Judical Activism

In all of the media frenzy over non-issues and personalities in the last national election, the most lasting historical effect of any President's administration was mostly overlooked. The choice of Justices to the US Supreme Court and Judges to the Circuit Courts of Appeal and the Federal District Courts have a profound effect on the lives of the population of the country. While the issue was largely overlooked, judicial activism is a constant danger to the make up of the government. It amounts to the judicial branch subverting the very document they are sworn to uphold and interpret.

When the founding fathers of the United States designed the mechanics of the government, they made the passing and changing of law difficult. To people desiring changes in the law, it can be frustrating to watch the sniping and deliberations which go into the passage of legislation. It has been famously said that “no one should see how sausages or laws are created”. It seems inefficient and more difficult than it needs to be. That is not coincidence. It was designed to be that way from the beginning and it is very intentional. At the time that the ratification of the United States Constitution was being debated, there was a lot of wariness of a strong central government and allowing the central government too much power. After all, the country had just fought a long and bloody war to get out from under a too powerful government which was not responsive to the needs of the people.

It was precisely because of the suspicion that central government which was too powerful would be subject to trends and to shifting political winds that the constitution was written the way it was. It takes deliberations in both the House of Representatives and the Senate separately, and then agreement between the two bodies before the bill being considered is even sent to the President. All of those steps were meant to ensure that fads and short-sighted trends were not constantly causing changes in law which were fickle and subject to whim. Political preferences in the United States are cyclical and the founding fathers knew that in order to have stability, the law must have some consistency.

Keeping those ideas in mind, the changes which are, by design, most difficult to make are changes in the constitution itself. A change to the United States Constitution requires involvement of all of the state governments and two-thirds of those governments must ratify the amendment. This is a Herculean task by any measurement. It is supposed to be. All of the articles of the constitution were hammered out in long debate and compromise in which all sides strenuously argued the merits. It is not something to be casually changed on a whim.

The constitution specifically delegates the power to create law to the legislative branch. The legislative branch is designed to be most representative of the governed population. Any idea without merit will not get through the scrutiny of the elected legislators because in short order they will be facing those same people asking to be re-elected. The country tends to be reluctant to wholesale radical change and so these processes allow progress to be generally very methodical with some notable exceptions. By definition, every constitutional amendment is a big change.

Liberal political thinkers got frustrated by their inability to pass legislation that agreed with their political views so they found a way to get around the constitution. They found activist judges. The idea is that they can find a judge who agrees with whatever interpretation of the law they want codified and they argue a case in front of the judge. The judge then rules that the law is only constitutional if it is rewritten the way the judge wants it. In that way, the legislature becomes powerless to change or adapt the law in any way other than the judge wants it.

There are a number of problems with this approach. The first is that the legislative branch is delegated the authority to create law specifically because they are accountable to the people in open elections. Federal judges are political appointees who, except in cases of malfeasance or criminal conduct, are accountable to no one. The second problem is that case law from one area of the country can be used as precedent in another part of the country. This allows creative and radical decisions by rogue judges to spread like malignancies across the country. It is a well documented phenomenon that liberal lawyers "shop" cases around until they find a favorable federal judge and try the case in that district or circuit. The third problem is that an isolated federal judge making a decision creating law removes the entire deliberative process installed in the constitution specifically to prevent trendy and whimsical changes in federal law.

A constitution which constantly changes shape like an amoeba and adapts without deliberation and debate and the input of the legislatures is no constitution. There is no stability and no consistency and besmirches the system of government on which our country’s very existence is based. Judges who create law are not interpreting law, as the constitution intended and specifically states, they are pseudo-monarchs creating law without accountability. The American Revolution was fought to divest this country of just such a system of government.

Olympic Judging and Other Impressions

Has anyone else noticed the seemingly endless parade of screw jobs in the Olympic judging concerning the Chinese athletes? Don’t get me wrong, some of them are just awesome. The guy on the still rings looked like Conan the Barbarian and did stuff that seemed impossible. The female springboard diver was clearly the best. But, when a Chinese female does a vault and falls to her knees and gets the same score as the All-Around Champion who sticks her vault, something stinks. Before the gymnastics fanatics go crazy, yes… I understand start values, deductions, etc. and the way the system works. Nastia Liukin also nailed her uneven parallel bars routine and scored lower than the Chinese female with multiple obvious faults. One judge scored her execution 9.0 and the Chinese girl 9.3 despite many more obvious mistakes by the Chinese gymnast. I don’t think it is a conspiracy but may just be a bunch of judges trying to please the home fans. The overall impression stinks like old fish. Bela Karoly did have an excellent point when he suggested that the Olympics get rid of the 16-year-old rule. The Chinese girls were clearly not sixteen but certainly were good enough to be in the competition. Why make governments falsify passports when everyone can clearly see they are underage? If they are good enough to compete, let them.

This brings me to the larger point. I absolutely detest any sport requiring judges. Over the years, I have seen so many screw jobs in: diving, gymnastics, boxing, and absolutely worst of all, figure skating. I much prefer the sports like swimming and track & field. Here is a line. Everybody line up on it. Whoever gets to that line over there first is the winner. Simple and pure. Or, whoever throws this heavy thing the furthest, wins. Simple and pure.

There are a lot of Americans complaining because softball and baseball are being dropped from the Olympic Games. I don’t believe they should have ever been there. I know there are professional track athletes but I would generalize that any sport with popular professional leagues probably shouldn’t be an Olympic sport. Olympic tennis? Give me a break. I was as excited as anyone to see the American/Russian hockey game back in the day but those were college players. I don’t want to see the NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB, or FIBA rehashed like another set in a series of pick up games. Some sports only get attention during the Olympics, like rowing, real wrestling, weightlifting, badminton, etc. Despite the sacrifices made by those dedicated athletes who don’t get big endorsement deals and huge contract salaries, all of the TV coverage seems to be of the NBA stars, and the bikini-clad beach volleyball players who are making a fortune regularly. I guess the up side to beach volleyball is that the outfits piss off a bunch of fanatic Mullahs.

On the positive side, there was some great sportsmanship and attitude among the swimmers. Dara Torres, who granted has more maturity than others, had the head official hold the start of a heat so another competitor could change into a non-ripped suit. The girl did not qualify for the final. If she hadn’t swum in that heat, she would have had years of preparation and training and not even had the chance to swim. She was not a teammate of Torres. It was a class move by a class athlete. Torres also showed her class with her reaction to losing the 50-meter freestyle by .01 seconds. She is a real role model. Milorad Cavic, the swimmer who lost to Michael Phelps by .01 seconds showed great class after the race. There were several American swimmers, I believe Rebecca Soni and Katy Hoff, who swam American record times and did not win their races. Instead of whining about it, they expressed joy at swimming their best times ever. That is how it should be. If you do your best and someone else is better, congratulate them.

