Radical or just Informed?

According to pretty much every poll and "news" report, I now find myself solidly in the "Radical" category. What I always though was radical is now considered mainstream or "moderate". Even the government's own Department of Homeland Security has identified people sharing my beliefs potential domestic terrorists.

Let me try to figure this out. Do these beliefs make me a right-wing radical or just better informed than the mainstream?

I believe the US Constitution is there for a reason, and should not be violated routinely just because politicians and their judicial appointees find it inconvenient.

I believe in the First Amendment, specifically Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. The mainstream now says I'm not permitted to say I'm opposed to Gay Marriage or the words "Jesus Christ" in any context other than swear words. Simply being a Christian, and especially a Catholic, makes me a pariah to the mainstream.

I believe in the Second Amendment. Although I don't actually own a firearm now, I'm seriously considering joining the rush to the gun store to get one before they're banned. (Not to use in terrorist activities, just to protect myself and my family). There has never been a case in history, as far as I know, where a gun jumped up and shot somebody all by itself. There is a long history in places that confiscate guns from the population where violent crime skyrockets because armed criminals know their victims are guaranteed to be unarmed. But the mainstream believes that taking guns away from everybody will end violent crime.

I believe in freedom of conscience. It turns out that physicians will not be forced to perform abortions, but they will be forced to prescribe abortifacient drugs and refer pregnant females to abortionists. Med students, nurses, and pharmacists do not even have the physician's option, and must participate if ordered on pain of loss of their career.

I believe in Equal Protection under the law. A violent crime is abhorrent and deserves swift and harsh judgement regardless of the victim. The mainstream believes that the punishment for such crimes should be more severe only if the offender held specific hatred against the special group in which the victim happened to claim membership.

I believe voting should be fair and just, with only legally authorized citizens eligible. I don't believe the government should give millions or billions to organizations whose primary mission is to help insure a certain party or specific individuals are guaranteed election. The mainstream has no problem with election fraud, as long as they approve of the winner.

I believe that abortion is infanticide. Legal abortion violates the primary right defined by the founders, life. The mainstream thinks it's OK to kill a baby at any time as long as they're not fully emerged from the mother's womb. The President even believes it's OK to kill them even after that.

I believe that foreign policy is best practiced by walking softly and carrying a big stick. Those who choose to be our friends will find us the best friends they could ever hope to have, while those who choose to be our enemies will find us their worst nightmare. But now the standard is apology, weakness, indecisiveness, appeasement, and chopping up the stick.

I believe the government exists to protect us against foreign and domestic enemies, regulate interstate commerce, facilitate international commerce, and facilitate national transportation infrastructure. The constitution is quite specific on the limited powers of the federal government, and the fact that no powers not specified are permitted. But the mainstream thinks it's fine for the federal government to do anything they want without restriction.

I believe the government should be held to the spending standard every household must maintain. They may only spend the money they have. The mainstream has no problem with the government spending every one of us into bankruptcy in the interest of consolidating permanent power.

There are many more beliefs, but the bottom line is this: I believe in freedom, self-determination, personal responsibility, and a non-intrusive government. The mainstream believes the federal government is responsible for taking care of them, cradle to grave. Even when that means none are free to live and work where they want, spend their own money as they see fit, choose their own doctors and medical treatments, and use their property as they please.

But I'm told that is radical. These beliefs make me a right-wing nutcase.

Unless, of course, nobody in the mainstream actually knows what's going on these days.

How did this happen?

Counterintuitive

When times get tough, the government likes to do the exact opposite of rational response.

When times are great, sensible families make sure to put money away against the possibility of hard times. The government spends every dime of their increased tax revenue, even to the point of big deficits they have to finance with debt.

When the economy goes in the tank, families tighten their belts. We cut out all unnecessary spending and focus our limited resources on the basics of housing and food. The government pushes ahead with opportunistic massive spending based on the discredited Keynesian philosophy of the 1030's.

