Note To Legislators: Do Your Damn Job

Here is a nice article from the Indianapolis Star: Just vote no, don't obstruct the legislative process

At the Indiana Statehouse, Democratic House members walked off the job on a crucial deadline day, sabotaging about 130 bills that had made it far enough through the process to be eligible for a floor vote. The measures -- including a key piece of Gov. Mitch Daniels' economic development agenda -- were sent to the dustbin.

In Washington, Democrats said they wouldn't discuss Social Security reform unless and until President Bush took privatization off the table. "That's the only way to start a good-faith negotiation," insisted Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Those are just two examples of political interest trumping public interest in the course of a single week. It's incidental that both involved Democrats refusing to debate Republican policy initiatives. If Democrats were in charge of the legislative process, the roles would be reversed. The problem is bipartisan: Obstructionism is taking the place of reasoned policy discussion on issues that are critical to state and national interests. Leaders of both parties hold hostage the ideas of the opposition rather than admit the ideas are valid or take a position (for or against) that might later cost them votes.

Why do so many legislators have such a problem with democracy? It's perfectly simple; have a debate; have a vote; some votes you will win, some you will lose. Period. What's the difficulty? It seems that many Democrats and Republicans only want to play the game if the rules are "Heads I win, tails you lose." You cannot tell me that all 130 bills in the Indiana State House were Republican pocket lining. At least some of them had to be directed towards the public good. But I guess the Indiana Democrats were only representing, well, Indiana Democrats. By their very actions they have forfeited any moral right to speak for "the people."

Among the bills that couldn't be voted on for lack of a quorum: daylight-saving time, moving the ISTEP test to spring, the Colts stadium financing deal and creation of a state inspector general with prosecutorial powers.

Walkouts are nothing new, but this one lacked any principle or higher purpose other than obstructionism. The bills had been through the public hearing process, passed out of committee, in some cases been amended on the floor and deserved what the democratic process promises: an up or down vote.

Good lawmakers vote "no" all the time. They have differing ideas over how to build the economy and improve schools and different opinions as to whether the Colts football team is an asset worth saving. Democrats who don't want daylight-saving time should vote against it. Democrats who think an inspector general is unconstitutional can and should vote no -- and can even go to court if they lose the legislative debate.

I'll bet the Republicans in Indiana are secretly hoping that the Colts will be spirited away in the middle of the night again. "Look what the Democrats have wrought," they could say, and with good reason (for a change.)

I guess I've never warmed up to an outlook in domestic politics that sees it as a war waged against our fellow citizens who don't have the common decency to believe as *we* believe. Since both parties function with that mentality I've often wondered how anyone of conscience would want to get mixed up with them. Maybe there are fewer people of conscience than one might hope.

I did enjoy this quote from an outraged Hoosier:

These are supposed to be educated adults who we trusted to represent our best interests. Well, it's not in my best interest for my legislator to throw a hissy fit because he/she wasn't getting his/her way and walk off the floor causing 132 bills to die.

Sadly they are not "educated adults". They are Democrats and Republicans.

Poking People With Sharp Sticks

Neil Steinberg at the Chicago Sun-Times seems to think antagonizing folks who are clearly nuts is fun:

I had hoped to print some of the more diverting replies from UFO true believers to my item on Monday noting the utter spuriousness of their claims. But, sadly, their e-mail was the same angry insistence that is the mark of the zealot.

Here's a 20-word taste of the top of one that more than handily stands in for them all:

"I've spoken with extraterrestrials, filmed them, and worked for the military for years. You my friend are an opinionated moron...."

Which brings up another undeniable refutation, at least to the whole contact-with-the-aliens crowd. A question for those who claim to have spoken with aliens: What was the most interesting thing these cosmic visitors had to say? Because any tourist from Britain will have fresh perspectives on America; imagine how much more insightful a superior alien intelligence from another world should be. What profound, new, or even interesting observations did these fresh eyes, or tentacles, or whatever, have to offer?

Let me guess: "Live in peace."

He is a braver man than I am. I've listened to enough "Coast to Coast AM" to know that the UFO people are a passionate bunch. Scary too.