Another interesting thing I haven’t quite figured out is the disparity in distance versus sprint athletes. Almost everyone in the sprint finals was from the Caribbean area and almost all the distance racers are from Africa. It causes one to wonder if it is a cultural thing or if it is the altitude training in Kenya versus the sea level training in the islands. I have to admit that is was fun to see Usain Bolt and Shelly-Ann Fraser celebrate their wins because they were so happy. Bolt cared nothing for the world record. He just wanted to win the race. The United States doesn’t seem to have any significant distance runners. Even the ones like Bernard Legat are from Kenya and he did not qualify for the final.

All told, the Olympics, to this point have been schizophrenic. The greatness of Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt’s accomplishments have been stirring but the judging and lack of coverage of the lesser-known sports is disappointing.

Judicial Activism and the Courts

I have become more and more interested in this subject recently after a number of court rulings, particularly by the United States Supreme Court. I have looked into several interesting decisions specifically because of the liberal use of the courts to establish law. My previous posting was about the danger of more liberal nominations after the next election should Barack Obama win the election and the Democrats control the Senate. This time let us look at a couple of specific cases.

The District of Columbia Gun Control Law (Heller versus DC)

Mr. Heller is a man who legally carries a gun during the performance of his job in Washington, DC. He is trained to use it and carries it when at work. The DC gun law denied Mr. Heller the right to possess a firearm at home despite his training and demonstrated ability to carry a gun safely. Mr. Heller sued based on the interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution that the individual right to own guns for legitimate purposes is not to be infringed by state or municipal law. DC maintained that its interest in the protection of the citizens of DC was sufficient cause to pass the law. In a 5-4 ruling today, the US Supreme Court struck down the DC law, causing howls of liberal protest and celebration by conservatives. Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that while the efficacy of protecting the citizenry by restricting gun ownership is debatable, the power of the court to contravene the Second Amendment is not debatable. Therefore, the Supreme Court has the power to review and interpret law but does NOT have the power to make law. It therefore follows that if the US Supreme Court does not hold this power, no lower court does.

The landmark case of Marbury vs Madison confirmed the idea of judicial review even though the concept had been informally in place earlier. In the Marbury case, Chief Justice John Marshall found that there was a conflict between the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789. Since the Judiciary Act was a law passed by Congress, the question became whether Congress could legitimately pass a law which conflicted with the Constitution. Marshall wrote that law that conflicts with the Constitution is not law and therefore the Constitution always wins out. Since the Constitution is the highest law of the land and judges swear an oath to it, how can a judge issue a ruling in conflict with it? Marshall’s point was that there was no reason to have a Constitution if Congress never paid attention to it and passed laws in conflict with it.

One of the more interesting things which came out of this decision is how the four liberal justices (Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer) all found a way to justify the law despite it being in conflict with the United States Constitution. The Canon of Constitutional Avoidance states that if an issue can be interpreted without causing a constitutional conflict, it should be interpreted that way. In this case, there was no way to avoid the conflict because the law directly conflicted with the Second Amendment despite any good intentions of the DC government.

Eminent Domain (Susette Kelo versus City of New London)

The concept of Eminent Domain has been around for a long time. The idea is that a government can seize property from an individual property owner for use to benefit the community at large. Per the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the property owner is compensated for the value of the property, though often not to their satisfaction. This has historically meant takings for uses like hospitals, transportation centers, public utilities and other obvious public welfare projects, usually tax-funded. For completeness, eminent domain does not only apply to real estate properties, it can be used by the government to seize military needs, trade secrets, patents and other intellectual properties. The difference in the Kelo case was that property was being taken from an individual to be used for a private venture for profit by other private investors, not the government. The government of New London argued that the improvements to the property would increase tax revenues and the business venture would be good for the citizens at large. Kelo argued the government had no right to seize property from an individual for another individual. The taking of property for profit subsequently made its way to the US Supreme Court.

The case was decided 5-4 in favor of City of New London setting off nationwide protest. The majority were the five liberal justices and Justice Anthony Kennedy. In opposing the ruling, Justice Scalia argued that ruling in favor of New London would eliminate the distinction between private and public property and that the only private property would be property the government was not interested in obtaining. After the decision, reaction was swift. Polls showed between 65-97% of people interviewed disagreed with the decision. President Bush issued an executive order banning similar eminent domain procedures by the federal government. More than forty states have enacted laws to prevent takings like the Kelo case. This is another case of the liberal US Supreme Court justices making law in conflict with the constitution. The Fifth Amendment specifically states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. The liberal justices substitute “public purpose” for the actual phrase “public use”. This means that any wealthy business can have the local government condemn (take) anyone’s property solely with a promise to have a more successful business. This is clearly an example of liberalism in that the government is always smarter than its citizens and always knows what is best for individuals. This decision also preferentially gives advantage to the wealthy and powerful.

Both of these cases point out the need to avoid nominating judicial activists to the courts. President George W. Bush can be accused of a lot of things but he has certainly been a lot more successful in nominating Supreme Court justices who interpret rather than create law than either Presidents Eisenhower or Reagan.

Judicial Nominations and Politics

Let's start with a couple of references from the United States Constitution:

Article 1 Section 1 - All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article 3 Section 1 - The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

By legislative powers, in addition to funding and other duties, the constitution means to create and modify law, subject to ratification by the Executive Branch, in the person of the President of the United States. By judicial power, the constitution gives courts the power to try federal cases (including disputes between states) and to interpret the constitutionality of laws. It is very clear to any reader that these powers do not include any provision for the judiciary to create law. In the last few decades, a slick way of writing unpopular law has emerged. Any party who has an agenda which will not be supported by the elected legislators can bypass the legislative process by filing a legal action with a sympathetic judge. The judge then issues an opinion that favors the plaintiff and it essentially becomes law. Even worse, the judge can strike down existing law and tell the legislature what kind of interpretation the judge will allow to stand, which makes the legislators redundant and powerless. It that case, the judge is clearly creating the law. Since the constitutionality of law is subject to review of the judiciary, and the judiciary is making the law, it should be fairly obvious that a judge is not going to strike down his or her own interpretation of the law. This process is usually referred to as “judicial activism”. It allows judges to do whatever they want to without regard to precedent or the desires of the elected representatives of the people. One needs to look no further than the historically astonishing opinions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California for many examples. Not coincidently, the Ninth Circuit has more opinions reversed by the US Supreme Court than any other circuit.

Judicial activism has been responsible for a number of liberal causes becoming law. The recent same sex marriage opinion in California was created despite a 61% recent defeat of same sex marriage by the population of California in a vote. Roe versus Wade, the famous abortion decision, was decided based on a constitutional right to privacy which was created out of thin air by the Supreme Court. Under the theory of judicial activism, judges are free to do anything they want and, unlike elected legislators, there is nothing voters can do about it once they are in office. In fact, the legislature becomes powerless and useless.