As times get even tougher, families will find a way. We try to find extra money through second jobs, plant gardens to save on food costs, and sell possessions to stay afloat. The government uses the power only they have to raise taxes on those struggling families, exacerbating the downturn by undermining the population's ability to recover.

Recasting the government's behavior in terms of the average American illustrates sheer insanity.

Jack, husband of Jane and father of 3 children, loses his job. He goes home to assess his situation, and it is dire. He hasn't got much in the bank, and between the mortgage, car loans, and credit card balances, he's already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

So he and Jane decide to follow the government's model. Jack hires a contractor to remodel his home and build a new in-ground swimming pool in the backyard. He goes to the local Lexus dealer and purchases a brand new luxury car with 100% financing.

Jane walks through the neighborhood to all the neighbors she knows that still have income. She forces each neighbor to produce their financial statements, and takes about 50% from most of them. She explains to each, at the point of her gun, that since they have more money than she and Jack, it's only fair that they share the wealth.

The neighbors, realizing that half of everything they make is going to Jack and Jane for their remodeled home and swimming pool and Lexus, decide it's not worth all that hard work to only get half of their earnings. So many of them move away to escape their thieving neighbors. Others cut back on their hours or quit their jobs altogether. They plant gardens, no longer visit the doctor but try to manage their own health as best they can, and spend as little as possible on only the most basic needs. Because they realize that if their income falls below a certain level, Jack and Jane will at least leave them alone.

Pretty soon the whole neighborhood is bankrupt. Half the homes are empty, and the other half are in poor condition. At first, only Jack and Jane have the nice home in the neighborhood, but eventually, their source of income from working neighbors dries up. Finally, even Jack and Jane are bankrupt.

Irony

It's interesting to track the irony.

Democrats campaigned on the promise they would be scandal-free, ethical, and transparent. Obama promised to end earmarks.

So, how are they doing?

There's a great and growing list of reports of corruption. Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Murtha, Harman, Biden, and others have all been tied to various corrupt influences to benefit themselves, family, supporters, or close associates. Interestingly, each Democrat's response when they get tied to corruption is not the Republican trend of resigning in disgrace, but fiercely denying everything and blaming some faceless conservative conspiracy.

Is the party powerful enough to squash all investigation and prosecution? So far it would seem so. But they're eager to prosecute all Republicans for the sin of disagreeing with them on policy. It almost seems dangerous to be a former member of the Bush Administration, who all are now at risk of prosecution and imprisonment. The former White House butler and mailroom guy might find themselves locked up before they even realize what happened.

Obama's promise to end earmarks got turned on its ear with the last spending bill - 9,000 of them, give or take. And he didn't even blink.

As far as transparency, it turns out Obama meant transparency only for selected classified documents that might shed a poor light on the Bush administration. Most of his own activities seem to be highly secretive, unless somebody leaks.

Speaking of leaked documents, perhaps the most ironic is the one about Janet Napolitano's plan to implement suveillance on possible domestic terrorists drips with irony.

Remember during the Bush years, when all sorts of left-wing activists, college professors, and fellow travelers were outraged at what they called illegal spying on US Citizens without a warrant? I recall hearing various professors railing on the TV news programs about their absolute certainty that the evil Bush was spying on them solely because of their political views.

Perhaps those same folks figure turnabout is fair play. Despite the fact they had not a shred of evidence for their paranoia, they are universally silent on the new domestic terrorist surveillance. I guess they don't have a problem with warrantless wiretaps when it comes to people who are pro-life, Christian fundamentalists, Catholics and evangelicals, ex-military, NRA members, anti-illegal immigration, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists, or Libertarians.

This time there is actual evidence, although so far nobody's been arrested in any of those groups, at least as far as I know.

Please write to me or visit me when I'm in prison. Wait, that's not the right term; Oh yes, Re-Education Camp.

Think they'll waterboard me?