Blackmail. Why Didn't I Think Of That?

Go read this while I eat my Ramen noodles (again.)

(Gleaned from The Warren. Where else?)

"You Should Have Thought Of That Before You Got Sick"

From Reuters: Heaven Can Wait, Court Tells Dying Man

A man given six months to live by his doctors has been told by an Italian court to come back in 14 months to hear the outcome of his demand for insurance damages.

Carmelo Cisabella, 39, has an inoperable spine disease and is anxious to pick up some $596,300 in already-agreed damages from his insurers to help ease his final months of life, Il Messaggero newspaper reported Tuesday.

In a bid to speed up the process, Cisabella turned to the Sicilian courts to put pressure on the slow-moving insurers, but was told to return next year to hear their decision.

In his frustration, he chained himself to the gates of the law courts to bring attention to his plight.

Think of that the next time someone asks you what you would do if you only had six months to live.

(Gleaned from DougPetch)

Apathy In Action

There is an election today in St. Louis, although you might not know it to read the local newspaper. The election is the mayoral Democratic primary, but since this is St. Louis, where the Republicans haven't been a factor since God only knows when, this is the real mayoral election. It seems to be drawing a collective yawn from the city. You have an incumbent mayor, Francis Slay, who most are predicting easy victory for (an example.)

It isn't that people are not attempting to generate some interest. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist has gone so far as to state that Slay, who is white, is a terrible mayor for black folks and they should vote for anyone else as long as they are also black. That should get everyone riled up, right? That's a real "call to arms", don't you think?

"No thank you," reply the populous, "We are too engrossed by the St. Louisans still alive in the American Idol contest to give a thought to who should be mayor!"

Now, this could just speak to a level of confidence in the job Slay is doing, but it couldn't be duller for those among us who are political junkies. Urban politics in these times is simply boring. By and large this seems to be true around the country as well. It was certainly true in Washington D.C. when I lived there. I think this lack of political competition in urban areas leads to a certain stagnation in the governance of cities. What would be needed is a new urban Republicanism to at least challenge Democrats and maybe make them a bit more responsive.

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it very likely. The Republicans are just too suburban oriented. So we are stuck with boring urban politics.

So who is on American Idol again?

A Crusade Without A Cause

I'll admit that I've always been a little mystified by the Daily Kos' campaign against Sen. Joe Lieberman. (See this and this.) The latest installment from the DK continues to mystify.

As usual, the New York Times misses the issue. This in its story today on Lieberman is so offbase as to be laughable and makes you wonder if the reporter knows anything:

Their disappointment with Mr. Lieberman illustrates the difficulty of trying to be a centrist in an increasingly polarized political climate. Mr. Lieberman has gone from a possible Democratic heir apparent to a presidential primary footnote in 2004 to the conspicuous odd man out in his own Senate party caucus.

Excuse me, NYT reporter, the problem is not in being a centrist. Look it up, you may find out that the Senate Minority Leader is well to the right of Lieberman on many issues - most notably abortion rights. Is Senator Reid too "centrist"?

No, NYT Reporter, the problem is this:

In recent weeks, he has angered Democratic activists nationwide for expressing a willingness to work with President Bush to change Social Security. Critics say that is just his latest act of disloyalty to the party. He already had supported the war in Iraq and Mr. Bush's cabinet choices - and received a televised presidential smooch at the State of the Union address.

Ohmigod! It looks like Joe Lieberman has been engaged in politics! (The horror!) One wonders if dastardly Joe has been engaged in acts of compromise and negotiation as well. At the expense of ideological purity!! You prepare the tar and feathers!! I'll get the rail!

It's all so incredibly stupid. Of course I begin to wonder if the real trouble doesn't stem from Lieberman's unflinching support of Israel. After all, that was why he didn't mind toppling Saddam Hussein. I remember seeing video of some Democratic event right after Baghdad fell, and Senator Lieberman raised his hand in triumph celebrating the fact that the murderous thug had fallen. No one in the audience could care less. The whole episode made me cringe and feel sorry for the guy. He was making a fool of himself in front of that audience. He was absolutely right in thinking that Israel's long term security could only be helped by this action. He was absolutely wrong in thinking that anyone in that audience gave a flying fig.

