Sometimes, Misinformation Is Worse Than No Information

[Click to Enlarge]

Some things I have learned to simply accept, if not with good humor, then at least without comment. As an attorney, I often receive (unsolicited) the glossy “brag books” in which a bunch of Seattle and Bellevue attorneys call themselves “Super Lawyers”, or publications like this one, intended to create confidence that if you have the negligence/personal injury/product liability case in which you don’t have confidence to properly handle yourself, referral to their firm would be a great thing for your client.

These things usually clutter up my mailbox, and I confess to rarely giving them a second look, but in this case, I did…for obvious reasons. And I found myself very angry because of it.

For better or worse, members of my tribe are viewed as authorities on the subjects we speak on. It’s one of the reasons I try to make damn sure I know what I’m talking about before I attempt to “speak with authority” on any matter. In the case of this article, I’m not sure if it was a lapse in judgement, someone else wrote the piece, or if the author was just careless, but the assertion that all of the recent mass shootings all involved automatic weapons is false, largely because of existing infringements that make it very difficult, expensive, and time-consuming for law-abiding citizens to obtain automatic weapons.  (As we all know, criminals don’t care.)

It only took me 15 minutes with a search engine to confirm what I already knew: NONE of the named shootings were perpetrated with automatic weapons. All involved semi-automatic weapons, and some also included other firearms, such as a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, and a Remington shotgun. (links to news stories below)

Cafe Racer

Sikh Temple

Tucson

Aurora

Newtown

Forza Coffee… (In fact, the shootings at Forza Coffee were done with a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver.  The shooter didn’t have even a semi-automatic until he stole one of his victims’ Glock 17, according to this article)

Advocating to restrict, infringe, or eliminate a right is a serious business. This is more serious when that right is Constitutionally protected, as that protection is in the form of a guarantee of a right, because that guarantee is a recognition of the fact that the right exists independent of any action of government. Explained differently, this means that the right is not a privilege, which government may curtail, limit, or eliminate at its pleasure.

Advocating to infringe or restrict that right becomes all the more egregious when the text of the guarantee contains a prohibition on any infringement by government. This offense is compounded when incorrect “facts” are relied upon in the argument that suggests that “something must be done”.

Also conveniently omitted from the piece is the fact that gun control laws would have done little, if anything, to prevent these shootings.  And considering the relatively low number of deaths due to firearms in this country when compared to other causes, the burden for making the case becomes harder, not easier, when you talk about increasing government’s infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.  Frankly, the only way any such discussion should be entertained is through the only process by which such measures can be legitimately obtained: AMENDMENT.  And if such a proposal should be seriously made, I would welcome the discussion about the distinction between rights and privileges, and would no doubt be entertained and annoyed at the inevitable suggestion that man’s rights should be subject to the approval of government, as I, and others like me would labor ceaselessly to ensure that all who are paying attention are brought face-to-face with the stark realization of what such an idea means to the relationship between government and citizens, and the abandonment of the fundamental ideas that are the basis of this nation and its organic law.

If it was a mistake, it should be admitted as such.  If it was deliberate, then it is dishonest, and not worthy of the man who made the statement or the profession the author and I both share.

Read Full Post »

Entitlements Aren’t Just the Programs Killing the Republic, They Are the Attitudes Killing It Too.

Two weeks ago, I was reading on a professional list serv hosted through the state bar association about a new case that applied Washington’s Consumer Protection Act in a manner in which it had not been applied before, that would be useful to elder law practitioners state-wide.  About a day later, one of the older attorneys on the list serv (I’m in my 40s) posted a comment about our shameful treatment of the “greatest generation”, and how awful it is that they have to become paupers before the can make the rest of us pay for their nursing home/end-of-life care, and how they can’t leave their wealth to their kids and grandkids like we promised them in our “contract” with them, and carrying on about the immorality of it, and how awful it was that we were now contemplating cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid programs put in place in the sixties.

I was gobsmacked.  Here was an officer of the court, someone who is supposed to understand the law, and to think logically, proposing that it was immoral to expect people to pay for their own care if they had the means to do so, and suggesting that they had every right to pass their accumulated wealth on to their kids and grandkids, and make the peers of those kids and grandkids pay for their care.  As one of the people stuck with the bill according to this plan, and as someone with children whose own expectations are considerably diminished by this kind of thinking, I was angry.  As a practitioner, who can clearly see that the logic of this doesn’t work anyway, because those kids and grandkids will still be paying for the care of grandpa and grandma’s peers, I was livid.  I had to ask about the morality of presuming that this was owed to anyone, and how the mortgaging of future generations was in anyway a moral way to pay for it.  I then went on to ask how it was that the federal government had the lawful authority to engage in such largesse to begin with. 

To my relief, there were a few responses that were supportive of this view.  There were a few older members who, to their discredit, avoided the question of legal authority, and instead, somewhat condescendingly, waxed poetic about the views they held when they were “the masters of the world” back in the sixties, when they tried to change the world for the better.  I have been guilty in the past of joking about aging hippies behaving badly when discussing certain people in politics, but I had never seen generational hubris so baldly manifested.

