Early Warning

-------
Excerpts From a Speech to the Harvard Law School Forum, February 16, 1999:

"I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain "acceptable" thoughts and speech are mandated...

"Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes from separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong...

"Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus...

"So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and - by God's grace, built this country."

- Charlton Heston

Comments

Comments have been re-opened.

Common-sense expectations remain in effect.

Good Friday Observation

Terri Schiavo, the innocent victim of a murderous husband, an incompetent judge, and a callous judicial system, lies starving to death, her enemies having destroyed the last apparent legal recourse to save her life.

Friday signals the remembrance of Our Lord's Passion on the Cross. Also, it seems everything which can be said about the Schiavo case, save the grief, has been written. Those who want Terri to live had said their piece, and those who want her to die have said theirs.

Because of Good Friday, because I wish to keep my mind and heart free from needless argument on this day while I focus on my Lord, and because I am grieving for the needless and cruel death which approaches for Terri Schiavo, I have restricted Comments for the time being.

Presidential Tournament Round 2 Results

[][]
OK, the second round of the POTUS Tourney is done, and here are the results (recall that I hid the actual match-ups, asking for 1-10 ratings on the basis of seven key skills):

John Adams defeats Ulysses Grant, 160-148
George W. Bush defeats Franklin Pierce, 241-082
Bill Clinton defeats Warren Harding, 140-087
Dwight Eisenhower defeats Martin Van Buren, 265-133
Thomas Jefferson defeats Zachary Taylor, 208-079
John Kennedy defeats Andrew Jackson, 158-100
Abraham Lincoln defeats Calvin Coolidge, 183-072
James Monroe defeats GHW Bush, 109-093
James Polk defeats William McKinley, 134-109
Ronald Reagan defeats Herbert Hoover, 258-086
Franklin Roosevelt defeats John Quincy Adams, 220-180
Teddy Roosevelt defeats James Madison, 197-125
William Taft defeats Grover Cleveland, 155-138
Harry Truman defeats Richard Nixon, 241-201
George Washington defeats Benjamin Harrison, 217-155
Woodrow Wilson defeats Lyndon Johnson, 101-079

The scores were the results of multiplying the average rating for each skill, by the historical factor for that skill (using the 1-10 ratings for each skill in the six historical areas), then adding the resulting sub-totals for the final score).

The second round is now ready to begin, with 32 Presidents competing head-to-head. To avoid subjective influences, I am again asking the readers to submit 1-10 ratings (1 = lowest, 10 = top) for the Presidents in each of the following skill sets:

Diplomacy
Economic Policies
Judicial Doctrine
Military Command
Social Policies
Tax and Tariff Policies
Treaties

Here are the 16 Presidents still in the hunt:

John Adams
George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Dwight Eisenhower
Thomas Jefferson
John Kennedy
Abraham Lincoln
James Monroe
James Polk
Ronald Reagan
Franklin Roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt
William Taft
Harry Truman
George Washington
Woodrow Wilson

And remember, if you don’t enter your ratings, that means the decision will go to those who do enter their choices.

Congressional Tournament Round 2 Results

O

"Chicago" Regional Second Round Results

8. Harris beats 1. Byrd
10. Barrett beats 15. Feinstein
3. Cornyn beats 11. Warner
5. Sessions beats 4. Pryce


"Syracuse" Regional Second Round Results

1. Hastert beats 9. Ryun
2. Schumer beats 10. Leahy
3. Blunt beats 11. Davis
12. Kyl beats Voinovich


"Austin" Regional Second Round Results

9. Domenici beats 1. Bennett
2. DeLay beats 10. King
6. Brady beats 3. Johnson
12. Thomas beats 13. Bunning


"Alburquerque" Regional Second Round Results

16. Frist beats 9. McCotter
10. Hatch beats 2. Kennedy
11. Ryan beats 14. Nelson
5. Hyde beats 4. Hagel



Here are your Regional Semi-Final Matches:


"Chicago" Regional Round Three

8. Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) vs. 10. Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)
3. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) vs. 5. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)


"Syracuse" Regional Round Three

1. House Spkr Dennis Hastert (R-IL) vs. 2. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
3. House Maj. Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) vs. 12. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 06


"Austin" Regional Round Three

9. Pete Domenici (R-NM) vs. 2. H Maj Ldr Tom DeLay (R-TX)
6. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) vs. 12. Rep. William Thomas (R-CA)


"Alburquerque" Regional Round Three

16.Sen Maj Ldr William Frist (R-TN) vs. 10. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
11. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) vs. 5. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL)


Sweet Sixteen pushing to make the Elite Eight.

The Fight For Life

...
Sir George at "The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler" has a cogent observation on Terri Schiavo. His conclusion is especially apt:

"If our facts are in error our heart is not, and it is the heart of a man that is judged, not his depth of accumulation of trivia and legalisms. Terri may live but will certainly die, now or later as will we all, but when we follow her we would like to say to St. Peter, "I was a friend of Terri Shiavo's, and I am standing to face G-d's judgment. We may have delayed her arrival, but with you as my witness I confess that we would not act to hasten it."