Part of the Democratic push for the White House is that Justice John Paul Stevens is 88 years old and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75 years old. In fact, the liberal justices are significantly older than the conservative justices. With a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Democratic President, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party will push for extremely liberal activist replacements should those justices retire or pass away. Additionally, the Democratic majority has been “running out the clock” by refusing to hold hearings of dozens of nominated judges so that if the next President is Democratic, all those nominations can be squashed and replaced by activists. Since the liberal agenda cannot be supported by legislation, the judiciary is used to create it.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are pushing for the Presidency so that more “strict constructionist” judges will be in place. Conservatives feel that by replacing even one of the liberal justices (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, or Souter), the direction of the court will be shifted. Chief Justice Roberts and both Justices Alito and Thomas are in their 50s. Only Justice Scalia, of the conservatives, is significantly older (72). Justice Kennedy, thought to be in the middle, is 71.

Since the court is currently thought to be four liberal, four conservative, and one swing vote, one new appointment could make a substantial difference to the make up of the court. Liberals are more anxious because of the ages of the liberal justices.

The choice in candidates is pretty clear. Barack Obama said in a recent statement, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." Therefore legal expertise and experience apparently have no place in evaluation of judicial nominees, as long as they support his political beliefs. John McCain said that he thought that "abuse of judicial authority" had continued unchecked. "The result, over many years, has been a series of judicial opinions and edicts wandering farther and farther from the clear meanings of the Constitution,"

It is interesting that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against the confirmation of both Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts despite their stellar credentials and qualifications. Clearly their votes were agenda driven on not based on qualifications. John McCain voted to approve both nominees.

Despite the little political and media attention paid up to this point, judicial nominations might be the single most lasting result of the next President.

The Republicans Join the Suicide Pact

I have written previously that the Democrats have taken an election that should have been theirs in a walk and managed to screw it up enough to make the contest competitive in the general election. Now, not to be outdone, the Republicans are attempting to destroy themselves, as well. The truth is that no staunch conservative had a chance to win the Presidency in the current political environment given the war, the current economy, the Republican incumbent retirements, and the fact that a two-term President is leaving office. John McCain came along at the only time he could have been nominated as a Republican in recent history. Although he will be painted as “George W. Bush II” by the Democrats, anyone familiar with politics knows better. That being said, some contemptuous conservatives would rather leave the country to ultra-liberals than have a candidate that is not the “perfect” conservative. When I hear people like Ms. Coulter openly rail against John McCain, I cannot help but think of the ages and health of Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The conservatives whining about McCain cannot possibly be thinking if they do not consider twenty more years of judicial activism a problem. In the current climate, the Democrats will likely pick up seats in the Senate. Therefore, a Democratic President will be able to nominate and confirm any flaming liberal activist judge and the Republicans will just have to grin and bear it. If McCain is elected and nominates a conservative justice, the Democrats can not possibly stall a Supreme Court nomination for an entire four years, like they are doing to the Appeals Court justices now. The Democrats have been holding up hearings on judicial nominations “running out the clock” until the next election. The nomination of the next two or three Supreme Court justices and having hearings on the Appeals Court justices may be the single most important legacy of the next President. It is mind-boggling to think who Barack Obama might nominate, not only for the Supreme Court but also to the Appeals Court positions currently held in limbo. That alone has the potential to change the country more over the next two decades than any elected official. Republicans better wake up to reality before the entire country is San Francisco.

Recap of Recent Political Events

Where do we stand? Barack Obama does not have enough pledged delegates combined with super delegates to go over the top to the nomination. Hillary Clinton isn’t about to go away. John McCain is consolidating. It is quite a mess for the Democrats. Let’s look at some of the individual issues.

Florida and Michigan: First, let’s look at the electoral map. The way that the country is divided by historically Republican and Democrat states means that to win the Presidency, the candidates have to win two out of three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, assuming they win all the normal red and blue states. That the Democrats have managed to upset the people in Florida and Michigan is pretty poor strategy. John McCain, because of his record of support for Israel and other issues, will run strongly in Florida. The last thing the Democrats need to do is irritate the voters there. Florida has elected Republican governors and has a Republican Senator. Except for the famous “hanging chad” areas of West Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties, the state is primarily conservative. The Democrats are trying to blame the Republicans for the dilemma but the original piece of legislation introduced to change the date of the primary was introduced by a Democrat. That makes the “Republicans are to blame” argument hard to sell. Michigan will likely go Democratic unless they feel disrespected by the national party. There are currently no plans by the Democrats to revote. Therefore, any seating at the convention will be a non-representative appeasement, thus telling the voters that we can vote in your stead. It is bad politics all around. Howard Dean is looking remarkably ineffective as Democratic Party leader.

Hillary Clinton: The Clintons (you have to bunch them together) never cease to amaze. One the one hand, you have to give them credit for relentlessness going back throughout their entire public life. On the other hand, organized crime is relentless. The Clintons have historically complained about the “politics of personal destruction” but it has paradoxically always been their favorite weapon against their opponents. In the last day, she has again begun to plant more racial wedges by stating to USA today that, to paraphrase “the white voters are moving away from Obama and that makes me the stronger general election candidate”. There is a theory by Dick Morris that she is weakening Obama so that she can run in 2012. It looks more like she is using the scorched Earth strategy and will never bow out. It does lend credence to Morris’ argument that if she does manage to wrest the nomination from Obama on some sort of technicality, she is likely to lose in November anyway because several traditional Democratic constituencies would never support her. Therefore, wresting it away doesn’t seem to make sense.

Barack Obama: He is in an interesting position. He claims to be the candidate that will “cross party lines and bring people together” although he has a record diametrically opposed to doing that. He is the single most liberal Senator in the Senate and routinely refuses to join bipartisan coalitions. He also wants to change “politics as usual” but has himself and his representatives constantly lying about McCain’s statement about the security force in Iraq despite knowing better. He is going to have a hard time running as a moderate when nothing in his record remotely suggests he would ever take a moderate position. Obama should get a bump in the polls after he clinches the nomination and after the Democratic convention. Obama always seems to poll higher than he actually does in the voting. It is an interesting phenomenon.

John McCain: McCain has always been an independent thinker. It some cases (Iraq, federal judges) he is very conservative. On others (immigration, environment), he is moderate. The conservatives are complaining that he is not going ultra-conservative to please “the base of the party”. To win the general election, that would be a huge mistake. Why anyone expects him to change from the last twenty-five years is silly. Additionally, we won the primaries running as himself. Why would he make a disingenuous change at this point after watching how “flip-flopping” hurt John Kerry, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton?

Issues: The economy – Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax despite the fact that every time the capital gains tax has been lowered, government revenue increases because the economy expands. McCain wants to lower the tax to keep industry in the United States. Obama keeps speaking of how opportunity exists in the United States but if you do manage to get rich, the government will take your money away in taxes on the rich.
Health Care – Obama wants universal care through a government program which will raise taxes and will not affect prices. McCain wants to have individuals buy their own policies so there will be competition and prices will lower. Additionally, this allows portability of policies between jobs.
Iraq – Obama wants to remove troops from Iraq regardless of the conditions there; McCain wants to continue the fight until we win.
Judges – Obama conforms to the Democratic position that since they cannot get the liberal agenda through elected legislatures, they will appoint activist judges who will create law through judicial fiat. McCain want to appoint judges who will interpret law rather than create it. Of course, that is what the United States Constitution says should happen.