Why Can't Telecoms Do Customer Service?

I noticed an article some time ago that cited a study where the telecommunications companies hold the distinction as the worst industry for customer service.

My experiences with AT&T over the past 3 weeks would seem to bear this out.

The DSL connection at home was driving us nuts for a few weeks. We'd go online and be OK for awhile, then suddenly the connection would fail. So I'd unplug the modem, let it rest a bit, plug it back in, reboot, and the connection would be working again. But whatever the person using the computer was doing typically was lost, and the process had to be started again.

I found out that a neighbor was having the same trouble, and they paid an AT&T service person for the service call and a new modem. Which seemed a bit unfair to me, having to pay the technician to come out and tell you your modem's bad, then add insult to injury by charging you for that "service" plus an overpriced replacement modem.

I called the service line and reported my problem, and of course, they called back a few hours later and said the line tested fine. That was expected. So I asked them for a new modem.

Too bad, the 1 year warranty just expired last month. So I'd have to purchase the new modem. But if I agreed to keep the service for 1 year, they'd waive the charge and ship me the new one for free. I wasn't terribly pleased with that idea, but under the misguided idea that it would at least solve the problem quickly, I told them to go ahead.

About 10 days later, the new modem still hadn't arrived. By now the internet is completely unusable, as at best the modem will work for a couple of minutes before failing. So I called again, navigating through about the stupidest telephone automation system I've ever encountered until I finally got a human. The pleasant Indian customer service rep asked me all the questions I'd answered about 3 times while navigating through their stupid system, then had trouble understanding my problem.

So when I finally got through to him that a modem was supposed to have been shipped and I still didn't have it, he got around to telling me that I can order one with a credit card. I responded, of course, by pointing out the fact that I'd already been told the new one would be free with a 1 year service commitment.

Well, that offer has ended. Apparently there were way too many people having trouble with those low-quality modems AT&T has been sending out all over the country. I'm guessing somebody found out they were giving thousands of new modems away, and of course before that cuts into profits and hurts some executive's bonus, it was decided to quickly do away with that bad idea.

So I took a deep breath, tried to remain patient, and suggested to the pleasant young Indian that it seemed to me the agreement was already in place for me to receive a replacement. Just because the previous customer service rep failed to properly process the order or the shipping department lost it or whatever other possible reason, should not mean the agreement was void.

Well, that's above his pay grade, so he puts me on hold while he tries to find a supervisor. When he returns, he says he was unable to get his supervisor. But he's a creative fellow, so he said he'd just call shipping and see if they could locate the original order.

I was back on hold for awhile, and was getting tired of holding the handset. So I tried to activate the speaker phone to free up my hands while I waited and accidentally hung up. Arrgh.

I called back, navigated through the stupid telephone maze again, answered all the same questions 3 times, then instead of a customer service rep I somehow got a salesperson. Who promptly tried to sell me an "upgrade" to make my internet faster (only $5 more per month!), tried to sell me a mobile phone, tried to sell me Cable TV, and generally harassed me before finally transferring me to Customer Service.

So after giving my information yet again to the new Customer Service rep, then re-explaining everything a couple of times before he understood, the long and painful ordeal finally ended. He informed me the new modem will be shipped today, and I should receive it Monday.

What would you be willing to wager that a new modem will actually appear at my home sometime Monday?

Yeah, I don't think I'd take that bet either.

Musings on Tea Party

I had considered stopping by Donner park yesterday to check out the Tea Party event there, but ended up working late (Never thought I'd be thrilled to be working late, but boy was I ever!)

So when I did wrap up in the evening, I drove by just to see what was happening. It looked like the crowd was breaking up, with lots of folks walking to their cars. I couldn't tell much about turnout, but noticed cars parked in unusual places, so it seemed there were enough to strain available parking.

I watched some of the Fox News coverage, and noticed several things.

