Ranting – Page 21 – Rolling Doughnut

When Constitutional Rights Become Whimsical Privileges

There is a time for law-and-order government, but it should be within the law. It’s shameful that the case of Jose Padilla has gotten this far:

“Dirty bomb” suspect Jose Padilla has asked the Supreme Court to limit the government’s power to hold him and other U.S. terror suspects indefinitely and without charges.

The case of Padilla, who has been in custody more than three years, presents a major test of the Bush administration’s wartime authority. The former gang member is accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive device.

Justices refused on a 5-4 vote last year to resolve Padilla’s rights, ruling that he contested his detention in the wrong court. Donna Newman of New York, one of Padilla’s attorneys, said the new case, which was being processed at the court Thursday, asks when and for how long the government can jail people in military prisons.

“Their position is not only can we do it, we can do it forever. In my opinion, that’s very problematic and something we should all be very concerned about,” she said.

Maybe he’s guilty, maybe not, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s an American citizen being jailed without charges. Three years is not a reasonable length of time to hold someone. If the government can’t figure out what he might have done, all involved are incompetent. If they’ve formed an opinion, but don’t feel obligated to share that with anyone, Padilla included, because they believe national security is more important than the Constitution, they don’t believe in the Constitution. They might as well declare the Constitution null and void. The Supreme Court is trying to do that, but it hasn’t gotten there yet. Until it does, the courts need to force the Justice Dept. to charge or release Padilla.

There’s hope that principles will prevail, as evidenced by this piece of logic:

“I think the court is going to have to take it,” said Scott Silliman, a former Air Force attorney and Duke University law professor. “This is a vital case on the principle of an American citizen captured in the United States, and what constitutional rights does he have.”

Of course, I believed that we’d already decided that issue through more than two hundred years of legal proceedings. That’s also why the next Supreme Court nominee is so vital. Better to have someone who understands that the Constitution exists than to have someone who will offer complete deference to the whims of the president. (This is where lackeys for President Bush like to add “in war time”. Until someone can offer a tangible definition of how we’ll know when the war is over and the presidency can revert to peace time rules, I’m leaving it out.)

Success isn’t always good?

Rather than go too deeply into explaining why this drivel is condescending, ignorant, and offensive, I’ll just highlight paragraphs and counter the writer’s non-arguments.

Like a lot of African Americans, I’ve long wondered what the deal was with Condoleezza Rice and the issue of race. How does she work so loyally for George W. Bush, whose approval rating among blacks was measured in a recent poll at a negligible 2 percent? How did she come to a worldview so radically different from that of most black Americans? Is she blind, is she in denial, is she confused — or what?

If President Bush has a 2 percent approval rating among blacks, some people need to be in that 2 percent. Given that there are what, 40 to 50 million black Americans, I don’t find it hard to believe that Ms. Rice is one of the 900,000 or so who supports the President. Or is the implication that those two percent are race traitors?

Rice’s parents tried their best to shelter their only daughter from Jim Crow racism, and they succeeded. Forty years later, Rice shows no bitterness when she recalls her childhood in a town whose streets were ruled by the segregationist police chief Bull Connor. “I’ve always said about Birmingham that because race was everything, race was nothing,” she said in an interview on the flight home.

Or maybe she found a smarter way to deal with the situation as it existed. Dealing with what is makes more sense than whining about what is. But that’s only a recipe for success. I could be wrong.

She doesn’t deny that race makes a difference. “We all look forward to the day when this country is race-blind, but it isn’t yet,” she told reporters in Birmingham. Later she added, “The fact that our society is not colorblind is a statement of fact.”

Or maybe she found a smarter way to deal with the situation as it existed. Dealing with what is makes more sense than whining about what is. But that’s only a recipe for success. I could be wrong.

But then why are the top echelons of her State Department almost entirely white? “That’s an artifact of foreign policy,” she said in the interview. “It’s not been a very diverse profession.” In other words, there aren’t enough qualified minority candidates. I wondered how many times those words have been used as a lame excuse.