Finally, a lawyer took up my question of the legal authority for the federal government’s largesse in this matter.  She assured me that it was found in the general welfare clause…of the preamble of the Constitution (and not in Article I, Section 8!).  I pointed out to her that it was her own unique translation, but Madison, who was one of the principal architects had a very different take which he articulated in the Federalist 41, in part in answer to the Anti-Federalist Brutus, in his paper, VI, in which he warned that its inclusion would lead to men of lesser character in succeeding generations deciding that anything and everything was “general welfare”, to the detriment of society as a whole.

Her response back to me asked “So what do we do in the alternative?”

At this point, I decided to learn more about her.  Among other things, she had been an aide to Senator George Mitchell for a very long time, and had written legislation here in Washington as well.  No doubt, she had been firmly indoctrinated to the idea that there is nothing that the federal government could not and should not do.  Therefore, while I could say “Gee, I dunno.  How about a return to limited government, in which we get its boot off our necks and its hand out of our back pockets?”, I felt reasonably certain that given her belief in the “Good and Plenty Clause” interpretation of the Constitution, it would have simply registered like a whale popping up in front of her, speaking in Russian and Mandarin.  Instead, between the utter disappointment I felt at such a manifest failure to understand our organic law in too many of my fellow lawyers, and the size of my workload, I simply chose to not respond at all, and I simply quit keeping track of the thread.

The head of that state bar section finally commented late this week about the “political” discussion that arose in that thread, and how she had been informed by the state bar that membership in that list serv fell off sharply due to the number of comments and the nature of the opinions discussed, and she asked that the thread be declared “over”, and that such “political” discussions be avoided in the future.

For my part, I didn’t see any reason to continue.  I saw a lot of supposedly intelligent people who are focused on treating symptoms, and who couldn’t be bothered with the idea of actually treating the disease, largely because they refuse to comprehend that there are limits to the compassion that they can engage in with other people’s money.  I’m afraid that we are sailing this ship of state right over the rocks and the falls beyond them, and that too many aboard are in denial about the whitewater ahead.

Read Full Post »

The Weighty Matter of State-Sanctioned Death In Washington State

As an interesting counterpoint to a United States Attorney General who is reluctant to say that it is unconstitutional to use drones to execute American citizens on American soil, in Olympia, we have a bill before the legislature that proposes to ban the death penalty in the state of Washington, which has drawn some interesting supporters, including former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper. 

While Norm makes a habit of being wrong about lots of important things, he has a particularly insightful wrong opinion about the death penalty,and he graciously came on John Carlson’s show this morning to share it.

The thrust of Stamper’s position is this:

1.) Expense.  Stamper maintains that the cost to prosecute a death penalty case is approximately a half million dollars higher than a case where the prosecution seeks a life sentence.

2.) Delay.  With the automatic appeals and reviews that occur after a death penalty conviction, it is not unusual for a decade or longer to pass before sentence is finally carried out, and this process adds more expense.

3.) Life Without the Possibility of Parole means that the offender has decades to think about their horrendous crime every day for the rest of their lives.

4.) Survivor Fatigue.  Stamper maintains that while the appeals process drags on, survivors have to relive the horror every day, in ways that frequently impugn the victim’s character, and they would prefer that the process just rather be over with than be offended by the system every day.

By way of rebuttal, Stamper almost has something with his first point, except there are larger issues to be considered.  The justice system, at its core, essentially has two purposes: Keep the Peace, and Punish Wrongdoers.  These are part of government’s rightful and legitimate duties, because if these two things are not done, you no longer have a society, you have anarchy.  It is a sad fact that we already compromise on punishing wrong doing, and selectively prosecute certain crimes, and or often make deals to convict on lessor charges to avoid expense and conserve resources for “the worst of the worst”.  Any benefit this confers on society is negligible, as whether by accident or design, it creates a permanent criminal underclass of repeat offenders, who when they actually serve real time, only end up becoming better criminals.  This perpetuation prevents the real cost of law enforcement from sparking any serious consideration of whether or not the real problem might be too many laws, rather than an ever-increasing amount of “criminal behavior”.

The other part of this is that it ignores the cost of keeping that offender behind bars for the rest of their life if they really are “the worst of the worst”.  As this presentation demonstrates, the average cost in 2005 per inmate in the State of Washington was $25,000.00.  Multiply that by 45 years, and suddenly, you’ve sprung for $1,125,000.00 for the care and keeping of that inmate.  And if you’re being honest, you recognize that this average is low, when you consider that the “worst of the worst” should be in maximum security at the least, and may be in solitary confinement most of that time.   If you believe THAT cost is still only $25,000.00 a year per inmate, I have a bridge in Tacoma that I can sell you cheap.