One of the Democratic “strategists” Robert Zimmerman stated on CNN last night that the race would be between a “conservative Republican” and a “main-stream Democrat”. There is a load of manure if you ever heard it. McCain is a well-known moderate whom the conservatives are complaining about and Obama is the single most liberal Senator in the United States Congress. It is disgusting to hear both the right wing and left wing commentators spit out their vitriol. I almost e-mailed Bill O’Reilly about that. He calls his show the “no spin zone” but after every interview, he always has two “strategists” from either side who come on the show to do nothing other than “spin” the interview answers shamelessly.

CounterSpin is a Crock

I was on the road today and happened to be listening to National Public Radio. A program came on that was called CounterSpin. It purports to be a review of recent print and electronic media reports published or broadcast recently. It is a product of a group called Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR). It only took several minutes to realize that there is nothing fair about this program. A rhetorical question: How far left do you have to be when you complain about the “conservative bias” of the New York Times and Washington Post? The “reporters” that present the stories throw in snide comments throughout the stories often. One of the guests was an investigative reporter named Mark Shapiro who was really giving a thoughtful review and analysis of the problems encountered when reporting on matters of scientific research. He has written a book about the dangers of chemical additives in commercial products in the United States. He later spent some time extolling the European Union because they have, in his opinion, done a better job of restricting chemical additives which can be added to products produced in China. In an interesting paradox, many pharmaceuticals are allowed to be sold to consumers in Europe which have not been approved for safety in the United States. I suppose you get to pick your poison literally. The person interviewing him could not let his very skilled answering of the questions stand without leading him toward criticizing any conservative policy or business. While Shapiro was very interesting and thought-provoking, the remainder of the program was an ode to socialization and had an obvious anti-business bias. After doing a little internet searching, it was easy to find out that one of the former leaders of FAIR was Laura Flanders, who hosts a program on the flaming left Air America. To be “fair”, the program does not report to be news; it is a commentary show. I can say without equivocation that there is nothing fair and accurate in the interpretation presented by this group. The FAIR group is as objective as the group Media Matters which has been shown over and over to be a left-wing smear machine. How anyone can claim to be an objective observer and be associated with this program is disingenuous.

Immigration Politics

I listened to a “news report” on National Public Radio today about “undocumented workers” and the passage of a law in Prince William County, Virginia. The law basically states that when a person is arrested or brought to the attention of law enforcement, they will notify the US Government about the illegal status of the person. Therefore, a person who is violating the law of the United States will be reported to the appropriate authority about the law violation. On the surface, this seems to be a pretty intuitively obvious thing to do. However, the political left is outraged. National Public Radio tends to be a liberal news outlet and the story was, of course, extremely sympathetic to the plight of the law-breakers (“victims”). Some of the justifications they used require some severe stretching.

The focus of the story was two women who entered the country legally using work visas and then stayed past the expiration of their visas. Let’s make sure this is clear: the two women knowingly violated the law by overstaying the visa that the United States granted them. How does that make them sympathetic characters? The story lamented how one could not visit a friend in the hospital because she might have to produce identification. I suppose we should feel badly for bank robbers on the run who can’t visit their families because they might get caught. We are also supposed to be feeling sorry for illegal aliens because they might be reported if they commit a crime and get arrested. Am I the only one who sees how stupid this argument is?

The next segment was an interview with someone who was talking about how a group of three or four hundred illegal aliens (“undocumented workers”) who were receiving free tax-funded education to learn English as a second language were no longer attending classes. Let’s make sure this is clear: A group of immigration law violators are no longer using U.S. tax funds to receive educational benefits in a country where they shouldn’t be present. How is that a problem? The point was that the new law was causing illegal aliens to leave the county. How is that a problem?

The next portion of the report was about the financial burden. A County Commissioner was saying that because of the volume of illegal aliens in the county, it would cost a lot of money to enforce the law. Let me make sure we understand this: We won’t enforce laws because it costs money. It sounds like the county needs a new commissioner.

I found the interview with the head of the police force very interesting. He stated that the police force does not set up immigration screens or checkpoints. If they encounter someone who is an illegal alien, they do not detain the person unless they are being detained for committing a crime. They do appropriately report the encounter to the federal immigration authorities, as they should. They do detain illegal aliens who are arrested for committing a crime. How is that a problem? Should illegal aliens have special benefits that criminals that are American citizens do not? That is patently ridiculous.

I assume all of this ridiculous logic is way to try to obtain Hispanic support in the upcoming elections. The liberals also said that committing perjury was no big deal for President Clinton because it was about sex. Therefore, the political left can pick the subjects in which it is okay to tell lies in court. When a woman accused Clinton of sexual assault, the National Organization of Women said nothing, because their political agenda (abortion) agreed with Clinton’s. The liberal wing chooses which laws to obey and not obey and when the law contradicts their philosophy or goals, they find a judge who agrees and the just “re-interpret” the law. One cannot cease to be amazed.

Infomercials, the Epitome of Falsehoods

As someone who tends to see a lot of late night television peripherally while working on my computer, I have found a really entertaining habit. Every time one of those obnoxious commercials comes on, I immediately do a search on the product. A pretty consistent pattern has emerged. Let’s look at some examples:

First, there are “the product is completely bogus” scams.

Lipozene, the magic pill that helps you lose weight rapidly by “burning fat”. The retailers of Lipozene have been fined twice previously for deceptive business practices regarding television advertising. Lipozene does cause a brief weight loss in that it is a laxative. Therefore, if you are constipated, you lose the weight of the stool you lose. Other than that, the product does nothing. This is a total scam.

Shapely Secrets, the “motionless exercise”: Greer Childers, the attractive blonde who hypes the program, was ordered by the Federal Trade Commission to stop advertising her previous scam, BodyFlex, in which she insisted that you could lose weight by breathing deeply. Why anyone fell for that one, I have no idea. Her new scam is to stand still and lose weight. She also includes some diet tips, presumably to keep from getting fined again. Once again, a total scam.

Dual Action Cleanse: That is the one where the guy who sort of looks like a 1970s porno star tells everyone about the terrible toxins in the colon and basically hawks an expensive natural laxative. The implication is that your own feces are poisoning you. Since most people find bowel movements pretty disgusting, it is an easy sell to the uninformed. There is nothing about his product does that can’t be accomplished with a healthy diet containing fruit and vegetables. Another total scam.

Free and Clear: A real estate investment program where people can buy foreclosed homes for a couple of hundred dollars. Take a minute to think about this: There are hundreds of properties worth hundreds of thousands of dollars that can be purchased for a couple of hundred dollars but real estate people don’t know about them, bankers don’t know about them, or even more unbelievable, they know about them and don’t snap them up two seconds after they become available. Does this sound logical? If it doesn’t, congratulations, you have figured out this guy is full of crap.

Next, there are a series of what are called “implied consent” scams. This is where the seller continues to send you stuff you don’t want and continues to bill you monthly.