Read the whole thing. It's more than just words.

Power

. . .

"All that is required for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing a judge to be in charge of the decision"
. . .

Terri Schiavo's husband wants to murder her, and the courts say that since he's her husband, he can.

The Florida State Legislature passed a law last year and governor Jeb Bush signed it, trying to save Terri. But a judge killed the bill all on his own.

The United States Congress issued subpeonae for the persons involved, but the judge presiding over the "wanna murder" ignored it.

Then the Congress of the United States passed a law requiring "De Novo" examination of the case, and President Bush signed it into law, but the judge in Florida refused to comply with reinserting the food tube during the review, and now three out of the last four judges to consider the appeal have sided against the victim, against the clear intent of the United States Congress, and against the President of the United States.

In the past month, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that laws passed by a majority of the states may be overturned by the preferences of a minority of the states, when the justices can revise the definitions of majority and precedent. This same court determined that the United States Constitution itself may be compelled to comply with the prevailing opinion of foreign bodies.

Our courts are drunk with power, and have now declared (by their actions) war on the Legislative and Executive Branches of American Government.

Send in the Marines!

When Evil Is Chosen

.
“Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.”

Exodus 23:7


“How much more-when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his own house and on his own bed-should I not now demand his blood from your hand and rid the earth of you!"

2 Samuel 4:11


“When a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks the despair of the innocent.”

Job 9:23


“It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the innocent of justice.”
Proverbs 18:5


“they are swift to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and destruction mark their ways.”

Isaiah 59:7



Mark the day. A terrible sentence of lingering death, considered too cruel for any animal or even convicted murderers, has been established and held firm against Terri Schiavo, simply because her husband wishes it so.

A pace has now been set, and a trail blazed. An inconvenient wife may be destroyed for nothing more than not setting out a desire to live, a thing considered common sense not so very long ago, but which now must be documented at the peril of a person’s very existence.

What next? If a feeding tube is considered life support, if water itself is now to be designated “extraordinary measures”, what can we say to the mother who chooses to deny food and water to her children? What shall we say to someone who no longer wishes to care for his parents, since they cannot feed themselves, but need constant care. There are millions in this nation alone, from infants to the elderly to the mentally impaired, who are unquestionably innocent of any offense, but by this precedent are not subject to whatever cruelties their “guardians” may desire.
The Constitution is now construed to protect villains and causes, but not those people who have done no wrong, and is made available only to those who can pay and stand on other strength; the weak and helpless are denied even the most basic presumptions.

Good is mocked, and Evil chosen in its place. There will be a price, a terrible one, for this wickedness.

Mark the day. This nation shall surely rue it.

George Will: Part of the Problem

<..>
Sunday morning, I turned on the television for my regular installment of “Insulting Your Intelligence”, otherwise known as “ABC This Week With George Stephanopolous”.

The beginning topic, not surprisingly, was the Terri Schiavo case. What was disappointing to me, was the jelly-spined acquiescence of George Will to the argument that Terri’s murder was a good and proper thing. Will began his sermon with the notion that “all steps of due process have been followed”, and followed with the arrogant notion that because Terri married Michael, this gives Michael the only say in the life-and-death decision. Will went so far as to claim that a decision to review the case in a Federal Court “would overturn the culture and standards of hundreds of years”, simply because it considered more than the will of a spouse. This attitude was, at best, naïve, and suggested to me a mind concerned with expedience rather than even the most fundamental purpose of law.

Let’s step back for a moment, to Will’s statements. Will appeared to be very uncomfortable even discussing the case. Not surprising, since the deliberate death by starvation, even denying water, to an innocent woman, amounts to the worst sort of torture, the kind of treatment we would not allow a person or group to mete out even to a murderer, even to Osama bin Laden. The very notion that it would be sanctioned for an American citizen innocent of any offense is obscene on its face, the more so when there is no clear evidence that Terri wants anything of the sort, and doubt even remains about the specific nature and degree of her condition. Also, George Will is certainly intelligent enough, to recognize that he was clearly casting his lot among the “Kill The Inconvenient” crowd. His statements, however he considered them, were not sympathetic to either the innocent or the moral elements of the matter.

Considering the matter of Due Process, then, we can break the case down to the essential players and events (a good review of additional relevant details can be found here):

· Terri Schiavo was reported to have had a heart attack in 1991 by her husband Michael, who reported finding her at home. It’s worth noting that the 1992 Malpractice suit Michael won, was based on a mis-diagnosis by the doctors and hospital treating Terri. If it happens that Michael did not correctly relate the events which led to Terri’s condition (see the reference to the 2002 bone scan which indicates unreported injuries to Terri at the same time as the “heart attack” Michael claimed, which are not consistent with a heart attack and fall, but instead indicate a physical attack on her person), this becomes germane not only to a proper diagnosis, but establishes a criminal motive for Michael’s desire to see her die.

· At the time of the Malpractice trial, Michael made statements about wanting to care for his wife until his death. It was not until after the malpractice award, that Michael “remembered” Terri wanted to die, a statement not supported by any other relative, or by any sort of documentation, such as a DNR order.