As for the delay argument, it is a two-edged sword.  It is a safeguard put in place with the intent of preventing the execution of those who were not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted, and in a society that it honest, honesty requires the recognition that sometimes, the system makes a mistake, and that when it is your life on the line, extra measures to make sure that the verdict was correct are in order.  And when it is that serious, then maybe in the interests of fairness, it is to the benefit of all to provide extra process than what would ordinarily be due.  But this cost should not be a deterrent to the existence of the penalty; some crimes are so heinous, some crimes are so beyond the pale, as to cast doubt upon the fitness of the offender to ever be trusted to live in society and conform to its norms and expectations.  We know these people exist, and walk among us until they are caught, and we know they exist in the Pacific Northwest.  When there is little reason to believe that they can ever be reformed or rehabilitated, especially in a system that cannot be said to make a priority of either, there should be no reason to burden society with the cost of keeping them alive, to perhaps some day, either be placed in a position where they can escape or be released to again be a danger to the society they are incapable of respecting.

The “punishment” of “having to think about their crimes and victims everyday for the rest of their lives” can hardly be believed to be a real punishment for such people.  Indeed, John Carlson brought up the example of the offender who was incarcerated because of a truly brutal rape, wormed his way into the trust of prison officials, was eventually placed on an honor farm that he walked away from, to go back, and again brutally rape his victim, then slit her 5  year old daughter’s throat before her, kill the neighbor who stopped by (and who had also been the witness whose testimony had put him away to begin with) and then killed his victim.  People like that aren’t “punished” by living with that knowledge for their rest of their lives.  At best they do it and feel nothing; at worst, it inspires and arouses them. 

Finally, Stamper presented his argument for what I call Survivor Fatigue, the gist of which is that the process of giving the death penalty offender extra process means that they have to relive the horror and loss every single day, and sometimes have to hear their lost loved one’s character impugned.  The underlying rationale is that these people have a right to not endure this.  What Chief Stamper does not recognize is that unlike the individual rights that he doesn’t favor us having, such as the right to be armed and to make the criminal suffer instead of yourself, the process of prosecuting a death penalty case isn’t about an individual’s rights, which may or may not be incidental, as we would like justice for the victim(s), but it is about the right of society to rid itself of those who have proven that they are incapable of coexisting within it without being a threat not just to the well-being, but the very lives of other members of it.  This is why it is a legitimate power of the state as long as extra care is taken to make sure that the right people receive this punishment.  As advances in science reveal the errors that the system has made, it also reveals that it is even more possible than before to convict the guilty, and remove the burden that sociopaths, psychopaths, and people who chose to not just kill, but to do so with extraordinary cruelty and abandon from anything recognizable to a civilized society.  It is also possible that these advances will help to streamline the extra process, and expedite the departure of the monsters and animals that Chief Stamper would have us preserve indefinitely, taking up resources that could be used for others who might have a hope of redemption or a lack of interest in recidivism.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!

–Thomas Paine, Common Sense.

Read Full Post »

Scratch A Proggie, Find A Tyrant

Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat’s recent piece on a Washington Senate Bill that would permit the local Sheriffs to enter the homes of assault weapons owners to ensure that their weapons are “properly secured” got some traction this weekend.

Of course, when he contacted sponsors of the 8 page bill about this provision, one of the sponsors, state Senator Adam Kline said:

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

Except that it doesn’t appear to be a mistake at all.

Senator Kline was a sponsor of an assault weapons bill in the 2009-2010 session which contained the EXACT SAME  PROVISION.  From Bill 6396:

(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

 (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;

 And from a bill he sponsored in 2005, Bill 3475:

(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

 (a) Within ninety days following the effective date of this section, submit to a background check identical to the background check conducted in connection with the purchase of a firearm from a licensed gun dealer;

(b) Unless the person is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, immediately register the assault weapon with the sheriff of the county in which the weapon is usually stored;

(c) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;

Senator Kline didn’t “make a mistake”.  Senator Kline has trouble with understanding the meaning of the words “…shall not be infringed.”  Senator Kline has a HISTORY of supporting gun registry, and warrantless searches of the homes of law-abiding citizens.  Senator Kline doesn’t like freedom, and as such isn’t fit to hold office. (Nor is his co-sponsor in this endeavor, Senator Kohl-Wells.)  It bears noting that these bills are almost identical, further demonstrating that this wasn’t a mistake; it was deliberate.
This bill would violate Sections 2, 7, and 24 of the Washington Constitution and the 2nd and 4th Amendments of the United States Constitution.  The repeated sponsors of this bill are not fit to hold office. 

————————————-

Welcome Ace of Spades readers! Come for the scratched Proggie, stay for The Asterisk* and The Error of NEED.

Read Full Post »

Idiocracy, Reefer Logic, and the Gospel of Other People’s Money

One of the things I have learned in my brief time on this planet is that knee-jerk post-mortems are often wrong.  I find that blame and recrimination are too often part of the process, and it tends to cloud thinking and obscure what is important.  The post-mortems of the 2012 elections have been no exception.   And while I would dismiss many of them outright because of the desire to point fingers and lay blame, I have to confess the one that surprised me was the one offered by my brother from a different mother and father, Rosetta.

Here in my own state of Washington, we had gay “marriage” and pot legalization on the ballot this year, both of which passed, either on the strength of what I call “reefer logic” or warm and fuzzy lies, but both offer insights into what happened nationwide.