The crowds seemed substantially white, middle-class, and clean-cut. These folks aren't your typical protesters. They aren't into chanting slogans that much. They listen to the speakers and cheer a lot, but if a speaker gets partisan they might boo him.

The events apparently weren't covered by anybody other than Fox News, except maybe for local press and media. There's a clip from CNN with one of their reporters starting to interview a Tea Party attendee then rudely cutting him off and insulting him when he tried to answer her condescending question (Why are you here protesting taxes, when Obama's plan actually gives you a tax cut?)

The local newspaper did a front-page photo but a fairly small and dismissive article. Obviously the reporter wasn't a fan. The photo seemed designed to project a negative image - it showed an angry-looking unattractive woman holding a sign and yelling something.

Either the press doesn't understand or chooses not to understand the driving force behind this movement. They echo the Obama talking points, that everybody except the "rich" are getting a break, so what's the problem?

Then there's the vulgar stuff, that I was very surprised showed up on CNN as well. Imagine if Fox News used a vulgar sexual reference to describe a leftist protest.

The important questions are whether this is a one-time thing, or the start of a movement that will bring government back to reality; and will this gain enough momentum to actually reconfigure the membership of congress?

It would be nice, but the country's still pretty much polarized around 50-50. We shall see next year.

Paying Attention

An unfortunate fact lately is I have time to pay attention to things going on in the world. I think I'd rather be busy working and oblivious, but at least it gives my mind something to do during quiet times.

Some things I noticed:

Obama wanted to name Caroline Kennedy Ambassador to the Vatican. Naturally, the Vatican politely declined. I wonder what the true explanation might be for why The Great and Powerful OB made such a stupid choice?

The first explanation is that he's simply ignorant. With his faux Roman Catholic friends, like the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, John Kerry, et al, perhaps he thought she was a typical Catholic?.

Maybe he did it on purpose to tweak Pope Benedict. He thought everybody would be outraged that he would reject Princess Caroline. Perhaps it might be true for the atheists and faux Catholics in Obama's inner circle, but actual Catholics are pretty happy the Vatican held firmly to their faith and principles.

Thinking a bit further on the subject, it seems that Obama will have a very difficult time with this appointment. Because I'm not sure he even knows anybody that would be acceptable to the Vatican. He certainly doesn't seem to understand or respect anybody who actually practices their faith.

Another thing I noticed was related to the successful rescue of the captain from the Somali pirates. Not the rescue itself, which is actually a rare example of Obama doing the right thing.

What I noticed are three stories. The first was the unseemly media blitz from the White House that commenced immediately after the captain was rescued by Navy Seals. Apparently, White House staffers called all their media buddies to crow that it was all Obama. He ordered it, coordinated it, perhaps even micro-managed the operation from the White House, according to his in-house spin machine.

They have no class.

The second story I noticed was that Obama only gave approval for force to be used in the rescue shortly before it took place. The story seemed to suggest that he was hesitant and indecisive, and only gave the Navy a green light to act if the captain's life was in imminent danger. That is a concern for future and probably much more serious terrorist crises that will certainly present themselves.

The third story is about the recent photo op for Obama when he visited the troops in Iraq. I saw that picture, which showed a crowd of adoring soldiers fawning over The Great and Powerful OB, shooting pictures and getting autographs. I was a bit surprised when I saw that photo, because I had always held the general impression that the military wasn't particularly enamored of the Great & Powerful Wizard.

So today I heard the explanation. An advance team carefully screened the soldiers to make sure only strong Obama supporters got in when he made his visit. Then they gave them cameras to shoot their pictures, and photos to get autographed.

The visit was staged for purely propaganda purposes. I seem to recall that the Soviets used to do that sort of thing. Other totalitarian regimes do the same around the globe. Now the Great and Powerful OB is getting in on the game.

By the way, the elimination of the conscience rule for healthcare professionals is done. I'm waiting to see what happens when the first doctor or pharmacist refuses to participate in an abortion.