· Michael denied Terri any substantive therapy, even refusing to allow for a urinary tract infection to be treated, or for Terri to receive a P.E.T. or MRI. This conduct is not only malicious on its face, but violates specific conditions of the malpractice award.

· The only judge to consider the evidence in the case, is Judge Greer. All appeals courts reviews have dealt solely with procedural issues. Judge Greer has over-ruled a Superior State Judge, and now defied a Congressional Subpeona, in what can only be deemed egotism and spite.

· The medical diagnosis of Terri’s condition is in serious dispute, even by board-certified Neurologists. This point is largely due to the lack of relevant tests, so that any decision to end her life is premature, by definition.

Taken at the essential level, what we have here is one man who wants Terri dead, for reasons which cannot be confirmed to be sympathetic to Terri by any reasonable standard. The sole authority pushing for Terri’s death is one State Judge, who has admitted he refused to consider sworn testimony from acknowledged medical experts in the condition assigned to Terri. The husband and judge have refused to allow any sort of review of the statements and facts, laboratory test of the physical evidence, or procedural oversight to the matter. And George Will is cool with that. We must have multi-level review and oversight before sending a terrorist to Guantanamo, yet we cannot take a closer look before torturing a disabled woman to death. No person with a conscience could reasonably make such a balance, yet there they are.


As to the matter of Michael’s rights as a husband, here are the essentials:

· As I noted above, there is reason to doubt Michael’s explanation of how Terri became injured. There is forensic evidence of unreported injury, consistent with abuse.

· Michael did not produce any claim that Terri wished to deny treatment, or to die, until after he had money in the bank from a malpractice settlement, money which would be depleted by letting Terri live, and at the point where it became obvious that Terri would continue to live unless murdered, Michael suddenly “remembered” a death wish.

· Michael has effectively remarried another woman, to the point of living with her for years and having children with her, even while he remains married to Terri. That’s either Bigamy or Adultery (or both), but in any case is serious grounds for removing his standing as guardian. By no rational standard could Michael’s conduct be called consistent with the actions of a loving spouse.


So, once we consider the facts, George’s claims fall of their own weight. It’s not strange that people would make them; there are any number of self-serving hypocrites, willing to allow any sort of crime against someone else, so long as they get what they want. It is rather sad to see such conduct by a man considered to be Conservative, however, though it is illustrative.

One of the strange qualities of majority, is that the majority is often unable to exercise its strength. This comes from the fact that many people in the majority are separated from each other in one detail or more, and this shows up in disagreements, sometimes minor, but also sometimes major. George Will, articulate though he is, intelligent though he is, simply has forgotten to consider the essentials of what makes a Conservative.

There are any number of labels which are plastered on Liberals and Conservatives, and to the degree that we are all of us individuals, these labels are false. However, for all of that there are also basic truths which establish identities, even for groups, even as large as nations. I will leave Liberals to define their own purposes, though I have my ideas about them, some good, some bad. For Conserrvatives, however, in the matter of Law the essential is very like the Oath of Hippocrates: “First, Do No Harm…”. The basics of American Law come from our own Declaration of Independence, which includes the phrase “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. It is a common interpretation in American Law, that the Constitution which sets out the limits and roles of Government follows that template, and especially in the order set out so plainly:

1. Life
2. Liberty
3. Pursuit of Happiness

It means that killing someone should only be done when absolutely necessary, not simply because it can be done, or when someone finds it expedient. The whole Bill of Rights is premised on the notion of assumed innocence, and restricts action by any authority which would confine the innocent, to say nothing of taking life of an innocent person against their will. If Will thinks Due Process is sufficient, then he has forgotten the lessons of Dred Scott, or Jim Crow, and many other laws which were legal in their time, but rejected when they were finally considered against the Constitution.

When the motions are considered so closely that the moral and essence are ignored, then the people in power become not the engines of solution and progress, but the moral enemies of Justice.

In this matter, George Will has chosen to be part of the problem.

Presidential Tourney First Round Results

[][]
OK, the first round of the POTUS Tourney is done, and here are the results (recall that I hid the actual match-ups, asking for 1-10 ratings on the basis of seven key skills):

John Adams defeats Chester Arthur, 160-120
John Quincy Adams defeats James Garfield, 135-104
George H.W. Bush defeats James Buchanan, 139-076
Benjamin Harrison defeats Jimmy Carter, 186-060
Herbert Hoover defeats John Tyler, 078-075
James Polk defeats Gerald Ford, 097-043
Teddy Roosevelt defeats Rutherford Hayes, 180-145
Zachary Taylor defeats William Harrison, 045-043
Harry Truman defeats Millard Fillmore, 228-075
Martin Van Buren defeats Andrew Johnson, 092-034

The scores were the results of multiplying the average rating for each skill, by the historical factor for that skill (using the 1-10 ratings for each skill in the six historical areas), then adding the resulting sub-totals for the final score).