First, the gay marriage referendum, R-74.  In 2008, our legislature passed the State Registered Domestic Partnership Act which allowed people to form officially sanctioned relationships with a member of the same or opposite sex, conferring all the same benefits that are conferred by marriage, except for the name.  This meant that same sex-couples would be eligible for “spousal” benefits offered by employers, inheritance rights, and community property rights, as well as all other benefits conferred by being in a state-recognized relationship.  But that wasn’t good enough.  And after waging a campaign that cynically stated that redefining the term marriage would grant same-sex couples the right to hospital visitation (a lie, as thank to HIPPA, even “straight: couples need to execute Medical Powers of Attorney to make medical decisions for incapacitated spouses, and to have a free and full exchange of health information with their spouse’s medical doctors.), and as a “civil rights issue”. It became a cause celebre of sorts to change a centuries-old specific legal definition, and the fact that it was based on a blatant lie, and the diminishing of a genuine “civil rights” issues, didn’t detract at all from the allure that this measure held for proponents.  No doubt it made those who voted on it feel good, and it was certainly easier than thinking.  I’m sure that some of you are asking “So they redefined marriage.  So what?”  Well, it may seem like a small thing, and an easy thing, and not worthy of the effort to stop.  Except that for every change we make to the bedrock of the law, robs what remains of a little of its meaning.  Do this enough, and then it gets easier to look at the law and say “It doesn’t make sense, so let’s just chuck the whole thing.”  I know that the possibility seems remote, and as long as you are only surveying from each incremental change, this only seems more certain to be the case.  But think of it as being in a boat on the ocean.  Off to the left, you see a rocky shore.  There are no oars in the boat, but you have an anchor, which keeps you from being pounded against those rocks, no matter how high the waves get.  Now imagine a fog bank that conceals the shore, and the rocks.  And that fog bank lingers for days.  Maybe you hear the waves braking on the rocks, but aren’t able to interpret what you hear.  Maybe you can’t hear it at all.  And then you wake up one day, and decide that it is pointless  to have that anchor.  Now you are heading for those rocks, and you don’t even know it.  And that’s where we find ourselves today, as we collectively pat ourselves on the back and feel good about our enlightened view on the matter.

Our other ballot measure was one to legalize possession and use of up to an ounce of marijuana by persons 21 years old or older in this state, which plays into the first suggestion made by my friend Rosetta to help Republican’s be successful in future elections, which was “Legalize Marijuana”.    Both he and the proponents here in Washington share the idea that this isn’t a serious crime anyway, and therefore, it doesn’t make sense to be enforcing it.  Rosie’s point is that we can empty a lot of prisons; the argument pre-election here in Washington was that it would free up law enforcement resources to prosecute “serious” or violent crimes.  I remain unconvinced.  Rosetta also shares the belief with advocates here that this will be a revenue opportunity for the state, because a legal trade can have the snot taxed out of it.  And finally, he glosses over the idea of collateral damage as being minimal, and something that should be the interest and crusade of private killjoys, rather than the government.  Yesterday morning, I heard the Seattle City Attorney being interviewed on the radio while I was driving to work.  He employed what I call “reefer logic” in talking about the reasons for legalizing marijuana, and what happens next now that Washington has said ”Yes.” 

Among the rationales he described was that it is just “sound policy”.  He stated that the “War on Drugs” has been a crashing failure, which has cost trillions of dollars, and therefore, it just makes sense to end that war for those reasons.  At this point, I was shouting “GREAT!  Since that is the measure of “sound” policy, I expect that we will also end the “War on Poverty” tomorrow, since the government has also spent trillions of dollars with little or no objective success to show for it!”  (I know, I know.  That’s been about creating dependency, not fighting it, so there is no reason to expect it to be measured by the same standard.)  He then expressed his belief that the Federal government would resist this, and that it would end up in Federal court, which he welcomed because it would allow for an “adult conversation” about the concept of federalism, which is only proper as “it concerns the decisions made by the people of two sovereign states”.   At this point, I could not believe what I was hearing.  Abortion was not an issue for a discussion about federalism?  Welfare was not an issue for a discussion about federalism?  Not Obamacare?  Not environmental regulations.  But Pot…Pot was a hill to die on with concern for Federalism.

Frankly, I think the idea that this was going to free up lots of resources for law enforcement isn’t necessarily so, but the bigger issue is that of collateral damage.  I am concerned that the idea of tax revenue being a primary driver of legalization.  There is a moral component that doesn’t appear to have been considered, that being government sanctioning a vice not out of a belief that the individual has a right to self-destruct without interference, but because it can make money from it.  I can hear you. dear reader, as you say “But we tax alcohol, and we tax cigarettes.  Why is this different?”  the short answer is that those taxes are incidental to their legalization, and not the reason for it.  It is a fine distinction, but I have a hard time believing that government should be more concerned about what’s in it for them, rather than the effect on the individuals and the society in general.  Then there is the matter of feeding the beast…the fact that government almost NEVER uses these kind of tax revenues for stated purposes, and instead uses them to find more ways to regulate things that are none of their business.