Is anybody else paying attention?

How Fair are Elections?

The rulings in the Minnesota case of the Senate election contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken would appear to grant the seat to Franken. I've read as much as I can find on the interesting race, recount, and subsequent legal challenge. My conclusion is that Franken will get the seat, not because he polled more Minnesota votes, but because he had a more aggressive legal team and stronger Democratic machine behind him.

The best analysis of the whole controversial election can be found at powerlineblog.com. I'll try to summarize the essential story on my own.

The election ended with Coleman ahead by only a few hundred votes. The recount required by statute was completed by each county election board, with an aggressive and well-funded team of Franken lawyers looking over their shoulders. Apparently, Coleman's camp was much less aggressive, and somehow the recount tipped the scales to a razor-thin margin for Franken.

Coleman's court contest of the election focused on the fact that Democrat dominated counties deviated from Minnesota state law in counting ballots, while Republican dominated counties held to the letter of the law. In other words, if an absentee ballot was not filled out, signed, and filed per Minnesota election law, the Democrat electors often counted it anyway, while Republicans did not.

Stories have surfaces throughout the process of precincts turning in more votes than they had registered voters; a couple hundred ballots suddenly turned up in a Democrat elector's trunk a couple of days after the election and were counted, even though 100% of those ballots happened to be marked for Franken; and another hundred-some votes were run through the machine twice at a Democrat precinct.

The election court ruled that about 400 previously rejected ballots were to be counted, but I haven't found the specific reasons why they were rejected or why they now must be counted. Those ballots apparently added another 100 votes net for Franken.

So Coleman is appealing to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the case could eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court. Coleman's argument is that the process violated Equal Protection under the Law, because Democrat precincts were allowed to count ballots technically in violation of election law while Republican precincts followed the letter of the law. Coleman's case says that the local election boards were allowed to use their own judgement, and the lack of uniform standards applied to which ballots were counted and which were not amounts to an unfair application of the law which clearly favored the Democrat candidate.

There is no provision in Minnesota law for remedies to this situation. There also is no way to review all of those votes that have already been counted to throw out those that were illegally cast. So the court's ruling decided that since the only legal remedy is not available, there is no remedy but to seat Franken on the basis of the 350 or so vote differential he currently holds. The problem with Coleman's suggested remedy, which is to include 4,000 rejected ballots to make up for the fact that the Democrat precincts counted some significant but unknown number of ballots with the same flaws, is that the remedy would actually cause Minnesota's laws to be broken in order to count them.

Of course, there's the whole other issue in Minnesota of voting fraud. Everyone has by now heard of Obama's ACORN machine's vote fraud activities, which were just as prevalent in Minnesota as anywhere. Minnesota hasn't implemented Indiana's solution to voting fraud, simply requiring voters to show a valid identification when they appear at the polls.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of college students from Wisconsin fraudulently registering and voting, along with illegal immigrants, convicted felons, dead people, fictional characters, and other well-publicized tricks so favored by that party.

But again, there is no law on the books in Minnesota that permits or even makes possible a review of fraudulently cast votes. If somebody showed up at the polls and voted, or submitted an absentee ballot filled out properly, whether or not the voter was eligible matters not.

So can it be said that Franken won fairly? I don't think so.

Then there's the prosecutorial misconduct discovery against Ted Stevens in Alaska. His charges were dropped and his conviction overturned, and the prosecutors in that case may be prosecuted themselves. The FBI agent who uncovered this misconduct may have uncovered a broad Democrat conspiracy that caused the overzealous prosecution with the goal of gaining the magical filibuster-proof majority for the party.

And the New York race that is apparently still to close to call is another to be monitored to see whether we actually have free and fair elections in this country. Could it be that we've already become like China, Cuba, or the old Soviet Union, where elections are predestined by the ruling party?

Possibly.