Video professor, the guy who wants to send you his “free” demonstration software: The are hundreds of complaints about another billing scam where people are charged $79.95 a month for a subscription service which sends them educational software, sometimes for programs they don’t even own. Consumeraffairs.com reports “But in actuality, it appears impossible to just get one free disc. Instead, it is a packaged bundle of three discs that cost $6.95 for shipping and handling. If the customer doesn't return one of the discs, at their expense, within 10 days, they will be enrolled in an automatic renewal service which sends new three-disc bundles every month for $79.95.”

Girls Gone Wild: This is the group that gets women drunk and has them flash and do other nefarious activities. They use the same business model. They sell you a cheap initial DVD and then continue to send them and bill you much larger fees. Once again, getting them stopped is apparently not very easy. By the way, Joe Francis, the founder and owner of the company, just spent time in prison and is up on further charges for using under aged girls in his videos. Therefore, owning any videos he produced with under aged girls means you legally own child pornography. Just something to think about.

Pro-Activ: This is the anti-acne program hawked by Vanessa Williams, P. Diddy, Jessica Simpson, and others. I have some personal experience with this one as my daughter and one of my sons used it a while. It seems like an honest product although my daughter found stuff at Walgreen’s that worked better. The problem is getting them to stop shipping it and charging you for it. It took months to turn it off. Of course, during that entire period, they bill your credit card.

Then there is the ultimate combination of bogus product and implied consent.

Enzyte, the magic pill that enhances “that certain part of the male anatomy”: There are literally thousands of complaints to the Better Business Bureau, the Consumer Protection Agency, and the Federal Trade Commision over this scam. The obvious complaint is that the product is totally bogus, but it is much worse than that. Apparently, the product retailers entice customers with a 30 day free trial, after which you can return the product or stop the additional shipments. The common complaint is that as soon as the initial “free trial” is shipped, the customer’s credit card is billed. When customers complain that it doesn’t work (which it always doesn’t since it is bogus), they are directed to a number in India which takes information and is supposed to contact the customer. They don’t. Since the subscription doesn’t stop, the customer continues to be billed for several months at about $50 a month. The product and the billing are a total scam.

Kevin Trudeau’s Natural Cures book: Knowing something about medicine, I knew this charlatan was full of crap but it seems a lot of people listened to him. He charges a lot, about $100, for the book which is relatively useless then charges $9.95 a month for a newsletter that the customer is apparently not told about and doesn’t ask for.

Then there is the “Hard Sell” approach.

Direct Buy: I am particularly sensitive to this one because once, a long time ago, my wife and I fell for one of these against my better judgment. This reminds me of the “free” vacation or “free dinner” you receive just for listening to a sales pitch. It tends to be a time share or vacation sharing. At least when my wife talked me into a “buyer’s club” back in the day, it only cost about $600. By the way, we never bought one item from the club. The prices were not good and it was an incredible hassle. Now, Direct Buy is charging about $6900 to join and there are loads of consumer complaints about them. Avoid these people like the plague.

How about the “we bill you and sometimes we don’t even ship the product?””

Milinex Power Storm Vacuum is supposed to cost about $55. With a bunch of bogus charges, it sometimes costs up to $400 and some customers never received their vacuum. There seems to be no way to return it or get a refund. This is a classic example of if it sounds too good to be true, it probably stinks.

In thinking back over the years, I can only remember one infomercial which had a legitimate product that didn’t over bill, good old George Foreman and his grills. We actually own one of those (bought in a store, not from television) which actually works really well. Therefore, I know the possibility actually exists for a product on late night television which isn’t a scam but it is the only legitimate one I have ever seen.

B Movies and Stretching the Truth

How can you tell a B movie when you see it? The most obvious clue is that it stars a bunch of folks that you have never heard of or seen before (excluding Jean Claude Van Damme, Shannon Tweed, Shannon Whirry, Sybil Danning, Cynthia Rothrock, Linnea Quiggley, etc. all known B movie actors). The sets tend to be a lot cheaper. They don’t seem to be able to afford a decent script supervisor. For those of you wondering, the script supervisor is the person whose job it is to ensure continuity between scenes and some semblance of reality to the movie. Movies are filmed in the order that will defray costs so the scenes are not done in chronologic order. Examples of famous mistakes are:

- Julia Roberts is eating a pancake, then a bagel, then a pancake in a scene in Pretty Woman

- The windshield of the truck Arnold Schwarzenegger is driving in Terminator I shatters as he jumps into the drainage conduit and is back to normal five seconds later.

I just watched part of a movie, Freedom Strike (made in 1998) which is about a Middle East peace accord being signed on a US aircraft carrier. The only actor I recognized was Tone Loc, which should have told me something. The President arrives by helicopter (an appropriate one) as seen from the Pri-Fly tower (obviously stock footage). During the broadcast news conference, a Middle Eastern cameraman tries to assassinate the President and fails due to the efforts of a Navy SeAL (the hero). I noticed a few script supervisor moments:

- The SeAL’s haircut isn’t close to military.

- Two Middle Eastern cameramen that close to the President of the United States and on a US aircraft carrier? Are you kidding?

- The SeAL’s partner is a super-model female Marine weapons expert.

- When the President is whisked away from the “carrier” he leaves on a CH-46 helicopter from a flight deck full of them. CH-46 helicopters are never on a carrier. Clearly, the film was stock footage from an amphibious assault ship.

- The Commander of the carrier is wearing dress blues showing him to be a four-star Admiral. The commander of a carrier strike group is usually a one-star and occasionally a two-star Admiral but NEVER a four-star. I would have given them a little slack on that one because the President was on board but they lost it when the same Admiral is wearing a khaki uniform with FIVE stars on his collar. There have only been four five-star Admirals in the history of the US Navy (Leahy, King, Nimitz, and Halsey, all in World War II).

- When the bad guy runs from the hero, he runs down passageways with railings (not present on a carrier), and goes down to the engineering spaces which are unoccupied. You can’t turn around on a carrier without excusing yourself for running into someone. You have to merge into passageways like an interstate highway. In fact, during the entire chase scene, only one other person is seen. They must have had a really tight budget.

- Interestingly, the chase would actually have been conducted by the ship’s security department. There is a scene where one of the bad guys is texting a message back to his co-conspirators in Syria (not possible within the hull of the ship) and one security person walks by (the only time a security person is ever seen). Clearly, a tight budget.

- A second bad guy jumps to his death from the island (tower) of the carrier which is white (wrong) and has multiple balconies (wrong). It looked like a freighter was used.

- The Navy physician shows up to take care of the injured Syrian Ambassador in a khaki uniform with a crisp white doctor’s coat over it (no doctor wears a white coat on a Navy ship).

- They take the patient to a storage room, not to the Medical Department, and operate on him in the storage room. I don’t even have to explain how wrong that is.

- At the conclusion of the “successful” operation, I noted the patient was never prepared sterilely and is still wearing his shirt and ECG leads despite the doctor working on a chest wound.

- Additionally, the “explosive” shell is removed pristine and intact. The actual way to remove one is to remove a layer of tissue around it (a little technical, but true). The way the doctor did it in the film gets you killed. Any surgeon would know better.