Are there qualified minority candidates being passed over for lesser-qualified white candidates? I have no idea, but this provides me no evidence to support what the author expects me to conclude, that racism is the only reason the State Department is almost entirely white.

One of the things she somehow missed was that in Titusville and other black middle-class enclaves, a guiding principle was that as you climbed, you were obliged to reach back and bring others along. Rice has been a foreign policy heavyweight for nearly two decades; she spent four years in the White House as the president’s national security adviser. In the interview, she mentioned just one black professional she has brought with her from the National Security Council to State.

That speaks for itself.

As we were flying to Alabama, Rice said an interesting thing. She was talking about the history of the civil rights movement, and she said, “If you read Frederick Douglass, he was not petitioning from outside of the institutions but rather demanding that the institutions live up to what they said they were. If you read Martin Luther King, he was not petitioning from outside, he was petitioning from inside the principles and the institutions, and challenging America to be what America said that it was.”

The civil rights movement came from the inside? I always thought the Edmund Pettus Bridge was outside.

I know very few black Americans who think of themselves fully as insiders in this society. No matter how high we rise, there’s always that reality that Rice acknowledges: The society isn’t colorblind, not yet. It’s not always in the front of your mind, but it’s there. We talk about it, we overcome it, but it’s there.

Secretary Rice implies that she always considered herself “inside”. She expected to be considered “inside” and behaved accordingly. Seeing where she is today, the institutions seem to recognize what she believed. Is it possible the institutions would recognize her feeling of being “outside”, if that’s what she’d chosen to believe?

Consider what Sec. Rice said (“The fact that our society is not colorblind is a statement of fact.”) and what the writer said (“The society isn’t colorblind, not yet.”). Two different worldviews exist in those similar but quite distinct statements. Which is more cynical and self-perpetuating?

November 2006 will not be pleasant

This editorial is a few days old, but it’s still timely since it concerns the upcoming election in Virginia. Consider:

… the election is between Kaine and Kilgore, and the most important national implications of November’s voting will grow from issues — in particular, the death penalty and sprawl — that the two men are raising themselves.

If Kilgore wins on the basis of a truly scandalous series of advertisements about the death penalty, it will encourage Republicans all over the country to pull a stained and tattered battle flag out of the closet.

Kaine is a Roman Catholic who opposes the death penalty. “My faith teaches life is sacred,” he says. “I personally oppose the death penalty.” I cheer Kaine for being one of the few politicians with the guts to say this the way he does. It’s disturbing that faith-based political stands that don’t point in a conservative direction rarely inspire the church-based political activism that, say, abortion, arouses. Maybe some of the churches will examine their consciences.

But Virginia has a death penalty on the books, so Kaine says plainly: “I take my oath of office seriously, and I’ll enforce the death penalty.”

That’s not good enough for Kilgore. You have to read much of the ad he ran on this issue to believe it. In the commercial, Stanley Rosenbluth, whose son Richard and daughter-in-law Becky were murdered, declares:

“Mark Sheppard shot Richard twice and went over and shot Becky two more times. Tim Kaine voluntarily represented the person who murdered my son. He stood with murderers in trying to get them off death row. No matter how heinous the crime, he doesn’t believe that death is a punishment. Tim Kaine says that Adolf Hitler doesn’t qualify for the death penalty. This was the worst mass murderer in modern times. . . . I don’t trust Tim Kaine when it comes to the death penalty, and I say that as a father who’s had a son murdered.”

Having seen the ads, that’s an accurate recap. And they’re every bit as disgusting as one can imagine. No reasonable person wants to embrace a murderer and excuse his actions. Mr. Kaine is not doing that, as evidenced by his response. He made a particular statement that he’s personally opposed to the death penalty, but he would uphold the law if elected. How complicated is that? Do we want our politicians embracing only what the political winds bring? Do reasoned principles account for nothing?