The second round is now ready to begin, with 32 Presidents competing head-to-head. To avoid subjective influences, I am again asking the readers to submit 1-10 ratings (1 = lowest, 10 = top) for the Presidents in each of the following skill sets:

Diplomacy
Economic Policies
Judicial Doctrine
Military Command
Social Policies
Tax and Tariff Policies
Treaties


Here are the 32 Presidents still in the hunt:

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
George H.W. Bush
George W. Bush
Grover Cleveland
Calvin Coolidge
Bill Clinton
Dwight Eisenhower
Ulysses Grant
Warren Harding
Benjamin Harrison
Herbert Hoover
Andrew Jackson
Thomas Jefferson
Lyndon Johnson
John Kennedy
Abraham Lincoln
William McKinley
James Madison
James Monroe
Richard Nixon
Franklin Pierce
James Polk
Ronald Reagan
Franklin Roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt
William Taft
Zachary Taylor
Harry Truman
Martin Van Buren
George Washington
Woodrow Wilson


And remember, if you don’t enter your ratings, that means the decision will go to those who do enter their choices.

Road To The Sweet Sixteen - Congressional Version

"Chicago" Regional First Round Results

1. Byrd beats 16. Bachus
15. Feinstein beats 2. Pelosi
3. Cornyn beats 14. Spratt
4. Pryce beats 13. Nelson
5. Sessions beats 12. Nussle
11. Warner beats 6. Doggett
10. Barret beats 7. Akaka
8. Harris beats 9. Kerry


"Syracuse" Regional First Round Results

1. Hastert beats 16. Reid
2. Schumer beats 15. Davis
3. Blunt beats 14. Grassley
4. Voinovich beats 13. Harman
12. Kyl beats 5. Menendez
11. Davis beats 6. Stevens
10. Leahy beats 7. Lungren
9. Ryun beats 8. Bayh


"Austin" Regional First Round Results

1.Bennett beats 16. Cramer
2. DeLay beats 15. McConnell
3. Johnson beats 14. Ney
13. Bunning beats 4. Shadegg
12. Thomas beats 5. Levin
6. Brady beats 11. Feingold
10. King beats 7. Dodd
9. Domenici beats 8. Sanchez


"Alburquerque" Regional First Round Results

16. Frist beats 1. Paul
2. Kennedy beats 15. Rogers
14. Nelson beats 3. Hoyer
4. Hagel beats 13. Shays
5. Hyde beats 12. Durbin
11. Ryan beats 6. Roberts
10. Hatch beats 7. Gallegly
9. McCotter beats 8. Biden


Here are your Second Round Matches:


"Chicago" Regional Round Two

1. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) vs. 8. Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL)
10. Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC) vs. 15. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
3. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) vs. 11. Sen. John Warner (R-VA)
4. Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) vs. 5. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)


"Syracuse" Regional Round Two

1. House Spkr Dennis Hastert (R-IL) vs. 9. Rep. Jim Ryun (R-KS)
2. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) vs. 10. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
3. House Maj. Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) vs. 11. Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA)
4. Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) vs. 12. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 06


"Austin" Regional Round Two

1. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) vs. 9. Pete Domenici (R-NM)
2. H Maj Ldr Tom DeLay (R-TX) vs. 10. Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
3. Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) vs. 6. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)
12. Rep. William Thomas (R-CA) vs. 13. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)


"Alburquerque" Regional Round Two

9. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) vs. 16.Sen Maj Ldr William Frist (R-TN)
2. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) vs. 10. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
11. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) vs. 14. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
4. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) vs. 5. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL)


Off and running!

Murder, Cowardice Hiding in a Black Sheet

.
.
Decorum be hanged - Judge Greer is abetting a murder, and is a traitor to the United States.

How can I say this? Essentially, every decision in the Terri Schiavo case (or “Disposing of the Inconvenient”, in Florida) has spewed forth from this guy, who has also rejected literally dozens of sworn affadavits from board-certified neurologists challenging the judge’s finding as “fact”, the spurious ‘PVS’ decision. This guy, hiding behind his dirty sheet, has decided that a woman should be killed, who never expressed a desire for suicide or to be killed by another person, and has decided further that he and the husband alone should have a say in the life of an innocent and helpless woman. Judge Greer has even decided to defy a Congressional Subpeona.

There’s lots of opinions on this issue, so why should anyone believe that Judge Greer has usurped Terri’s rights? Well, let’s see.

< ahem >

From the U.S. Constitution:

5th Amendment: “No person shall be ...deprived of life ... without due process of law”

We’ve heard what Michael wanted. Who stood up for Terri?


6th Amendment: “the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

If accused criminals have these rights, who would deny them to someone unanimously acknoweldged to be innocent?


8th Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Murderers convicted of a capital crime are protected from a painful or long death. Terri’s startvation is expected to take ten to fourteen days, increasing in intensity as she dies. What sort of monster imposes a sentence on an innocent woman, that no court would condone for even a murderer?


14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States ...are citizens of the United States ... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Terri has been allowed no advocate, even for her life.



Evil men are committing murder right now, and calling it good. What is to be done? At the least, I shall not shrink from condemning murder, and a callous cowardice and shameful abrogation of duty.