- And, as usual, despite both being wounded with gunshots, both heroes are smiling and walking normally after killing the last bad guy. Contrast that to how Bruce Willis usually looks at the end of a Die Hard movie.

It reminded me of the movie GI Jane, when the script required some sort of made up mission so that Demi Moore could look heroic and competent at the end of the movie. The scenario was that an American spy satellite had fallen into Libya and there was fear that the Plutonium core could be recovered by the Libyans. I actually said “B*llsh*t!” out loud when Demi Moore declared “It’s weapons-grade”. For those of you who don’t know, there are three fissionable materials known to man (stuff you can make an atomic bomb from): Uranium-233, Uranium-235, and Plutonium-239. The power core of a satellite is made from Plutonium-238 which is a very long term source of heat but cannot fission. Therefore, it can NEVER be “weapons-grade”. The people that are making these movies really need to hire a technical expert. Dale Dye has made a good living doing that. He is in every major military film made in Hollywood, or at least it seems that way.

Granted, I have a lot more expertise in these areas than most (or maybe anyone in this strange combination) but I really wish they would take the time to do these things correctly. . Even with nothing else to do at midnight, these movies are a waste of time.

Obama Unwittingly Helps McCain's Fundraising

There has been much made recently about the differential between Democratic and Republican fund-raising for the Presidential election. John McCain is lagging significantly behind the Democratic candidates due to the contentious race for the Democratic nomination. Surprisingly, I believe Barack Obama came to McCain’s rescue today. In a “major” speech about the economy, Obama, the presumptive nominee, stated that the solution to the country’s economic problems was more regulation. He proposed a tax cut to “working families”. Of course, that already exists in the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. In proposing more regulation by the government, Obama has begun the process of filling McCain’s election coffers by stimulating donations from almost every business in the country. If there is anything a business doesn’t like, it is the federal government telling them how to do their jobs.

The two Democratic candidates are locked in a heated battle. On the nasty side, they continue to delve deeper into accusations and nit-picking and it is wearing the voters thin. On the other hand, they battle by trying to out-promise each other, thereby buying the votes with bribes. It is an interesting paradox that if a candidate walked up to you and offered you $100 cash to vote their way, they could go to jail. Yet it is perfectly legal for them to offer you thousands of dollars in government money for the same goal. What no one seems to realize is that the money they offer comes from tax revenues. Obama has already offered up something like one trillion dollars in new spending proposals. Someone will have to pay for his programs. It will be people who work, thereby removing the incentive to work.

We have all heard someone say, “Why work harder? The government is going to take it, anyway.” There is some tipping point where people lose the incentive to try. That is the very reason communism fails as a form of government. It flies in the face of human nature. The reason the United States became the most powerful economic nation in history in only roughly 200 years is because there is incentive to work and produce. If you work hard or come up with a better product, YOU live in a better home, drive a better car, take a nicer vacation, not everyone else. In communism, everyone works down to the lowest level at which you can maintain your job (kind of like the US Civil Service). When liberals take more money from working people for socialist-like economic redistribution programs, they remove the incentive for people to work harder. A graduated tax table does the same thing. Graduated tax brackets are the driving force behind loopholes and tax cheating to reduce income levels on paper.

So, as the Democratic candidates continue to promise bigger government (meaning more taxes and more regulation), they spur contributions to the McCain candidacy from business and people who earn income. McCain should send Obama a thank you card.

Embellishment and Hillary Clinton Fatigue

How is it that any politician running for national office thinks that they can get away with embellishment, lying, or misleading statements in the modern age of communications? How Hillary Clinton can relate a story of “running under sniper fire” when video exists of the actual events is beyond me. In recent history, Dan Rather was run out of town for forgeries, Barack Obama’s minister’s sermons were exposed, Gary Hart had pictures of his affair exposed, Eliot Spitzer had his prostitution usage exposed, Nixon had tapes in the White House, Bill Clinton left evidence on a dress, Kwame Kilpatrick had 10,000 text messages, and on and on. There is virtually nothing that happens of consequence that doesn’t leave some trail of evidence.

Hillary Clinton started out behind the eight ball. People already had, at least independents and conservatives, an opinion of her as a scheming, no trick too dirty political opportunist. Her campaign had to be, in part, an effort to convince people that the impression was false and that she was genuine. Moving to New York to be elected certainly hadn’t helped that view. Everyone, even Democrats, knew that the move was political opportunism. The Clintons always complained about the “politics of personal destruction” and then were the foremost practitioners of it. Hillary Clinton had to run an almost perfect campaign in order to offset that image. To the Democrats, she was the “heir apparent” to the Presidency and the primaries were to be a formality (thus, the unimportance of super-delegates). In fact, the super-delegates were supposed to get the nomination process over more quickly by squashing any second place usurper who dared to make it a contest. What the Democratic leadership had not counted on was the appeal of someone other than Hillary Clinton. Make no mistake, Barack Obama is an appealing candidate, but a large part of his appeal is that he is NOT Hillary Clinton. Recent polls have shown that 19% of Obama supporters would vote for John McCain if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. That speaks volumes about the opinion of Democrats. In the Michigan primary, without Barack Obama on the ballot, almost 40% of Democrats did not vote for Hillary Clinton. They preferred “none of the above”. Many Democrats have been dismayed with what the Clintons did to the Democratic Party for a long time but always held their tongues because they were convinced that Hillary would be President. The haters of President Bush feel the Clintons were responsible for him being elected. Now that there is another viable candidate who is actually leading her in delegates, the truth is coming forward. There are a lot of Democrats who don’t like her in a big way and never did. Combine that with the fact that Republicans loath her and it makes for a tough candidate to elect. If she was winning big, the Democrats who dislike her would hold their noses and vote for her but now they have an alternative and they are jumping on that train.

The latest Bosnia embellishment is not surprising given her history of similar episodes but it is more revealing of the Democratic Party as a whole as they use it to again justify why so many would support anyone else. In a column just before New Hampshire I wrote that I didn’t think Obama had much of a chance. I clearly underestimated the undercurrent of Democrat desire to get away from the Clintons.

Teamwork and Stability

One thing that has become fairly apparent over the last few years is that teamwork and stability are pretty important in the success of an organization. There are some really outstanding examples of how not to manage an organization.

When Daniel Snyder bought the Washington Redskins, he clearly was a very successful businessman but just as clearly knew nothing about how to run a sports franchise. He thought that putting together a bunch of talented individuals from different systems would produce a great team. His teams struggled mightily despite the huge payrolls. His free agent acquisitions were routine busts. When he hired a proven coach who seemed to be turning the franchise around, Marty Schottenheimer, Snyder fired him after winning his final seven or eight games to hire Steve Spurrier from the University of Florida. There must be something cursed about Schottenheimer as he was fired from San Diego after a 14-2 season. In both cases, Steve Spurrier in Washington and Norv Turner in San Diego went on to have decidedly worse records than Schottenheimer. Snyder finally hired the legendary Joe Gibbs back and allowed several poor seasons before the Redskins organization got itself back together. Only a coach the stature of Gibbs would have been allowed to do that. When Gibbs retired this year, most of the organization was retained and little free agent action has taken place. It seems that finally Snyder has finally learned that stability is important.