Personally, I agree with Mr. Kaine on this. The death penalty is wrong. It’s absurd that Virginians are so adamantly in favor of executing people. It often borders on a blood thirst. (If I’m not mistaken, we’re second only to Texas – by a wide margin – since the death penalty became legal again.) That does not change my belief that the death penalty is uncivilized. It’s the mark of a society interested in revenge rather than justice. Much like the current presidential defense of torture, I can’t fathom how a party based so heavily on the teachings of Jesus could ever come to the conclusion that execution is justifiable. (Kaine is a Democrat, Kilgore a Republican.)

For what, safety? We lock inmates away on death row now, with few escapes. Is it not possible to continue designing improved prison systems in which society is protected? I’m not sure who will advocate that death row inmates lead particularly fulfilling lives in their cells. Like most people, I don’t care about them, so keep the conditions. That’s the bargain for violating the most sacred right guaranteed within society. But taking that final step to execution only tarnishes the society, without providing added benefit. It’s the real culture of death.

Yet, that’s not the most disturbing aspect of this political smear campaign. Mr. Kilgore is the Attorney General of Virginia. He should understand the most basic function of what Mr. Kaine did as a defense attorney.

Representing death row inmates is unpopular but essential because it allows the justice system to work — and that includes finding guilty people guilty. Challenging prosecutors to make sure the wrong people aren’t executed can actually be a service to crime victims. No one wants an innocent person put to death so the guilty party can remain at large to kill again.

For Mr. Kilgore to allow his campaign to devalue that necessary function in a cheap attempt to win the governorship shows quite effectively that he does not have a sufficient respect for the American legal system or the citizens it protects. I don’t know that I’ll vote for Tim Kaine next month, but I know I won’t vote for Jerry Kilgore. If a pollster asks me why I voted against Mr. Kilgore, I’ll tell her I based my decision on morals.

Who knew Bipartisan meant stupid?

There is religious persecution brewing in the military. We all know that it’s the Christians being persecuted, but I’ll let this article explain it.

Lawmakers yesterday said Christian chaplains throughout the branches of the military are being restricted in how they can pray, and President Bush should step in to protect religious freedom.

“We’re giving the president an opportunity to use the Constitution to guarantee the First Amendment rights of our chaplains,” said Rep. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican.

He is circulating a letter to send to Mr. Bush explaining that Christian military chaplains are being told to use general terms when they pray publicly, and to not mention the name of Jesus.

“This is a huge issue with many of the chaplains in the military,” said Mr. Jones, whose letter has 35 lawmakers’ signatures so far, and will be sent later this week.

He cited a letter from one Army chaplain who said it was made clear in his chaplain training course that it is offensive and against Army policy to publicly pray in the name of Jesus, and he later was rebuked for doing so.

“Much to my great shame, there have been times when I did not pray in my Savior’s name,” the chaplain wrote.

Boo. Hoo. I’m not dismissing religion when I say that. This isn’t religious persecution, even though that’s the obvious impression being offered by Rep. Jones. Still, before explaining further, let’s hear from two more politicians about this case:

“Chaplains ought to be able to pray based on who they are,” said Rep. Mike McIntyre, North Carolina Democrat. “Otherwise, it’s hypocrisy.”
…

“We’re seeing the same pattern … and it’s a pattern of hostility to freedom of speech,” said Rep. Todd Akin, Missouri Republican. “The chaplains have complained, and it’s been increasing and more widespread and not only limited to the Air Force.”

How is it possible to have three politicians so blindingly stupid on one simple non-issue? It’s not widely understood that only government can run rough-shod over an individual’s civil liberties. Private individuals and businesses can’t. Fortunately, this passes the government involvement test. Unfortunately, it involves the military. Specifically, here are details about the Army Chaplaincy:

You will serve in the active Army, with an initial duty of three years.

1. You must obtain an ecclesiastical endorsement from your faith group. This endorsement should certify that you are:

a. A clergy person in your denomination or faith group.
b. Qualified spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally to serve as a Chaplain in the Army.
c. Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army.