I disagree with Sen. Lieberman on lots of things, but I believe him to be an honorable man who deserves better than this.

Cutting Taxes Richly?

Posted by: iconicmidwest

(Mostly I'm just playing around with a new photo blogging program here.)

From this chart it seems that the Bush tax cuts were not like Reagan's. The Reagan era cuts do seem to have been exclusively for the wealthy. Seems harder to say that about the Bush cuts. Of course it won't keep people from saying just that.

Of course there are other arguments that people can make for re-raising taxes, but the old saw should be retired at least until it is actually warrented.

(Gleaned from QandO)

Another Sign Of The Apocolypse

From DougPetch.com:

Reason Enough To Sell Your Radio

This news speaks for itself -

"The Backstreet Boys, whose hits such as "Everybody" and "As Long As You Love Me" catapulted them into popster superstardom in the '90s, are ready to stage a comeback.

"The megaselling quintet announced plans to play a string of U.S. club dates starting Mar. 21 in New York in preparation for the release of their as-yet untitled upcoming studio album in July--their first album since 2000's Black and Blue."

Words fail me....

Be afraid...be very afraid.

Ciao Giuliana Sgrena! Tua Momma Sei Una Putana!

Over at The Moderate Voice they have an (incredibly) exhaustive round-up on the strange saga of Giuliana Sgrena.

My only thought is if the Italians really did pay a million dollars for her I hope they kept the receipt. Maybe they can get a refund. She is obviously defective.

The Left are Simply Anti-Catholic Bigots

Please notice I said "the left" and not Democrats. The 52 Funniest Things About The Upcoming Death of The Pope

(Gleaned from QandO)

It is most ironic that Sen. Schumer can say, "This is the most disgusting thing I've seen in 30 years of public life," and he isn't talking about something Karl Rove did.

This Post Makes Me A Liar

Damn it.

I said I wasn't going to post on the Ward Churchill "controversey" any longer. but I cannot help making a couple of more points.

#1 - Any article or statement you read to the effect that Churchill is being "persecuted" because of his article saying 9/11 victims were "little Eichmann's" is a lie (an example of such a lie), pure and simple. Any discussion that ignores the facts that (as this article outlines):

Churchill stands credibly accused of ethnic fraud, grade retribution, falsification of the nature of his military service, academic fraud, plagiarism, selling other artists' creations as his own and falsely accusing Denver Post columnist Diane Carman of inventing incendiary quotations.

This doesn't even include Churchill's repeated advocation of violence against those he disagrees with.

#2 - Academia is right, there is a question of academic freedom at stake here. However, it isn't the question they are asking. The inability of academia to honestly look at the record of Ward Churchill and exert even the barest minimum of professional standards upon him bodes ill. The entire premise of academic freedom is predicated upon the principle that the academic disciplines can be self regulating. The Ward Churchill episode is pointing out that this is simply untrue. If academics are unable to appropriately handle as "no-brainer" a case as this, how can anyone have the slightest confidence in academics ability to govern themselves? I don't think you can. This invites the interference of legislatures, which is not a good thing. But academia is, to all intents and purposes, abdicating their responsibilities. If you cannot hold Ward Churchill to even minimum academic standards, like firing him for the numerous frauds he has committed, then you have fewer arguments when the legislature decides to intervene.

Goodwill In Indonesia?

Marc from over at American Future points me to this new poll from Indonesia: Major Change of Public Opinion in Muslim World


For the first time ever in a major Muslim nation, more people favor US-led efforts to fight terrorism than oppose them (40% to 36%). Importantly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism have declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% today.

For the first time ever in a Muslim nation since 9/11, support for Osama Bin Laden has dropped significantly (58% favorable to just 23%).

65% of Indonesians now are more favorable to the United States because of the American response to the tsunami, with the highest percentage among people under 30.

Indeed, 71% of the people who express confidence in Bin Laden are now more favorable to the United States because of American aid to tsunami victims.

The Terror Free Tomorrow poll was conducted by the leading Indonesian pollster, Lembaga Survei Indonesia, and surveyed 1,200 adults nationwide with a margin of error of ± 2.9 percentage points.

