only from people who use a zip code of her district (city of SF). Not very representative, Congress-person.
2/26/2007 BAR

Motorcycle Industry Wake-up.

The motorcycle industry has had a grand time the last decade, setting production records, enjoying media attention and overflowing with socially acceptable middle aged riders. Some think the party is over as production rates have dropped the last few years. Others note that, while down from the peak, life is still plenty good with lots of money chaniging hands. I think the biggest threat is the government. The EPA has taken the MC industry in it’s sites with irrational emissions policy. Already, the EPA has gone donkey-nuts with new requirements for motorcycles. While it may serve political correctness, it does nothing to help the environment. Zilch, Zero, Diddle-squat. How can I say that? Easy, the numbers tell the story. According to the DOT motorcycles comprise 2.3% of the total vehicles on the road. According to EPA, the average fuel consumption for a motorcycle is a third of the average for all vehicles, so that means we use less than 1% (0.79%) of the fuel consumed. So even if all motorcycles were zero emissions vehicles, it wouldn’t reduce harmful emissions enough to notice.

So what’s the harm of being too careful with the environment? Plenty harm, bubba. Time and money spent where there is zero potential gain is wasted, and just plain stupid. And stupid hurts, ask any veteran rider. It hurts the industry, which pays taxes and employs people (who can thus pay taxes). It hurts consumers the most. Irrational requirements drive up cost and hassle factor. And what about this idea of "freedom", huh? Am I the only one bothered by meddling by government agencies, with no possible "public good" to be gained by it? And that’s just what the EPA is doing. I can hardly wait for the government-knows-better TEJTM in the name of safety get a grip on this one. Airbags and passive restraints will be be on the top of their lists, followed by requiring more stable platforms and better rider/passenger protection systems: Your 2021 Road Glide will look like a Honda Civic. Can’t happen, you say. Are you sure?
2/25/2007 BAR

Hyprid Reality Check

I like the Hybrids like the Toyota Prius, I think it’s cool. I like the Lexus RX400h, too, it has even more gadget appeal. When I land the next big deal and have $50K spare change, I may get myself one.

Everything will be better if we just force the industry to produce more fuel efficient, less polluting, less GSG spewing vehicles like Hybrids. Stop being greedy selfish idiots, junk the SUV, get hip, and save the world. Simple enough, right? Here’s the real news: not everyone can run out and drop $40 to $60K on a new vehicle just to save the planet.And no one is talking about how much it will cost (in dollars and environmental impact) to replace the batteries in 5 years.

Not everyone can fit all their kids, dogs and stuff in a Prius. So now you can buy Hybrid SUVs (a politically correct SUV is my kind of irony). The ‘eco-friendliness’ of these isn’t as extreme: 30mpg for the hybrid SUV highlander, which is about 20% better than the standard V6 highlander. Toyota has added a more conventional sedan, the Camry, along with the two SUVs (Highlander and RX400h Lexus, which are the same platform). The Prius has been around in some form since 2001, while the others a model year or two, yet these new models account for nearly half the to-date sales so it seems they may have wider appeal. This also means that now we can directly compare a Hybrid with the same model of non-Hybrid. The fuel savings is about 15% on the Camry, almost 20% for the Highlander/RX400h. Economics are not so pretty: the Hybrid Camry costs $5000 more than the non-Hybrid comparable model, and gets 6MPG better. If I drive 12,000 miles per year, at $3/gal, I get the purchase price back in 32 years. At $4 per gal, it drops to only 24 years. The Highlander works out pretty much the same. I won’t even figure it for the Lexus, because people who buy Lexus’ are not supposed to care about what it costs.

Does this bother anyone else: the new $50K hybrid SUV qualifies to drive in the car-pool lane solo, but my 20 year old gas powered commuter, which gets the same or better MPG, doesn’t. Another thought: According to the Toyota web site today, they’ve sold less than 12,000 hybrids to date, which by Toyota sales standards, is a catastrophic sales failure. They claim to have built and sold more Hybrids than any one else. That small number is hard to believe, living in the SF Bay Area where it seems like most of those have been sold. Maybe this is why not every manufacturer has jumped onto the bandwagon yet.