[emphasis added]

Oh, yeah, there’s that little challenge of Army Chaplains being active in the military when they’re ministering. Unless I’m mistaken, and when am I ever mistaken, civilians don’t lose their rights when they join the military, but they do face looser protections while serving. The chaplains have superior officers issuing orders, applicable only when meeting with a denominationally-diverse group. This is not an abuse by the United States Military. Religious freedom is in no danger.

No doubt Rep. Jones, Rep. McIntyre, and Rep. Akin are the next three in line for the Supreme Court.

Ignore the pink elephant in the room

The Washington Post has another story about ordinary citizens arrested in the District with a blood alcohol content below .08. The focus seems to be on this aspect of the article. Consider:

In March 1998, council member Carol Schwartz (R-At Large) introduced legislation to lower the legal limit for intoxication from .10 to .08.

On July 7 of that year, then-council member Sandy Allen tried to tack an amendment onto the open-container law to lower the level at which a driver could be considered intoxicated from .05 to .03 and below.

On July 13, according to the thick legislative record, Allen again brought up the amendment and asked that it be attached to Schwartz’s bill. There was no discussion. All three committee members — Allen, Sharon Ambrose and Harry Thomas — voted in favor.

Allen said in an interview yesterday that she does not remember proposing the legislation. An aide to Ambrose said that neither she nor Ambrose remembers the amendment. Thomas died in 1999.

“I think we were trying to minimize the number of alcohol-related fatalities in the region,” Allen said. “It was not my intention to have a zero tolerance policy. That was the police, using their own discretion in how they interpreted the law.”

There is clearly a lesson in unintended consequences there and how to better govern a city. This also suggests that citizen oversight is a pretty good idea. Lawmakers are in office through the vote of the people. Not challenging laws that the people find offensive, either through contacting the elected official or at the ballot box, constitutes acceptance. No one can complain 8 years later that no one knew. Ignorance is not an excuse.

But more importantly, I want to focus on the part of the article that’s being overlooked. Consider:

On the day the D.C. Council passed emergency legislation to relax the police department’s zero tolerance policy and the mayor asserted that officers are not “targeting drivers who have a drink at dinner,” Jackson Williams, a former drunken driving prosecutor, waited seven hours for a chance to defend himself in D.C. Superior Court.

He had been arrested in September 2004 under that policy for registering a .02 blood alcohol level after a fender bender with a taxi. He had told the officer he’d had two beers two hours before at the Old Ebbitt Grill.
…

When Williams was arrested, the D.C. Code said that drivers with a blood alcohol level of “less than .03” could be considered intoxicated and arrested if there is other evidence of impairment.

I obviously don’t know the facts of the case beyond what’s right there (emphasis added) and I know how bad taxi drivers can be, but there is no way I’m going to build sympathy for this case. It requires no leap of imagination for a police officer to link “fender bender” and “other evidence of impairment”. The courts are designed specifically to sort out these situations, which is why people arrested are still presumed innocent. You don’t want to have to deal with this? It’s simple, really. Drink or drive. So forgive me for not feeling the collective outrage pinballing around D.C. this week.

Do the chickens have large talons?

Here’s an interesting story about a Napoleon Dynamite pen that’s causing some ~~anger~~ stupidity. It makes me wish I could go back in time. I’d take state. Consider:

Melissa Hart is angry about new pens that her children and others may be offended by when they return to the classroom next week.

The Wethersfield mother of three, who has a 3-year-old with Down syndrome, recently learned about pens from the popular film “Napoleon Dynamite,” which has a recording that says, “You guys are retarded.”