Then there is the question of impairment.  We all know a functional alcoholic, or those who drink to excess too much.  But the collateral damage to society has become a bigger issue than in past decades.  Driving drunk is frowned upon, and prosecuted severely because of the potential of harm to others.  In many ways, though it is still not often characterized as such, we no longer think of drinking to excess as being harmful to only the person imbibing.  And yet we still allow people to characterize pot as a “victimless crime”.  While the majority of studies appear to have been published by NORML or similar groups, I think most people have at least empirical experience that would call into question the issue of impairment with marijuana use.  Even more laughable is the notion that by taxing and regulating, we will be able to keep it out of the hands of young people.  Ask police departments about the resources they spend addressing the purchase and sale of alcohol with teens, or dealing with the effects of underage drinking.  And many of us have had the experience of asking adults to buy alcohol for us.  Now consider the fact that a gram of pot is much easier to conceal than a six-pack of beer.  

The second idea for new success is simplification of legal immigration.  I actually like the idea.  And the way that my friend presents is unobjectionable, because it is still based on an exchange…you have to meet the requirements, and you still have to pass the test.  If there is a point that I would like to see shored up, it would be to manage the skills of those we allow in under this program.  While there is something to be said for filling jobs that qualify as unskilled labor, there is also something to be said for future generations learning the value of work.  No one should have their first job be their career.  Flipping burgers and working retail will teach the value of labor, the pride of making your own paycheck, and the importance of being on time and having a good attitude.  And given the current unemployment rate of teenagers, the current high rates should not be exacerbated with a policy that allows them to be constantly undercut in the labor market.

The third idea proposed by Rosetta is a $50,000 payment to anyone of verifiable slave heritage.  My response? Absolutely NOT.  The reasons are simple.  First, this won’t be the end, matter how much you try to tie the payment of the cash to the condition that they finally lose the attitude that they are somehow owed something because of a practice that was ended 155 or so years ago in the greatest shedding of American blood in conflict ever.  The idea of reparations is one that is a remedy to the person who actually suffered the harm, which is why, although still offensive, the reparations made to the Japanese American survivors of the World War II internment could at least be defended on a quasi legal basis.  An argument could be made that the Great Society and the War of Poverty has damaged blacks and especially black families, with a policy of deliberate infantilization, and dependency on Uncle Sugar.  The part where the analysis breaks down is the fact that the federal government hasn’t been doing this to just blacks, but has been waging this without regard to skin color.  The other component would be that the victim should recognize that they are a victim, and as the election proved, the victims don’t see themselves as victims, and instead think that they can and should be “punishing” others who don’t share their servitude, and who recognize that a shiny shackle is still a shackle.  Finally, the idea is the kind of irresponsible spending by government that we as conservatives are supposed to oppose.  This is not about “justice”, and cannot seriously be considered as such.  It is a cynical attempt to buy an attitude that is contrary to that which is fostered by decades of government spending, and continues the idea that peace or more abstractly, salvation, can be found if you spend enough of other people’s money.  It’s an idea that has brought this country to the brink of disaster and ruin, and it is hubris to think that we can use the same tactic and get a positive result.

The fourth idea posed was that contraception and abortion are for the beneficiary to pay for.  I can agree with half that concept.  Contraception can and should be the province of those who use it.  The inherent mistake was accepting the notion that abortion is valid as contraception, and it is ok because it is inherently a “private” act.  Although the legal rationale set forth in the Roe decision was dubious at the time (the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply, because…well, because it doesn’t, so don’t ask again) the truth is that the science has advanced even further.  It only underscores the hypocrisy of a society that can shed buckets of tears for whales being killed and forests being clear-cut, and not seem to give a second thought to the slaughter of thousands of children in the womb annually, without sparing a thought to the fact that each one of those children is a separate being, with its own organs and DNA, and the same government that has been founded on the principle of an unalienable right to life sanctions this ongoing genocide without any due process, or even thought given to it.  This happens daily, in very profitable centers set up to perform them, and human beings who have committed no offense other than being conceived are killed with less due process than we demand be afforded to child rapists and cop killers.  This is a shameful stain on our national character, and should be no more encouraged than giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

Finally, my friend suggests that these ideas are not damaging to the ideas of libertarianism or republicanism.  While that may be true for the principles of libertarianism, I think the question is a bit more difficult when applied to republicanism.  Largely because I think people couldn’t tell you what the republican party stands for.  And that is reflected in the candidates we have had since Reagan.  While I believe that many of the party’s standard bearers since Ronaldus Magnus have been good men, I don’t think that they have done a great job clearly stating clear principles that offer powerful explanation of why conservatism is a better alternative to what the left offers.  Instead, we have relied on candidates who were chosen because they wouldn’t allow themselves to be pinned to an ideology, because they couldn’t or wouldn’t stand on principles because they couldn’t persuade others why they were right.   It doesn’t make sense to lose because you didn’t have the courage to be yourself.  And telling yourself that your win is more important than a choice between clear ideas is a recipe for failure.  

But this is only one part of the puzzle.  We are faced with an electorate that would rather have Idiocracy, and that has decided that bread and circuses are better than personal responsibility and the right to determine their own destiny.  It’s hard to fight the idea that free stuff is better than freedom.  It’s hard to fight Greed’s retarded sister, Envy, and the idea that successful people are responsible for your lack of success, and should therefore be punished is a seductive one.  If you think that a candidate can or should overcome these factors, will combatting a negligent and complicit media, then you aren’t seeking a candidate, you are seeking a savior.