I seem to have started something

So the editorial has taken a life of its own. This Sunday there was a response, and today there were two more.

The guy who wrote the original letter that elicited my response sent in a rebuttal. Well, sort of. Interestingly, he seemed to capitulate from his original assertion that the old free market system is dead (hallelujah!). I got a chuckle because his attempt at rebuttal was pretty feeble.

He backpedaled and tried to say he wasn't suggesting socialism, just "reasonable" regulation. Then he reverted back to his straw man, trying to suggest that those free marketeers he was railing against wanted to do away with all government oversight. His examples, such as social security, unemployment insurance and antitrust laws, were laughable. Nobody I've heard on the capitalist right has ever seriously suggested anything more than reform of those programs. Not to mention that he completely missed my comment about lack of enforcement of antitrust law at the root of these institutions deemed "too big to fail".

I guess I won the argument without even trying very hard. But since when is it my job to put forward such arguments? Don't we have so-called "leaders" who are supposed to do that? I'm just a lowly software consultant who lives in the boonies.

Unfortunately, the other two guys writing on the topic were not easy to decipher. I'm pretty sure both of them were generally supportive of my thesis, but they probably should stick to their day jobs.

I don't think it necessary to write in again, at least not on that topic.

Solving Terrorism

When it comes to solving problems, I've learned that the first rule is to understand and deal with the root cause. Unfortunately, most people can't solve big problems because they try to fix the symptoms, missing or ignoring the underlying disease.

When considering the problem of Muslim terrorism, we see the Great and Powerful OB in full "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" mode. Not only is he trying to deny the very existence of Muslim terrorism, he pretends to ignore the elephant in the room. That elephant being the fact that the root of Muslim terrorism is the very existence of the State of Israel.

Hamas used the naive institution of "Democracy" in the Palestinian territories to gain political power. Hamas has made no attempt to hide its strong commitment to eradicate Israel and kill every non-Muslim in the region.

The simple conclusion is that the terrorists dedicated to that cause, supported by oil-rich Iran, Syria, and a quiet Saudi Arabia, will never accept any negotiated peace. They've promised their followers to never participate in the two state solution pushed by Clinton and Bush, and presumably supported by the Great and Powerful OB.

So what's the answer?

There's only one practical solution (Unless you consider running away and hiding from the problem a solution). An enforced peace. Pax Americana, if you will.

Get a coalition of allies to partner with the United States to force peace in the region. Here's how it works:

Freeze the borders where they are today. Palestinians can have a semi-autonomous state within the borders of the current Palestinian Territories. They can elect their own civil government, assess taxes, and handle the day-to-day administration of their state. Israel's borders are permanently set; no more negotiations or pressure on Israel to give more land for peace (like it's ever worked anyway).

Jerusalem belongs to neither state. The holy city belongs to the world. Citizens of Jerusalem may hold dual citizenship in Jerusalem and their country of origin. It will be extremely difficult for someone not already living and working in Jerusalem today to become a citizen. The US-built coalition commits to proving security in Jerusalem for 20 years, renewable if necessary at that time. Any Jerusalem citizen convicted of a violent crime faces eviction and loss of citizenship, as well as a lifetime ban from ever entering the city again.

The coalition will also provide a substantial number of troops to secure and protect each state. The troops will bring a martial law to the Israel-Palestinian border areas, cracking down on all cross-border violence. The martial law will last until the violence stops, then a gradual draw-down and handover of security to the respective governments will take place.

Any trouble-making by Iran will be dealt with harshly by the coalition. The message to Iran is this: "Stop supporting terrorism, do not deploy nuclear weapons, and we'll leave you alone. Continue those destructive actions and we'll crush you."

It might sound harsh, but it's true. The beauty of this idea is that it can be delivered to the parties as a sort of ultimatum: Either get together and negotiate your own peace deal, or peace will be imposed on you as of a date certain.

The belief in a diplomatic solution to this problem is pure fantasy.