I’m certainly guilty of thinking Napoleon Dynamite is hilarious. I even laughed at the “you guys are retarded” line. Might as well do somethin’ while I’m doing nothin’. No doubt that adds to the evidence that I’m a bad person, as I’ve contended for years. I even accept that I’m probably going to Hell, most notably thanks to my hatred for all things Wal-Mart and my consecutive votes against George W. Bush. But this is ridiculous. It’s a toy that can shade upper lips. That doesn’t justify one sensitive parent and equally stupid school officials who believe that the purpose of education is to “convey the message that it is not OK to marginalize students with intellectual disabilities.” Perhaps I find the wrong sort of comedy funny, and perhaps I’m missing some distinction that tells me using the word “retarded” is never funny. Perhaps I’m just a dunce. I contend that I’m not, though. Consider this language from the online petition started by Melissa Hart in response to this toy.

Second, reconsider your standards in respect to human rights.

I don’t understand a word you just said. Human rights? There’s no right to not be offended or mocked. And why is this nonsense being passed along to Connecticut’s Attorney General? Is he Pedro’s cousin with all the sweet hook-ups, who you think can make this illegal? Gosh! Stop ruining everybody’s lives and eating all our steak. Go tame a wild honeymoon stallion, instead.

Hat tip: Radley Balko

What Would Jefferson Do?

I’m a little behind on commenting about this but of course they are:

Leading House Republicans signaled Friday that they will try to weaken a Senate effort to limit interrogation techniques that U.S. service members can use on terrorism suspects.

Their remarks made clear that the language in the Senate-passed military spending bill faces uncertain prospects in bargaining between the Senate and House. The Senate approved the $445 billion bill 97-0 on Friday.

The detainee provision, which has drawn a veto threat from the Bush administration, was sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a prisoner of war in Vietnam. It was omitted from the bill passed by the House and could spark embarrassing internal battling among Republicans.

This makes no sense. Only the most hardened anti-American would aim to harm U.S. soldiers or smile at the danger they face every day, but it’s entirely appropriate to reinforce long-established limits on their conduct with prisoners of war. The fight over prisoner abuse is not about elevating those we hold prisoner to saints. Honestly, fuck them. I don’t care what they think about much of anything. Beyond the basic need to prove that they’re guilty of their alleged crimes, having them rot in a cell doesn’t concern me. But this isn’t about them. It’s about our moral standard. They may be garbage, but we’re not. So forgive me if I don’t appreciate the fine intellect in statements such as this:

“We’re not going to be delivering a bill to the president’s desk that is veto bait,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Rep. Lewis seems to forget that the House, as a chamber of Congress, is entitled to check the unfettered will and actions of the Executive. It is not responsible for passing along only those bills the president enjoys. Why bother to have a free government if you wish to bow to the whims of a dictator, however benevolent he may appear? If you have any principles, you’ll understand that allowing, and worse, condoning, torture is immoral. This president doesn’t get that. You must.

Maybe this is just me coming out as a raging liberal who hates the president. It certainly would be easy to dismiss me that way, wouldn’t it? But let me offer a quick reminder. Today is the fifth anniversary of the USS Cole bombing. The news is filled with stories like this today, whether it’s in New York, Iraq, Bali, Madrid, or London. We’re fighting to stop events like that, but the mentality that causes individuals to attack a ship, and others to cheer it from the coast, will persist as long as this world exists. That does not give us permission to act like every grade-school kid who thinks he can be the bully just because he’s bigger than the other kids.

We may be expanding freedom, but the danger isn’t going away. Reading the news from Iraq, I see near-daily reports of more American deaths. Sometimes it hits the Army, sometimes the Marines. On other rare occasions, it hits the Air Force. Those deaths affect me the same way they affect most Americans. I don’t like it, but I hope their deaths won’t be in vain. I also hope that more won’t have to die because we don’t heed the lessons. And what we’re seeing is that we’re not. When the President of the United States expects permission to treat any prisoner of war as he deems necessary, by the circumstances in the field, we’ve lost touch with reality. Torturing prisoners leads to more terrorism, not less. As I’ve heard it said, the innocent men we’ve tortured around the world (yes, it has happened) aren’t terrorists when entering our detainee centers, but they are terrorists when they leave. That’s stupid. We might as well bomb ourselves.