In The Hands of the Unaccountable

...
A single California State Judge chose to strike down a statute prohibiting Homosexual marriage, on no more basis than his assumption that homosexual behavior is legally the same as race;

Texas Children Hospital sued to have life support for a six-month infant ceased and prevailed, marking the first time that a hospital has ceased life support on an infant against the parents’ wishes (the child died 20 minutes after the respirator was turned off);

The United States Supreme Court has ruled (Roper v Simmons) that US Sovereignty may be trumped by foreign opinion, and that a minority of states can overrule a majority of the states if judges happen to prefer the minority;

Florida courts have ruled that a woman (Terri Schiavo) may be killed by starvation, in the total absence of any indication that she has ever expressed a desire to die, or opposition to receiving medical assistance, amidst serious controversy over the nature and severity of her condition among qualified medical experts;

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution’s protection for Free Speech does not apply to political speech beyond limits defined by politicians already in office (McCain-Feingold).

Apply those thoughts to the appointment and confirmation of Federal Judges.

Let Congress and the President know.

Social Security Basics

.
.
Cutting through all the noise and posturing, there are two essential reasons why Social Security has to be reformed to something better. Those reasons are, the present plan is both unethical and non-functional.

The present Social Security plan is unethical on two facts; people pay in different amounts to the proportion they receive, and the present plan requires people to pay for other people’s benefits.

The analogy is often made, that people now are paying for their parents’ receipts, but that is not true. First, the amounts coming from people whose parents are receiving benefits do not match the benefits being paid, but also there is no earmarking of funds; statistically, money paid into a fund goes to people you are almost certain to have no connection with, whatsoever.

Second, Social Security cannot operate as it is presently designed and legislated. For any career-length period of time since the beginning of Social Security, Social Security benefits growth has always been significantly slower and smaller than the Dow Jones average growth for the same period, meaning that a simple Index Fund account beats Social Security in every historical example. Conversely, that also means that for any known career-length historical period since the creation of Social Security, payments from Social Security have not been able to match the growth of American business, as represented by the Dow Jones Average.

Further, it is mathematically impossible for any fund to function in an environment where the contributing population is steadily declining, the beneficiary population is steadily increasing, or both factors exist, as is the case now.

Republicans have had trouble selling the need for Social Security reform, because of serious questions about the transition and the nature of the reformed program. Democrats, however, have gained no traction, because they refuse to admit or address the critical (and now obvious) flaws in the current Social Security program.

There are, basically, five options available to the U.S. Government:

1 - Ignore the problem - Insane as it sounds, this is the Democrats’ position. This course can lead only to an eventual crisis, or the outright collapse of the Social Security program.

2 - “Fix” Social Security, but leave it basically as it is - such tricks as rasing the age for benefits and restrciting conditions, increasing the payroll cap for Social Security taxes, and so on, can keep the program alive a while longer, but cannot correct the fundamental flaws in the existing program. It will also anger the voters when it becomes obvious the problem only becomes worse through delays.

3 - Abandon SSA for PSA’s - This is a non-starter, for the obvious reason that it would hit upcoming retirees hard, denying them the chance to build up investments, but also denying them any financial consideration for the taxes they have paid up to this point, on the promise that they would be receiving a stipend. Abandoning SSA completely at this time would be political suicide for anyone.

4 - Phase an all-SSA program to an all-PSA program - While this would avoid the pitfalls of option 3, it would essentially disallow any real choice, which would have serious political fallout.

5 - Phase from all-SSA to a program offering at least 3 choices, with a transition treating the options equally - This is basically the option proposed by President Bush, which is not only the option offering the most choice, but also the most overall stability and responsiveness to the taxpayers.

The details are going to take shape over the year, but the plan must not be allowed to be ignored, or be overcome by the desire politicians have to make a boondoggle wherever money is involved. The three salient points to keep in mind are these:

1. The money you are paying into Social Security right now, you will never see again. It is being spent in the same way, that tax money is always spent.

2. Anything you receive from the government, was paid for by someone else. Equity does not exist in any present government economic plan.

3. Change is the historical norm. People forget too often, that Government programs are meant to solve only limited problems, and no project was meant to be permanent. Interstate tariffs and poll taxes don’t exist anymore, and there was a time when there was no FDIC, no SEC, no Income Tax, and of course there was a time when there was no Social Security. The time to change how tax money is spent is long overdue, especially in the face of the facts.

Presidential Tournament

[][]

The Congressional Tournament has begun to collect votes, so now its time to roll out the Presidential Tournament.

Since people already made their choices pretty clear based on personal preferences back in January, I’m running the Presidential Tournament a little differently.

Alphabetically, here are the twenty-two Presidents who have a first-round bye:

George W. Bush
Grover Cleveland
Calvin Coolidge
Bill Clinton
Dwight Eisenhower
Ulysses Grant
Warren Harding
Andrew Jackson
Thomas Jefferson
Lyndon Johnson
John Kennedy
Abraham Lincoln
William McKinley
James Madison
James Monroe
Richard Nixon
Franklin Pierce
Ronald Reagan
Franklin Roosevelt
William Taft
George Washington
Woodrow Wilson

These are the sixteen Presidents elected more than once, plus the six Presidents whose average Popular Vote percentage was the highest.