Circumstances can and will contribute to the recognition that what was chosen on Tuesday was the sad and tired ideas that have failed and made things worse for people who have had to live with them whenever they have been tried.  And it sucks that those of us who already knew this will have to suffer with those who still have to learn.  But we share in this failure because we refused to demand something better from those who would be our standard-bearer.  And we share in this because we each have to be the standard-bearer for conservatism ourselves.  We have 70 years of indoctrination and sloppy thinking to counter and bypass, because the obvious is anything but for people who have been taught to look past it.

Read Full Post »

My Joy Cannot Be Contained…

I was reading the most recent AEES Bulletin this morning, and in the article on “Washington State and the Affordable Health Care Act”, I came across this gem:

Many reforms are currently in place, but key benefits and programs take effect in 2014, including Washington’s new Health Exchange, federal subsidies to help 477,000 people afford health insurance, an expansion of Medicaid for 328,000 poor childless adults and the ban on insurance companies denying people coverage if they are sick.

I guess we dodged a bullet there.  I mean, for a minute, I thought that whole “getting rid of the “free riders” B.S. the Demusocialists were paying lip service to was actually serious.

Just kidding.

Bonus question:  If it doesn’t take effect until 2014, how do they know 477,000 will need that “assistance”?  Why not 500,000?  Why not 100,000?  And the same goes for those poor childless adults.  I mean, with welfare that includes career training, and the improving economy fueled by the growth in government, how is it they can be so certain that these people will still need that assistance?

The War On Poverty™. The one war that government has absolutely no interest in winning, but plenty of interest in waging, as long as it is waged with other people’s money.

 

Read Full Post »

Reason #475932047 Why King County Is A Screwed Up Place

King County received an “unprecedented” amount of complaints about plans to run ads critical of Israel on Metro buses and Executive Dow Constantine feared for the safety of passengers and drivers and even an international “terrorist attack” on the transit system if the ads appeared, according to court papers filed Monday.

The “nuance” of this wasn’t lost on the typical northwestern granola munching airhead that populates King County, as the comments reveal.

Back away from the allegations being published on the sides of the buses, and instead conduct a bigger “Smear by implication in the court documents.  A textbook lesson in “civility” perhaps? 

Stay classy, King County.  Stay classy.

Read Full Post »

Meet The Parents

The most unpardonable sin in society is independence of thought. – Emma Goldman

Having already been raised by parents, I am increasingly resentful of a government that continues to substitute its judgment for my own, justifies its temerity in doing so by deigning to tell me it is for my own good, and then charging me exorbitantly for it.  And it happens at all levels of government, from the overreaching leviathan in the District of Columbia, to the irresponsible spendthrifts in Olympia, to the bold petty tyrants here in my own county.

What’s that?  I’m being ridiculous?  I don’t think so.  Let’s start with this example from the Tacoma News Tribune:

The Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department this morning released a press statement saying that El Gaucho Tacoma has agreed to a permanent injunction that bans smoking in its facility.

Agreed to?  More like got tired spending the money to try to be able to enforce their property rights.
 

“We see this as an important step for the health of Washington State residents, most of whom don’t smoke, and who overwhelmingly voted to approve Washington’s Smoking in Public Places Act,” stated Anthony Chen, department director. 

I see this as an abuse of power, of the kind that bureaucrats in county public health systems, and other local agencies and bureaus love to engage in…for our own good, of course.

 
Earlier this year the department sued to close the smoking lounge, which had recently opened after renovations that owner Paul Mackay said he believed satisfied restrictions in the state’s 2005 non-smoking law.

A smoking lounge.  Not a lounge where they simply permitted smoking.  A lounge designed specifically for smoking.  [While this squib doesn't have all the details, the lounge was completely separate from the rest of the restaurant, had state-of-the-art ventilation systems, and even a separate entrance.]  This wasn’t about a restaurant that some whiney non-smokers could not frequent because of owners who couldn’t manage to offer a non-smoking alternative, because the restaurant is non-smoking, and as I said, separate from the smoking lounge. 

“When the owners failed to comply with several requests, and a letter of compliance from the Health Department, they were served with an injunction to stop allowing smoking in the lounge. On April 23, 2010 a Pierce County Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction against El Gaucho Tacoma and the VIP Lounge,” the department said.

To translate from the power-grubbing bureaucratese “This uppity property owner had the nerve to try to allow patrons to engage in a legal activity in a way that would not disturb those who frequented his establishment, but did not smoke, but he didn’t come, hat in hand, to ask our permission first, and that had to be dealt with.”

I would have liked to see Mackay do an end run and open a private club in the location occupied by the smoking lounge…the kind where anyone can be issued a membership card at the door for a nominal fee.  A private club is not a public place, and therefore the county health department nannycrats can get bent.  But knowing how one little birdie can make a phone call to another little birdie, and the next thing you know, converting the liquor license from a restaurant to a private club can end up being fraught with all sorts of …difficulties, especially with things like the approvals from the local authorities.  I imagine that this was the better business decision for Mr. Mackay.