But I have a more selfish reason for wanting America to do this correctly than sheer patriotism. My younger brother, just shy of 22-years-old, is in the Navy. He’s currently in training in the United States, but I’m waiting for the inevitable day when he’s shipped off to some dangerous corner of the world. Maybe it’ll be the Persian Gulf, maybe it’ll be off the coast of North Korea. Regardless, it will not be a vacation. The Navy hasn’t suffered any more attacks like the one on the USS Cole in the last five years. I want that streak to continue forever. With this stupid policy of condoned torture, we seem determined to encourage another attack. There are enough crazy people around the world seeking to attack us for some assumed insult to their religion. I don’t want us providing that final “justification” to someone previously unwilling to attack us just because we think terrorists are scum. They are scum, but I don’t want my brother coming home in a body bag because we think it’s fine to torture a prisoner into a body bag.

Let the president veto that provision. History will judge him for it, should he brazenly pursue that to the end. The House, though, must follow the Senate’s lead and act like a branch of government independent from the White House, beholden to nothing more than the Constitution and the principles we supposedly embody.

We find something about all our friends to rip on.

Since Subway never responded to my letter, I’m happy to see this story:

It was a situation clerks have faced again and again: customers upset by the discontinuation of rewards programs at franchises. But business owners say the programs simply cannot continue.

The reason: fraud.

In a world of home laser printers and multimedia PCs, counterfeiting has become increasingly easy. With materials available at any office supply store, those with a cursory knowledge of photo-editing software can duplicate the business-card-size rewards cards once punched at Cold Stone Creamery or the stamps once given out at Subway sandwich shops.

People are counterfeiting Subway stamps? And selling them on eBay, as the article points out? Who thinks to search eBay for Subway stamps?

All of that is certainly bizarre, but perhaps it occurred to someone somewhere that maybe a little technology could fix a problem caused by technology. Perhaps Subway executives have even seen it in action in a grocery store or gas station. Those places only try to get me to sign up for their Reward/Frequent Shopper/Super Saver/Generally Swell Guy cards every single time I shop at their establishments. The thought didn’t even have to be original. Observe. It’s such a basic business technique, it’s stunning that Subway missed it. (Cold Stone Creamery is featured in the article, as well, but I don’t hate them, so I’m only picking on them in in this paranthetical aside. Though, they do sell dairy products, so maybe I should… nah, I’m not that type of vegan. Screw Subway.)

And there’s this to consider:

And while the new system’s upfront costs might be high, it may reap larger rewards for the companies in the long run. As grocery stores have learned, the market research gleaned through establishing databases while handing out discounts can turn swipe cards into a winning formula very quickly.

Which is exactly why I never sign up for those cards or give my phone number to cashiers. I understand that I’m losing out on HUGE SAVINGS, but I’ll take my chances. Except at Best Buy. Best Buy is good. Best Buy gives me gift certificates for swiping my Reward Zone card. I like gift certificates. But I hate junk mail and telemarketers and all that useless, invasive crap. I’ll pay three cents extra for my tofu, thanks. I like the capitalistic idea that they’ll give me the best price without a gimmick and I’ll give them money without hesitation. Everything else is a time-waster. How about this sign on the entrance to every store:

We won’t sell you out.

Subway won’t clean a knife before cutting a sandwich. Why would anyone think they’ll respect customers enrolled in the electronic Sub Club?

Do I earn non-partisan credentials?

Unlike what I do here, this shows what partisanship looks like:

Give ’em hell, Harry.

Hey Dems, here’s an easy one for you: follow the leader.

I’ll pull the plug here before I’ll resort to that sort of blind, non-thinking partisanship, especially when it comes to following someone like Sen. Reid. Why? Because I have enough sense to understand that opposition for the sake of opposition is unwise. In this instance, opposing Judge Roberts because he’s a Bush nominee is counter-productive. President Bush has the votes in Congress to get Judge Roberts confirmed. History dictates that presidents deserve a high barrier to rejection for Court nominees. All that comes into play here.