Here are the twenty Presidents who are competing the First Round:

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Chester Arthur
James Buchanan
George H.W. Bush
Jimmy Carter
Millard Fillmore
Gerald Ford
James Garfield
Benjamin Harrison
William Harrison
Rutherford Hayes
Herbert Hoover
Andrew Johnson
James Polk
Teddy Roosevelt
Zachary Taylor
John Tyler
Harry Truman
Martin Van Buren

For these twenty Presidents, please give a 1 to 10 grade (10 is best) on the following areas of expertise:

Diplomacy
Economic Policies
Judicial Doctrine
Military Command
Social Policies
Tax and Tariff Policies
Treaties

Also, please give a 1-10 grade (10 is highest) on the importance of each of those same areas for the following historical periods:

1789-1813
1814-1860
1861-1895
1896-1932
1933-1972
1973-2005

Thanks. This should be fun.

Congressional Tournament

...
O
..

As promised, here are the lineups for the 2005 U.S. Congressional Tournament.

The rules for this tourney are simple. Vote for the Representative or Senator you think is the better Congressman in each matchup. The winners will advance in this 64-member tourney, just as they do in the NCAA Tournament.

(For those interested in the Presidential Matchup, the matchups will be posted later this week, in an NIT-style matchup of the 42 men who have served as President. 22 will get 1st-round byes, while the other 20 will play head-to-head).



"Chicago" Regional

1. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) vs. 16. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
2. House Min. Ldr Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) vs. 15. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
3. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) vs. 14. Rep. John Spratt (D-SC)
4. Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) vs. 13. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
5. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) vs. 12. Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA)
6. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) vs. 11. Sen. John Warner (R-VA)
7. Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) vs. 10. Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)
8. Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) vs. 9. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)


"Syracuse" Regional

1. House Spkr Dennis Hastert (R-IL) vs. 16. Sen. Min Ldr Harry Reid (D-NV)
2. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) vs. 15. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL)
3. House Maj. Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) vs. 14. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA)
4. Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) vs. 13. Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)
5. House Dem. Cauc Chair Robert Menendez (D-NJ) vs. 12. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
6. Sen. Pres Pro Tem Ted Stevens (R-AK) vs. 11. Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA)
7. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) vs. 10. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
8. Sen. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) vs. Rep. Jim Ryun (R-KS)


"Austin" Regional

1. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) vs. 16. Rep. Robert Cramer (D-AL)
2. H Maj Ldr Tom DeLay (R-TX) vs. 15. S Maj Wh Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
3. Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) vs. 14. Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH)
4. House Pol Com Chair John Shadegg (R-AZ) vs. 13. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)
5. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) vs. 12. Rep. William Thomas (R-CA)
6. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) vs. 11. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)
7. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) vs. 10. Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
8. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) vs. 9. Pete Domenici (R-NM)


"Alburquerque" Regional

1. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) vs. 16. Senate Maj Leader William Frist (R-TN)
2. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) vs. 15. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL)
3. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) vs. 14. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
4. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) vs. 13. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT)
5. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) vs. 12. Sen. Dem. Whip Richard Durbin (D- IL)
6. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) vs. 11. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
7. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) vs. 10. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
8. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) vs. 9. Rep. Thaddeus MCotter (R-MI)



You may begin your votes at any time.

UPDATE: Mr. Right reminded me of some state corrections.

Quarrels Among Knaves

.
$
.
I just finished watching ‘60 Minutes’ interview Ken Lay, and I found myself with mixed feelings about the matter. It was like one of those movies which has no hero, no one to admire. I was presented with the unethical behavior of Enron executives, and the sometimes hypocritical positions of the U.S. Government, through the production of a news group not only proven a liar many times over, and also known to pursue stories purely out of spite, but also still in denial of its guilt and overdue reform. Kind of like hearing the Crips talk about reforming our school districts.

Start with the easy target. ‘60 Minutes’ can’t help but project an attitude of condescension for anyone outside the East Coast Liberal cocoon. It doesn’t seem to have dawned on the fellows in the ‘Tiffany Network’s Ivory Tower #2, that their list of unacceptables is now defined by more than three-quarters of the electorate. Mike Wallace has made a pact - one of cluelessness, and less with the Devil, than with Elmer Fudd. They simply do not carry the credibility they think they have.

Along the way, I caught the futile yet predictable attempts to imply a link between Enron and George W. Bush, but I also noticed that ‘60 Minutes’ completely failed to understand the true nature of the Enron scandal - yes, Enron had its crooks, but the real stink came from the fact that Fastow made a deal with the Andersen auditors to cover up Fraud. That was different, enough to be part of the push for what became the 2002 Sarbannes-Oxley Act. I noticed ‘60 Minutes’ hasn’t said much about SOX, probably because it involves accountability and checking facts, things rather foreign to the CBS network.

Things brings me to the focus of the story, and this article - Ken Lay. I have a sneaking suspicion that Ken Lay wasn’t especially dishonest, certainly he wasn’t aware of the goings on by his CFO. But Lay was not, at all, what a Chief Executive Officer should be. Of course, it never struck me, that CBS understood the role and duties of a proper CEO.