There is an old saying the “The enemy of good is better” or “The enemy of good is perfect”. No where is that sentiment better represented than in the New York Yankees. Joe Torre wins three world championships and makes the playoffs in every year but one of his long tenure and he is fired. The Yankees organization laments on the old days when they won all the time. In those days however, you almost needed to be an archaeologist to mark changes in personnel other than pitchers, who generally have a shorter shelf life, anyway. There was stability in the organization and you knew every year that the team would be good. Of course, it always helped to have more money than the U. S. Mint. Mickey Mantle was offered a pay CUT in 1957 because he didn’t win the Triple Crown like he did in 1956. The Steinbrenner family is very similar to Daniel Snyder, and the US government for that matter, in that they feel money is the cure to every problem. They never take into account team chemistry. The best thing that happened to the Yankees in recent history is when they failed to sign Albert Belle who was well known team poison everywhere he went. Belle went to the Orioles and they have never been good since. Look at the response Alex Rodriguez received for one of the best offensive seasons in baseball history; he was booed by fans for the team’s finish. These are the same people who celebrated cheating the Baltimore Orioles out of a playoff game on an erroneous umpire call. It is hard to have empathy for them.

In the military, it is often said that the soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and airmen don’t fight for foreign policy but instead fight for their buddies next to them. It was well known in both Viet Nam and World War II that the replacements were thought of differently than the group that originally deployed together. There was a movie about the new Captain of a US Navy vessel who had his men build a sailboat for the ship. They were all angry about having to do it but another character in the movie recognized that by making the crew mad at him, the Captain had brought them together as a crew. Players and coworkers look out for one another when they have a relationship. Good coaches and executives recognize the need for cohesion. In the movie Remember the Titans, Denzel Washington’s coach character forced his players to learn about one another. Team chemistry is important to any organization and it takes time and stability to establish it. The people who go for the quick fix will always be left behind (and broke).

The Democratic Fondue Pot Melt Down

I have recently began reading the comments section below some of the news stories on the web and have noticed the visceral angst among the Democratic voters about the Clinton/Obama race. To believe the Democratic Party can come together between the September convention and the November election unless they resolve their candidacy issue before the convention might be wishful thinking. The blog commenters are inflamed and displaying a lot of vitriol. It has gotten down to a lot of "yo momma" types of comments. The two sides are building a lot of genuine animosity against the other.

To try to look at the options somewhat rationally, let's look at the likely general election tactics:

Obama versus McCain is a large contrast (young vs old, ultra liberal record vs moderate/conservative record, black vs white, etc.); Clinton vs McCain not quite as much (woman vs man, mostly liberal vs moderate/conservative) and keep in mind that Clinton/McCain have voted the same way many times. The problem Clinton has against McCain in the general election is that all the arguments she uses in the primaries against Obama don't work about McCain. Therefore, she will have to do a 180 and run with Obama's arguments of change. Her arguments of: experience (McCain has a lot more), legislative accomplishments (McCain has a lot more), working on bipartisan bills (McCain again), ability to be Commander in Chief (She isn't in the same zip code) will not sell when looked at closely. Therefore, she shouldn't distance herself from Obama too much because she will have to use his platform of unity/change in the general election. However, by using Obama's platform, she will become another "flip-flopper" in the eyes of the public. Obama would have it easier because he will run on his current platform of unity/change. Obama will have a problem there. His record shows that he always votes with the liberal block and has a record of not supporting bipartisan bills. That makes his "unity/bipartisan" theme a tough sell to make. Additionally, he has been knocked off his pedestal (ironically by the Democrats, not the Republicans) and now appears to be a regular politician. When evaluated as a regular politician, he has almost no accomplishments and negligible experience, when examined closely.

Add to those problems a really bad case of timing. The Democrats have been trying to sing in chorus that the Republicans have a "corruption" theme. However, all the latest scandals (NY governor, Detroit mayor, etc.) have been Democrats. Additionally, their own primary system process is beginning to look corrupt. If you really look at Obama/Clinton, there is much more similarity in their positions than differences. The Democratic Party is destroying itself over little details, egos and personalities. Someone needs to do a sanity check. Howard Dean is really falling down on his job. They are at risk of giving this thing away from within.

How to Effectively Moderate a Debate

I was fantasizing about moderating a Presidential debate the other evening and thought I would reveal portions of my formula for an actually informative debate which, of course, the candidates would hate. I believe people get tired of lame generalities and talking heads waiting for the right opportunity to get in a good sound bite. Of course, that is fueled by the media only talking about the good sound bites in their post-debate analysis.

First, at the beginning of the debate, I would have the candidates stipulate that none of the others were trying to bring down the world as we know it and that the others were not inherently evil people. I would also have them stipulate that THEY, not their respective spouses, were running for office and that whoever won, the spouse would be fine as first whatever. I would have them agree that no one was supporting bad education, less health care, a weaker military, etc.

Second, I would have them agree I could cut them off when they drifted into talking points instead of answering questions. When they answer with "We need a President who can.... (list of generic issues they can spout on about)", the microphone gets turned off. Additionally, no meaningless sound bites (e.g., "We are not going to balance the Social Security system on the backs of the elderly", which sounds great but doesn't mean anything and just wastes time).

Third, I would make them answer questions specifically. When they say "We have to fix the Social Security system", I stop them and make them spell out their specific steps to do it. When they say, "I will bring our troops home", I stop them and ask specifically how and what they will do in Afghanistan and Iraq which will make that possible, or will they just leave those people in the lurch after we committed to them as a country. When they talk about "experience", experience doing what specifically? What did you accomplish or did you you just hang around a long time? "I worked to... (fill in the blank)" is a lot different than "I actually did something". The object is to point out the specific differences in what they propose to do.

Fourth, when they claim a statistic or make an accusation, I stop and ask them to provide proof of their statement. No more made up statistics or vague accusations.

Fifth, no personal stories. When the candidates get a hard question, they always respond with "I met Jane Doe in Smalltown, North Some State, and she... (heart wrenching story)". That is like the news media who, no matter how strong the economy is, can always find someone not doing well so they can criticize the administration. It contributes nothing and allows the candidate to avoid the question.

Sixth, no redirecting questions. None of the "That is a good question but what we should really be talking about is... (stump speech points)". Answer the question or quit wasting our time and shut up.

Final point (to the audience), as soon as the debate is over, turn off the television or change channels. Do not listen to the opposing spin-meisters talk about how great their candidate did. You watched the debate, you heard the candidates, you know what they said. That should be enough.