The internals of the poll seem alright. They oversample more highly educated people a bit, but I'm not sure that the PEW polls of 2002 and 2003 (which form the comparison for these numbers) didn't do the same thing. The TFT poll also has a much greater percentage of "Don't Know/Didn't Answer" responses than the PEW polls. It's unclear if that is because of design differences in the polls, or if public opinion in just more unsettled after the tsunami disaster and U.S. relief efforts.

This poll seems to underscore that the "support" enjoyed by Bin Laden and other terrorists is actually quite "soft." It is open to being shifted by U.S. efforts. Additionally, it seems very few people in Indonesia feel that the U.S. response to the tsunami disaster has been "stingy," whatever the United Nations might say.

It's a good sign. Here is hoping we keep up the good work.

Because I Always Do This

Whenever I see someone use Monty Python in their opinion piece it makes me comment. That's your ticket into this blog. Now you know. What have the Americans ever done for us? Liberated 50 million people...


ONE OF MY favourite cinematic moments is the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian when Reg, aka John Cleese, the leader of the People’s Front of Judea, is trying to whip up anti-Roman sentiment among his team of slightly hesitant commandos.

“What have the Romans ever done for us?” he asks.

“Well, there’s the aqueduct,” somebody says, thoughtfully. “The sanitation,” says another. “Public order,” offers a third. Reg reluctantly acknowledges that there may have been a couple of benefits. But then steadily, and with increasing enthusiasm, his men reel off a litany of the good things the Romans have wrought with their occupation of the Holy Land.

By the time they’re finished they’re not so sure about the whole insurgency idea after all and an exasperated Reg tries to rally them: “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”

I can’t help but think of that scene as I watch the contortions of the anti-American hordes in Britain, Europe and even in the US itself in response to the remarkable events that are unfolding in the real Middle East today.

Of course, after the last time Reg asks "What have the Roman's ever done for us," someone answers "Brought peace?" Reg yells at him to shut up. The U.S. can't quite make the claim that they have brought peace, yet.

My Brush With Satan

The last of the Jesuit priests who were involved in the 1949 incident that formed the basis of the film "The Exorcist" has recently died. (Read about the Rev. Walter H. Halloran, S.J., here and here.)

Like a lot of people I have always found this particular story fascinating. My interest only increased when I learned that part of the real-life exorcism actually took place in the neighborhood I grew up in St. Louis called Bel-Nor. It's kind of eerie that it took place just a couple of streets over from where I spent my childhood. I've often wondered if, as a kid, I had trick-or-treated at that very house some Halloween. It certainly would have been appropriate.

Coincidentally, during my years in Washington D.C. I lived for a short time a couple of blocks from the location they used to film "The Exorcist" in Georgetown. That's not so eerie, just interesting. (And not ironic!)

Another Reason McCain-Finegold Should Be Repealed

QandO has two very good posts on the possible implications of the Campaign Finance Reform legislation on internet activity, including blogging. McCain’s bastard step-child and the law of unintended consequences & Campaign Finance Reform Comes to Blogging :

Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.

In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

Bradley Smith, in case you're wondering, is a member of the Federal Election Commission. Now I'm not sure how much of Smith's warning will actually come true, but its certainly worth looking at what's going on if for no other reasons than to appreciate the consequences poorly thought out and crafted legislation such as that McCain and Finegold have given us.

Great. This is exactly what everybody needs.

I've always had a problem with the "campaign finance reform" efforts because of their implications for free speech rights and the infringement thereof. That concern just seems to be multiplied after reading statements like the above. Just imagine the bureaucratic nightmare they would have to institute to even attempt to enforce McCain/Finegold with the 8 million or so bloggers there are today.

But after our recent election experience there is a more basic problem with McCain/Finegold. It hasn't changed anything. Did anyone notice a substantive difference in the 2004 presidential campaign from either the 1992 or 1996? I sure didn't.

So what's the point of McCain/Finegold? To alllow members of Congress to pat themselves on the back for having done something? No thanks.

This is one instance where nothing is better than something.