In most companies, ‘CEO’ is a glorified title for the guy who actually makes the company happen, who busts his butt and takes more risk than anyone else in the firm. Unfortunately, when you get to a certain corporate level, that all changes. Basically, the major corporation is run by a Board of Directors, which is a committee which usually takes its cues from the Stockholders. And it’s not surprising for a Board to make the stock price and dividends the top priority. With that in mind, how many CEOs do you know enough about, to be sure they’re beng honest?

Fortunately, the tide is turning a bit. I mentioned SOX, which is Government’s somewhat clumsy attempt to set things right. It also happens that Lay is an object lesson; get a CEO who doesn’t look too closely, or worse, gets the idea that a few tricks by the traders is actually good for business, can drive the whole shebang into the ground. Worthless stock gets the attention of shareholders, too. Ken Lay was hired to manage executive operations. Schools give out degrees for economic and business theory, but they don’t hand out guarantees of success. Resumes are nothing but the past, and too many of them brag to excess, also hiding blunders and limitations. Ken Lay accepted the dollars, but not the full responsibility for directing Enron. That, in essence, was tonight’s story.

I have another thought about tonight’s ‘60 Minutes’ show. They also interviewed George Lucas about the next ‘Star Wars’ movie. The interview was a real puff piece, and it occurs to me, it would be just about in character for CBS to have given Jar Jar Binks the fact-checking job for the Ken Lay story.

The Rice Advantage

.
.
.
In an earlier post, I suggested that Republicans should get behind Condi Rice for 2008 (yes, it’s very early, but then there’s hardly any question that certain Democrats have already decided to run in 2008, so it only makes sense to prepare our best candidates). One of my readers, Pawnking, asked the following questions in return, which I feel would be good to answer here:


1) Will she run?

That’s really the big question. The answer, I think, lies in the fact that Rice originally planned to only serve the first term as NSA (it is rumored, that Rice was offered the post of President of Harvard). Secretary of State was never in the picture when Rice joined Team W. Rice, by a number of accounts, is not overly ambitious, but she is so competent, that she becomes the obvious choice once she is considered. It happened at Stanford, at the NSC under Bush I, now in her selection as SecState. Dr. Rice understands her competency, so if she can be shown that she represents the best hope to continue the essential elements of Bush’s doctrine, I believe Dr. Rice will agree to run.


2) What red states will she risk losing?
3) What blue states will she have a good chance at stealing?

Condi Rice enjoys a unique position. For those who demand experience, she can point to six years plus under Presidents George .H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. But because she has not run before, Rice can also qualify as an outsider, untainted by the sort of scheming we have seen from McCain, Clinton, Frist, or Kerry. Rice also can begin without any apparent liabilities, so that whatever is drawn against her will have start, essentially, from scratch.

Condi’s campaign would, if successful, have three basic stages. The first stage is educating the nation at large about her qualifications. The existing grass-roots organizations (I belong to one, as an example) are already working to that end. The seond stage is the GOP race, where Condi would be at a slight disadvantage in states which have a guy they already like from previous elections (Jeb in Florida, Frist in Tennessee, etc.), but would do well in the Blue states, where she provides a welcome alternative to previous choices.

Assuming Condi could take the nomination, things would turn around. The Red states would not be likely at all to go for whatever the Democrats put out, so Condi would naturally enjoy their support, though like any party nominee, Rice would need to build support up in certain states, like Iowa and Missouri and Florida, which have traditionally been more Purple of late than Red or Blue. The Democrats would still own most of the Northeast, where Common Sense appears to have been banned, but a Rice ticket would be very attractive in California, creating a truly nightmarish scenario for the Left.


4) Will she be able to campaign effectivly with no experience?

The answer to that lies in Dr. Rice’s performance at the public 9/11 Committee character assassination hearings. Ben Veniste and his cohorts launched an all-out attack on Rice and Bush, and tried every manner of insinuation against her. Rice was polite and eloquent, never giving an inch yet never lowering herself to the level of her attckers. Rice can handle the Democrats, as she’s already shown, and that means she can handle her GOP rivals, as well. Think about it. Race and gender used to be considered liabilities, but does anybody doubt that Dr. Rice nullifies that possibility. Only Democrats would be dumb enough to believe that the average Republican is racist or sexist, and if Rice wins the GOP nomination, just imagine the match-up with any potential Democrat nominee. The Dems seem willing to choose between a poseur (Hillary pretending to be a Centrist), or a radical Leftist (Kerry says he’ll run again, Dean says he might). Rice may well not take the majority of the black vote, but would doubtless take a greater share than any Republican in our time. Rice is well-established as intelligent and competent, so the old stereotype of the ‘weak’ or overly sensitive female is also not an issue. Speaking of issues, there is not one significant issue where the Democrats would enjoy an advantage over Rice. National Security, in all likelihood the biggest issue in the 2008 Election, will remain firmly GOP territory if Rice is the nominee. Social Security reform will either be a hot issue to take up again, or a Bush win which needs to be continued to take best effect. In either case, Rice is not going to let the Left demagogue the issue the way they’re playing it now. As for Abortion or Affirmative Action, Rice has kept her positions largely private, not because they may be liabilities, but because she is focused on the major issues for here and now. That makes it unlikely that Democrats would be able to distract her in an election condition.