I expressed reservations about Judge Roberts when President Bush nominated him, but I think he should be confirmed. I’ve seen no giant red flags that he’s going to treat the Constitution as little better than toilet paper, so what would I gain from trying to block him, or even vote against him if I were a senator? If any nominee will face opposition, the president has no incentive to compromise. Playing “follow the leader” on this only enflames the partisan war, forcing a perpetuation of the “hate President Bush” theme on the Left and the perception of that theme on the Right. All Sen. Reid is doing is encouraging President Bush to nominate an extremist to the Court to fill Justice O’Connor’s position. Democrats honestly think this will inspire voters? It may boost fund-raising at Move On, but it doesn’t win elections. I have too much sense to attach myself to symbols instead of ideas. That’s the standard I hold myself to when I write about politics.

Now I’m going Buck&#153

I’ve made numerous suggestions throughout these pages, but here is a summary to accompany my bitching:

Fix the tax code. The flat tax is essential to prevent the continuing madness that is our anti-free market tax system.
Cut pork barrel spending. We don’t need bridges that don’t leave a state and only serve 50 residents. Make it harder to insert pork into future appropriations bills. Hold their representatives accountable for their wastefulness.
End agricultural subsidies for favored products. If the market needs/wants 700 trillion pounds of corn, dairy, meat, and soybeans, let the market dictate that and decide how to pay for it. Central planners deciding what we need only leads to inefficiencies and abuses.
Repeal the prescription drug benefit.
Reform Social Security with private accounts (since mandatory social security contributions aren’t going away – the real answer).
End bailouts of businesses when they make mistakes. If Southwest can run its business profitably, so can US Air and Delta and American and every other behemoth struggling to understand capitalism. Also, stop subsidizing Amtrak on routes that lose money. If no one uses them, that’s the market saying that it doesn’t want the service. Making it acceptable to fail and stay in business only encourages risky, irresponsible behavior. It’s why FDR hated the idea of deposit insurance. It only encouraged the banks to be irresponsible with customers’ money because the government would bail them out.
Implement better management oversight of government agencies. Institute legitimate cost controls. Contracts should not be paid until funds are budgeted and verified available. Once funds are spent, budgets should be reduced.
Get the government out of flood insurance and pension guarantees and every other nonsensical abandonment of free-market policies. If there is risk involved, the private economy will figure out how to properly incentivize responsible behavior. Etc., etc. from #6.
Return education, housing, etc. to the state and local governments. Make the citizens who benefit responsible for paying for those benefits.
Repeal drug laws for low- and moderate-level drugs. Spend the crime fighting dollars on crimes with victims.

Should I go on?

When I post something that is bitching, I don’t do it because I want to score points or I’m devoid of any solutions. I bitch because I see hypocrisy in supporting everything the president or Congress or whoever says without any acknowledgement that something negative might exist. I bitch because we deserve better leaders and we can have them, but the first action is showing that the ones we have are incompetent or unwilling to fix this mess.

I’ve supported the Left in the past because I know the Right is fucking things up, which does not mean I believe the Left is better. But the Left is not in control of the government now. If they were spending us into oblivion or taxing the economy into recession or expanding the federal government as a matter of political giveaway or paternalism, I’d say so, as well.

For what it’s worth, I think they will do the same in 2006 or 2008 or whenever they return to power. but I’m not pointing out their nonsense because it’s so hysterical and lacking in leadership and common sense that it speaks for itself. That’s why I’ve advocated for having a viable third-party candidate in 2008. I want someone who will force the federal government to do what it should (national defense, legal system) and stop doing what it shouldn’t (education, censorship, general paternalism). It may not be spelled out every time I post, but there are enough statements and obvious inferences that I don’t feel the need to list them every time I bitch about some idiot politician or partisan hack.

And I’ll keep doing the same.