As for the over-reaching in Olympia, I have the following agenda items in Governor Gregoire’s State of the State address from this past January:

“For all of us who are called to public service, now is the time for leadership. Now is the most important time to serve,” Gregoire said. “For as difficult and challenging as the decisions that lie ahead of us will be, now is the time to be decisive, and now is the time for compassion. It’s the time to make a real difference for people. It’s the time to truly shape the future of Washington state.”

———————————————————————————

*High-quality health care: Gregoire asked the Legislature to consider restoring funding for the state’s Basic Health Plan, hospice services and maternity care for at-risk mothers.

———————————————————————————

“The December budget I presented was balanced, and it certainly sets new, and admittedly untenable, policy directions,” Gregoire said. “But the balanced budget also would force us to abandon the values that define this state — fairness and compassion. It would be unjust, unwise and unfair to abandon our friends and neighbors when they need us most.”

Now, leadership is not continuing to fund entitlements when you are having trouble doing the things that you’re actually supposed to be doing.  Since this speech, our budget hole in this state has increased more than $5 Billion.  The response was to issue a whole lot of new taxes in a down economy, so Nanny Government could continue to make decisions for and offer entitlements to its dependents, rather than focusing on the things that really are its job:  law enforcement, funding schools, fixing the roads, and other basic government functions.  And when she starts whining about not meeting “basic Washington values” because I’m not reducing the quality of health care I provide for my family because they aren’t compelling me to pay for it for someone else, it takes all that I have not to start shouting “THERE IS NO FAIRNESS IN TAKING WHAT I WORK FOR IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR MYSELF AND MY FAMILY SO YOU CAN GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE!  MAKING PEOPLE DEPENDENT UPON GOVERNMENT IS NOT “COMPASSIONATE”!  QUIT CONFUSING YOUR ABILITY TO BUY VOTES WITH MY MONEY WITH BEING “COMPASSIONATE’!!!”

When some of the new taxes the legislature tried to impose to continue being generous with my earnings ended up on the initiative ballots in November, and going down in flames, it was like Christmas came early.  The problem is, the politicians in this state continually have a problem understanding that when the voters say “No!” to their taxes, we really mean it.  Just ask anyone in Pierce, King, or Snohomish county about their thirty dollar license tabs for their car.  My last one only cost me $120, because I get to “give” generously to subsidize public transit that no one rides.  However, I am very pleased that there are bus drivers who make in excess of $100,000.00 a year when I have the equivalent of a masters and a doctorate in a real discipline, and make less.  To borrow a line from our Dear President, these employees of ours should be thanking me.  Especially when they can expect raises this year, even though I haven’t seen one in a few years now.  It is rumored that the governor will recall the legislature to a special session, which, if it like the prior special sessions, means that the Democrats will leave Republicans out of the meetings, decide that they cannot possibly make any cuts to entitlements, and instead, will pass legislation that will raise taxes instead.  I think you can probably make book on it.

And then there is the Federal Government’s assumption of authority it does not have, by which it substitutes its judgment for your own.  Case in point?  FCC Commissioner Michael Copps:

“I think American media has a bad case of substance abuse right now. We are not producing the body of news and information that democracy needs to conduct its civic dialogue. We aren’t producing as much news as we did 5 years, 10 years, 15 years ago. We have to reverse that trend or I think we are going to be pretty close to be denying our citizens the essential news and information that they need to have in order to make intelligent decisions about the future direction of their country.”

Not to press a point too finely, but who the Hell appointed him to judge the quality of the news being reported?  No, really.  Last I looked, the federal government didn’t have a “Ministry of Information” to decide what is, and what is not news, or even good reporting.  In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s our job, and I don’t recall any ceremonies where the American people formally surrendered this right to some stinkfaced bureaucrat who doesn’t like what he hears on CNN or FOX.  In fact, since the retirement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine back when we still had more than a handful of sensible people in the government, I thought that the whole point was to let the people decide with their viewership, their listening, and what news outlets they chose to spend their money on.  That is why the Old Grey Lady is in the tank; once people had a chance to decide for themselves, the outlets that only told the stories they wanted you to read/hear/see, and in the manner that they wanted you to ingest simply could no longer compete.  The approved lies, mischaracterizations, and spin were no longer palatable.  And yet this kaikocracy is intent on squelching any message it doesn’t approve of.  That is why The Chicago Messiah™ and his flunkies, toadies, and watercarriers are constantly contributing to the ambient noise level with their insistence that FOX is “bad for the republic”.

“Nowadays, when stations are so often owned by mega companies and absentee owners hundreds or even thousands of miles away — frequently by private equity firms totally unschooled in public interest media — we no longer ask licensees to take the public pulse. Diversity of programming suffers, minorities are ignored, and local self-expression becomes the exception.”

Diversity?  The opinion of a few numb-skulled Supreme Court Justices aside, the federal government, or any government  for that matter, has absolutely no interest, compelling or otherwise, in diversity.  Diversity did not enrich the lives of the people of the Balkans.  It did not make their lives better.  It did not provide a rich society, and preserve basic human dignities and rights of its citizens.  Instead, it brought strife, war, death, misery, and chaos.