It is Conventional Wisdom that only an elected official does well in campaigning, but we can see from recent history, that this is a fallacy. Ross Perot was a strange sort of mind, but it should be remembered that he led the 1992 Presidential Race for the early part of the year. Arnold Schwarzenegger had no political experience of any kind before his victory as Governor of California. A candidate needs to show they are qualified for the job, and competent in the race. Dr. Rice meets those standards, in fact her resume is better-suited for the job than anyone else out there. Yes, from her experience and past public appearances, tere is no real doubt that Dr. Rice can campaign very well. She did a great job making Bush look good, so it makes sense she will be adept in her own advocacy.

Thanks Pawnking, for the great questions.

A Quick Thought

For those who are undecided about who to back for President in 2008, ask yourself these questions:

1. What is the most important issue we face in the forseeable future?

2. Since W can't run in 2008, what is the best way to ensure his policies are continued?

3. Who is most competent to handle the War on Terrorism from the Oval Office, who also understands and supports President Bush on every critical issue?

4. Who scares Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Howard Dean the most?



Please vote for President Rice in 2008. Thank you.

Murder by Indolence

..
..
Against all odds, Terry Schiavo is still alive. That could be the starting sentence to a piece about the miracles of modern medicine, or the will to live, or the strength of family, but it is not. It is an examination into deliberate cruelty, the continuing attempt by many to pronounce a social blessing on an expedient murder. Yet by the grace of God, Terry Schiavo remains alive.

Some pretend that this case is complex. In truth, that’s not really so, but some of the parties involved have done their worst to blur the facts and suggest a moral equivalency between their position and the truth, with just a nudge more to their own side, so they can get their way without having to consider the evil their choice represents.

In 1990, Terry Schiavo suffered a heart attack, and because of complications (which resulted in a successful malpractice claim) became unable to care for herself, specifically to eat and drink on her own due to brain damage. From this point, two opinions have been set out – one contends that Terry Schiavo is in a “persistent vegetative state” and should be allowed to die, while the other contends that Terry is not only alive but conscious. Unfortunately, the question cannot be scientifically confirmed one way or the other. There is clear brainwave activity and motor activity in muscles, denying the traditional notion of a person being kept alive by a machine. In fact, Terry does not need artificial breathing or cardiac assistance, so except for the feeding tube, she is as alive as many senior citizens or mentally disabled children. On the other hand, Terry is unable to speak or write to express herself in a manner confirming she is aware of the world.

The matter is distilled, in most minds, to four pieces of evidence. First, is a video made by Terry’s parents, which appears to show the woman making eye contact, and responding to people around her. That is compelling on a subjective level, but since it cannot be repeated under laboratory controls, it does not sway scientists and doctors, even as it hardens the conviction of the 'Let Terry Live’ faction that to remove her feeding tube is murder.

Next, is the legal definition of Michael Schiavo as Terry’s legal guardian. Like it or not, as Terry’s husband, Michael has the legal authority to speak for Terry.

Third, is the matter of the ‘PVS’ condition. There is no clinical definition, especially as there have been cases where patients regained consciousness from similar conditions to Terry Schiavo’s, most famously Sarah Scantlin (hat tip: Jollyblogger), and Terry’s parents have produced doctors who testified that Terry’s condition does not meet the definition of PVS. We must therefore, bear in mind that the decision to kill Terry depends on an unproven claim, even among the medical witnesses.

The fourth condition is the most critical: Terry had no ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ order or any sort of ‘Right to Die’ document drawn up. Also, Michael Schiavo has not been able to support his contention that Terry would want to die in these circumstances. As a result, any decision to remove the feeding tube must be made in the knowledge that the patient did not consent to the action. To kill someone against their consent, who has not been convicted of a capital crime, is murder by any reasonable measure.

Why does Michael want Terry dead? Is he greedy, looking for money, or is he trying to cover up a past history of abuse, as some have claimed? Is he just tired after more than a decade with Terry in this condition, or is the fact that he has a girlfriend who lives with him in the house an indicator of his rejection of his wife? Why doesn’t he just let Terry’s parents take over as her guardians, divorce her and move on? I don’t know and I don’t care, really. Michael has done nothing to convince me he is thinking about Terry’s welfare, and that’s all there is to that. As to the courts, I find it laughable, that the last verdict claimed that the court could not step in. The courts have seen fit to redefine what a marriage is, what racism is, what religion is, what the rights of a legislature is, even what the Constitution means, yet they don’t feel they can step in to protect a woman from being murdered, simply because a couple people find her condition inconvenient to her lifestyles. Consider the hypocrisy here; less than a month ago, the US Supreme Court said that convicted murderers could not be put to death if they were teens at the time they murdered people, but an Appeals Court has ruled that an innocent woman may be murdered in her bed because her husband is tired of her. Imagine that system deciding your fate, because sooner or later it very well might.

May God save Terry Schiavo from her husband, and our nation from our judges.