The Democratic Soap Opera♦

It is really interesting to watch the latest in the Democratic Party nomination process. Barrack Obama still leads in delegates and it is pretty far-fetched to see Hillary Clinton catch him mathematically, given the proportional distribution system the party uses in their nomination process. It is also apparent that the Clinton campaign is getting pretty desperate because they have begun to try to destroy Barrack Obama. I have always found it ironic how the Clintons have always wanted it both ways. When their actions are examined closely, it is either a "vast right wing conspiracy" or "the politics of personal destruction". But every time they find themselves behind the eight ball, their tactic is always to try to destroy anyone who gets in their way (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Ken Starr, Kathleen Willey, etc.).

Barrack Obama is facing a tough fork in the road. His campaign has been trying to remain positive and to set a new tone but if he doesn't respond to the Clinton attacks, he will appear weak. Since everyone knows that Clinton will stop at nothing to achieve her ends, making vicious attacks doesn't affect anyone's opinion of her, sadly. However, when Obama fights back, she can claim he was facetious in saying he wanted to run a positive campaign. For her, it is a no lose strategy because without it, her campaign is lost, anyway.

The interesting fact is that, on most substantive issues, there is little to no difference in their respective policies. To see so much blood-letting over no real policy differences just points out the egotism in both candidates. It certainly follows since most people who go into politics tend to be egocentric. If the race really was about issues, it would be much less rancorous.

The real shame in all this is that the Democratic Party is taking an election that should be a walk in the park and are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Self-Reliance and Accountability

The liberal philosophy forgives everything. Nothing is anyone's fault. Anything bad which happens is clearly the result of evil forces, never a bad judgment on anyone's part. I wonder if that has anything to do with the Trial Lawyers Association basically owning the Democratic Party. If everything is someone else's fault, there is always a reason for a plaintiff's attorney to file for damages. No one ever does anything wrong but instead has situations foisted upon them... unless, of course, you are a Republican. In that case, you clearly are evil and it is only through fortunate circumstance that you are exposed.

Most people find over their lifetime that other than their parents, no one is ever really looking out for your best interests. The may SAY they are, but they aren't really. If your best interests happen to coincide with theirs, then okay, but when given a choice, they will always go with their own. That is a stone cold truth. The object lesson there is that you better wake up and pay attention because if you don't look out for yourself, you are going to get hosed.

There are, of course, no people more self-serving and full to their necks with fecal matter than professional politicians. Their whole goal in life is to convince people that they are looking out for the people but sooner or later, their true colors are exposed. The House of Representatives is a group of politicians who essentially continually run for office and occasionally vote on something. The Senate is a group that does mostly lip-flapping and wallow in their self-importance.

This wasn't originally about politics. What inspired me to write this time was the current housing "crisis". Recently, I have heard Hillary Clinton propose a moratorium on foreclosures. Barrack Obama has also promised help. It is an interesting problem to deal with. There is no way to correctly separate: 1) people (novices or not really smart people) who were given loans by predatory lenders and didn't bother to figure out if they could make the payments when the interest rates went up from 2) the much larger group of real estate speculators. I known what you are thinking, "These are people in their primary residences". True, but most of the people I know who overbought in the last few years did it as an investment figuring the way housing was rising in prices, they could make money by living in the house a couple of years and unloading it and taking their profit. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt so I think the group of morons (read "victims" if you are a liberal) is a minor population compared to the investment crowd. That brings in some harsh reality. If I bought Google at $200 and the stock tanked, would I be asking the government to bail me out? Most would think I was crazy for trying. That is what investing is all about. You take a risk after looking at the cost/benefit scenario. Sometimes you make money and sometimes you lose money. These people for the most part are not the victims of lenders as much as they are victims of a mob rush to make money in real estate. They gambled and they lost. I never saw a form in Las Vegas that you fill out to allow you not to pay the casino after you lose.

Last year, I found a house that was too good to pass up and paid off my 4.375% mortgage on my first home (sadly, I miss it) and bought a new house at 6.0%. My mortgage payment doubled. Before I bought the house, I did something apparently novel... I figured out if I could afford it. I also did not get an adjustable rate mortgage and spend my evenings praying interest rates wouldn't rise. Let me summarize: I bought a house I could afford and got a mortgage I could pay. I know it sounds simple but apparently it is genius to some. Senator Dick Durbin wants to allow bankruptcy judges to be able to adjust mortgages. The reason first home mortgage rates are lower than second homes, yachts, etc. is precisely because that CANNOT happen. If he succeeds in passing the legislation, people who pay their mortgages and buy houses they can afford will have to subsidize the speculators and ignorant people who buy over their heads.

But of course, it isn't their fault. It is always someone else's fault.

The Rhetoric of Electioneering

The buzzwords currently flying around about the current election cycle are "experience" versus "change". After an eight year term by any President, the election is always about change. Eight years always tires the public of whoever the sitting administration happens to be.

It is interesting to watch the Democrats. particularly Hillary Clinton going down in flames as she argues for herself on the "experience" side. In fact, the candidates with actual experience have all failed to gain any traction. For a resume, you can't get much better than Bill Richardson (Governor, Ambassador, Cabinet-member, etc.) but he never made it out of single digit poll land. Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd were long term Senators and received little support. The fact that they sounded like raving maniacs trying to attract the attention of the media that they never received probably didn't help. The media long ago decided that the Democratic race was Clinton, Obama, and Edwards and basically didn't cover anyone else.

Clinton constantly touts her experience. What experience? She was an attorney in an apparently disreputable law firm. Then she was the wife of an elected official who managed to screw that up. Finally, she is a second term Senator in the carpetbagger tradition who has no significant legislative accomplishments. How does that translate into experience? Simply put, it is the best argument her campaign could come up with to put up against Obama. Obama shouldn't even be a Senator except that his opponent who would have beaten him dropped out of the race. He won against Alan Keyes (essentially a forfeit). He has done nothing in the Senate. Therefore, Clinton thought she could use that argument against him. Big mistake. After an eight year administration, having a nothing record is probably an advantage. Edwards is not really a factor. There is virtually no chance of him being elected. The reason he didn't run for re-election in North Carolina is that he knew there was no chance he would win.

On the Republican side, Huckabee has emerged in Iowa to the surprise of most. He will get little support in New Hampshire but may do well in South Carolina. If he does, it could represent a sea change in American politics. Mitt Romney continues to decline in popularity because he represents the status quo (big money, negative campaigning). While studies show negative campaigning works, the public dislikes it intensely. Romney is creating the impression that he is trying to buy the election, and will do anything, no matter how smarmy, to win it. It is not a way to get popular. Huckabee's strategy of not answering with attack ads may not work, but if it does, it could change future elections to the positive. McCain has taken a page from Huckabee's book and stayed a bit more positive than usual, despite the fact he is well known as (to put it mildly) an acerbic character. Basically, he is a prick. However, that could serve him well as President. Giuliani decided to tank Iowa and New Hampshire. The problem there is that if you get off the media radar, it is hard to get back on it. It will take a big showing somewhere else soon to get back in play when you have a lot of negatives. Thompson is both figuratively and literally a non-starter. You can't make an announcement on the Leno show than never show up again. Ron Paul comes off as your nutty old uncle who no one ever takes seriously. He has no shot.

New Hampshire is today. It will be interesting.