“Diversity” as it is currently embraced by too many in government, is destructive to society.  It substitutes identity for merit.  It purposely divides, and keeps divided the people of a nation.   It doesn’t reward and encourage exceptionalism for its own sake (and the blessings to society as a whole that come from such a strategy).  It discourages a national identity, character, and vision, and fosters tribalism and territorial battles in culture, the allocation of resources, and in the defining of goals.  Its final end will be devolution in to discord and violence, rather than achievement and excellence.

Last I looked, local self-expression wasn’t really an issue.  Public television has local outlets, many of which carry locally produced and broadcast programs.  Radio stations report local news, and many carry locally produced programs.  Cable television has public access shows.  And the internet makes anyone with something to say and the ability to find any of several free blog hosts, a one-person publisher.

Let’s not kid ourselves.  Increasingly, we are met in all walks of life by government in all its varied forms that refuses to remain within the strict confines we have set forth for it.  Its appetite for control is rapacious, and unquenchable.  We yield every day, in venues where the government simply has no business being in our business.  Mandates to ban incandescent lightbulbs.  Telling business owners that they cannot cater exclusively to smoking patrons.  Refusing to stop buying votes from its dependents with our money, and ignoring us when we tell them that they cannot have more of what we earn.  Forcing societal schemes upon us that will not, and by their very nature, cannot benefit society.  Fiats that turn social values on their heads by unelected jurists and bureaucrats, when the people have very clearly refused such measures sought to be undertaken by elected officials, and the craven collaboration between the cowardly elected officials and the unelected functionaries who in the absence of any mechanism of accountability to “We the People”, eagerly dictate to us that which we have already refused…for our own good, of course.

What I’d like to know is if I, at age 39, 21 years free of the authority of my parents, and having earned a high school diploma, a B.A., a J.D., and an LL.M., and having been a parent myself for over 11 years still haven’t earned the right, and am not smart enough to make my own decisions, what makes those busybody bureaucrats, many of them the same age or younger, and some less educated, empowered and intelligent enough to make them for me?

ENOUGH.

It’s time to push back.  Hard. 

Read Full Post »

Not Dead…

…just busy.

Lots of stuff, including litigation, and while there is a lot going on politically, I really haven’t been motivated to say much. Just waiting to see how much voter fraud tampers with the righteous curbstomping the Dems are getting come November 2.

Read Full Post »

The Acme Barndoor and Widget Oil Company***UPDATED

I had to fight to urge to spit when this evil socialist hag had the nerve to categorize the passage of the Health Care Takeover of 2009 2010 as honoring to the Declaration of Independence and the Founders of this nation.  I don’t think I could ever get hit in the head enough confuse an increase in dependence on government as “Honoring” the Charter of our Freedom and the men who set our rights to paper.

Of course, I say this with the full understanding of the fact that rights aren’t really rights if I have to rely on government shaking me and my fellow citizens down to provide them.  “Rights” are rights if they would exist without government.  Government can take rights away, but they cannot “give” them to me.  My rights come from God.

Of course, this means judging on both what we have seen and heard.  I have made my judgement.  The Constitutional Scholar who “loves this country” so much that he has to “fundamentally change” the relation between the government and us by growing the debt to unsustainable levels, making we the people purchase health insurance, and taking over one-sixth of our economy doesn’t love this country.  He loves what he wants to make it.

I can’t look the other way while he and his fellow travellers usurp power they were never meant to have, and do so while proclaiming it to be for our own good.  Like many of my friends who served this nation in uniform, I also took an oath, and it also requires me to support the Constitution of the United States.

I will oppose these actions with every fiber of my being.  I will do everything I can peaceably, and if they remain determined to subvert the law and enslave the people of this nation, then I too, will have to remain resolute.

“General Welfare” means for everyone’s benefit, not for a few people’s benefit.  You don’t decide to fix something for a few by changing it for everyone, and then sticking us all with the bill.  Especially not for something that is not for the federal government to act upon at all.  The Ninth and Tenth Amendments could not be more clear. 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

…

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For too long, the Federal Government constantly pushed the envelope of its power through the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare clause, with nary a shove back from the people or the individual states.  Indeed, one might think that the Civil War abolished these amendments.  However, if mandating that you must buy government approved health insurance, as part of a scheme that can only end with private carriers going out of business and leaving the government as the sole provider of health insurance coverage is a legitimate exercise of the power granted to the federal government, then the Ninth and Tenth Amendment mean nothing. 

Those who actually know what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution mean have no intention of letting these people fundamentally change the only free nation on earth.  We were unconvinced by the lies peddled leading up to this vote.  We will remain unconvinced when you tour this country trying to sell us what you already bought for us, like hucksters of old selling stock in the Acme Barn Door and Widget Oil Company.  We will remain unconvinced when you pack up your offices and go back to your home districts, praying you will be granted anonymity.

My Triumph Over The Peasants Is Complete!

Thanks to ACE, via Nice Deb.

Read Full Post »