My Dad dumped is 25 year old Corolla for a new Prius. He drives less than half as much as I do, I’d guess. His Prius burns half the gas of the old Corolla, and 75% of what a new Corolla would use. It cost him abut $10K more than a new Corolla, and about $20K more than his old one. That puts the pay-back out past 20 years in the most favorable light. But since Dad kept the last Corolla almost 25 years, he might actually make the pay-back point, if the Prius, and Dad, hold up as well as that old Corolla (we’re certainly hoping so, mostly on the second one). My Dad is an honest Hybrid owner. He admits he didn’t buy it for economy, environmental conscious or political savvy: he just thinks the technology is cool. Toyota seems to have picked up on this demographic, and is now hyping the Hybrid technology. They aren’t even checking your Sierra Club card anymore when you place your order.
2/25/2007 BAR

The Systems Are A Bitch Syndrome (SAABS)

Systems are a Bitch: Most times you have to look at how the whole system operates to understand impacts of changes. If not, a “solution” to one problem creates many other problems. Anyone who’s worked on complex technical projects has seen this. It is equally clear when you look at the dynamics of power (electrical, that is).

Once upon a time Hydro-electric was the deal, once the threat of nuclear power was defeated. But this caused a split in the environmentally aware because some noticed that damming up rivers had a negative environmental impact, especially for cute and fuzzy critters. Oh yeah, and some trees and shrubs didn’t do as well totally under water. So we stopped building hydro and we continue to burn oil, gas and coal to save the environment from the threat of nuclear power. Some people think the problem is our luxurious standard of living: we should sacrifice all these power hungry devices and be like the rest of the world (well, not Europe and Japan, which happily consume electricity generated from nuclear power plants, we mean the other parts of the world, where people don’t read, have PS2s or computers). A few people still think a high standard of living is a good thing, and are looking for "alternative" energy sources (where "alternative" means anything that doesn’t burn fossil fuels or use nuclear reaction). Wind and Solar, we’re told. But the reality is with current technology both of these are ‘negative energy’ solutions, meaning it takes more energy to produce the generating device than the device will produce in its useful lifetime (that whole system problem, again). Hydrogen fuel is an emerging technology with promise, but again if you ask about hydrogen production, the answer is still negative energy (at the moment). It has a few downsides, like blowing up and stuff like that, but what the heck, it’s still early in that game. The fact is that every alternative so far proposed, except nuclear, oil, natural gas and coal, is energy negative. Bummer.

Hope from Technology: Technology is the answer. Well, that and old fashioned greed. I recently ‘lunched’ with a guy who is working on commercial solar technology. He told me that we need an order of magnitude improvement in efficiency to bring “pay-backs” within a reasonable time-frame to make it positive. To silicon-slingers like me, that’s good news: we think, ‘heck, only ONE order of magnitude, you should be able to knock that off in couple weeks”. I’m told it will take a little longer in the solar game. But this guy thinks it is happening, and is putting his money where his hopes are. There’s a number of people who think they can make some money, eventually, at it. Not your usual VC crowd, to be sure, with ROIs well outside their usual field of view. But some serious money is going into it now, serious private money. From people who think eventually they’ll make more money than they’re spending (that’s how greed works). Cool twist: Big Oil Companies are getting into the act (and investing money): the materials science going into new photovoltaic technologies use a lot of hydrocarbon based polymers which we get from, where else, oil.

There remain economic complications when these guys do get the efficiency where we need it. The cost projections, even with a 10x efficiency improvement put economic pay-back out a ways, and there is still the surface area issue that makes it ineffective in densely populated areas. Cost seems like another ‘so what’ for us chip junkies as we figure anything is cheap if you make enough of it. The obvious push will be cost effective volume production techniques, so then the more people who buy it the more people will be able to buy it, like digital watches, PCs and mobile phones. But the need for up-front investment and a certain surface area means this is technology for the economically enabled non-urban dweller.

Thus the social implications: With 10x more efficient solar panels and reasonable cost, a lot of people can go ‘off grid’ and be self contained generators and users. While good for eco-thinking, this is bad for governments who lose a lot of control. And it’ll be just the economic upper crust, those top 10% of taxpayers who get all the breaks, who can give the one finger salute to public utilities and the government agencies who regulate them. The economically challenged will be stuck ‘on-grid’. And when solar takes over enough of the burden to bring grid demand down, rates will go up. You see, government regulators set rates, and they base it on cost recovery and assured margin formulas based on how much power companies spend for generation and distribution (which is why every time usage goes down, rates go up). So the poor stuck on the grid will pay more. Darn, even in this solar-brightened future, staying poor still bites. Maybe all those well healed ecology aware solar generators may be socially responsible, too, and donate excess capacity to, literally, power the poor. Nah. Surely we’ll need a government agency to measure and tax solar collection. Only through force can we ensure right.
2/26/2007 BAR