Another reason for the word 'Vindicated'

GOP Outpaces Dems in Contributions from Small Donors

The study found that the GOP attracted almost 50% more contributors than Democrats during the 2002 election, and significantly outraised the Democrats among every level of donor who gave less than $100,000 to the parties.

and

Democrats Discovering Campaign Law's Cost

Liberals literally LIE when they claim they have a monopoly on support from 'ordinary, working Americans' and that Republicans' power base comes only from huge abusive corporations.

The trouble is that so many people are good-natured enough that they literally tell themselves, "They wouldn't just lie like that, or everyone would know it. There has to be truth to what they are saying."

Remember Communism, good-hearted mother. They believed in killing - murdering - millions because in the end, it would bring the workers' paradise that Marx believed in. They MURDERED people because utopia was worth it.

Socialism - protecting everyone from poverty and every social disadvantage - that's worth a few lies, isn't it?

Don't 'demean' me because I'm a prostitute

Nevada Turns to Brothels as a Budget Fix

In the story, by the NY Times, 'Air Force Amy' complains that 'They should stop picking on an easy target and go after the drug dealers and panderers and the big companies.'

Easy target is right.

Across the country Brothels are illegal. Prostitution is illegal in any form in nearly all states.

Readers of such a news story are likely to look down on prostitutes and brothels and be glad they are taxed all the more. Maybe they will go out of business - is that so bad?

Let's just remember the court case of so many years months weeks days ago. Lawrence v. Texas literally established a constitutional right to have homosexual sex because it is technically considered private. (Now you've heard about how sodomy laws are general to heterosexuals too - it doesn't matter, because Stevens spoke very specifically about protecting homosexuality.)

Prostitution is, in the same vein, private. Just as two homosexuals agree that they want to have sex with each other, whether it be out in the mall or on the telephone, or at home, they then are said to be engaging in that act in private - and it is that technicality that supposedly gives them protection within the constitution. Prostitution can happen inside a large home or a small home, but the act itself is done in private. There is no argument that can be made against prostitution that cannot be made against homosexuality, since they are both, at their core, choices about consentual sex with another adult.

Remember that Stevens actually said that homosexuals have a constitutional right to not have the state 'demean' their 'existence'.

The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

Who are you to judge "two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to" say, the swinger, or the prostitute's lifestyle?

Wait until she shows up in your state and explains that the constitution gave her the right to engage in private sex acts as she pleases, just like it gave Mr. Lawrence that same constitutional right.

A few words, and then we'll MoveOn

MoveOn.org Vote results

I have to make a couple of points following the Dean victory.

1. I won! I won!

er..

My horse won!!

I say, 'my horse' because, in this case, I'm a betting man, and in this race, I'm betting that the crippled horse will lose when he gets around to the Kentucky Derby, even if he won the little primary that could.

A sampling of some of the emails I have received since voting encourage me to help my candidate financially, encourage me by letting me know that those who voted will stand firmly behind whatever Democrat runs against Bush,

and encourage me by letting me know that since, unfortunately, no candidate won 50% of the vote, the MoveOn.org PAC will not be financially backing Mr. Howard Dean.

what?!?

I want this man to get the money!#$!

I mean, I guess I didn't read the fine print when I voted and make myself aware that this outcome was likely, but still... it just seems like a whole lot of bluster to tell the candidate that he is supported by 44% of a very large first of its kind online primary and then not give him anything for it.

Doesn't that sort of sound like poll results? I mean, we talk and talk about polls during primaries, but we know it doesn't really mean anything until VOTING actually starts happening.

Let's be real here. Much as it satisfies me, MoveOn.org has totally shot itself in the foot. By not giving Dean any money with which to put muscle behind the online vote, they are marginalizing their own significance. It seems to me like if I was a Democrat who supported Dean like some do I would be feeling robbed - seeing as so many hang on to his impressive Internet-based fundraising ability.

Even if not, the beauty of the situation is in the details:

Moveon.org reports that 139,360 voted for Dean. Considering that meetup is only 40k, that's an amazing number. Now, what if, instead of just voting for Dean, each of those 139,360 gave $25 to the campaign. Since that is less than $250, it will be matched and the effective contribution would be $50 each -- that's almost $7 million. When Howard Dean says that we have the power, he ain't kidding. We each give 25 dollars a quarter and this primary is over. Money follows money -- the other campaigns would be starved.

I LOVE this. I know of at least two people out of those 139,360 that voted FOR George W. Bush by placing a dot next to Dean's name. Yes, Bush will almost certainly win anyway, but it would be that much sweeter to have him trounce someone like Dean.

I am simply pointing out that these Internet Dean-junkies totally overestimate the amount of support for Dean and will be shocked when the numbers come in. It wouldn't be totally outrageous to go ahead and give this man the money to win the primary, because his appeal to the broader public will collapse like Frosty introduced to summer.

Ok, I think I'm done on the Dean thing for a while... it's just so like... well, think about the Iraq war. Bush's opponents were SO SURE we were going to be 'bogged down' in a 'quagmire' and have 'another vietnam' on our hands with 'tens of thousands' of bodybags coming home. They were SO SURE, folks. Don't forget it.

But after the election war they saw the truth about the Iraqi army, and the truth about America's awesome military and then they conveniently 'remembered' that 'everyone knew' it was going to be an absolute cakewalk because no one ever really thought anything of Dean Saddam anyway....

I mean... everyone knew it all along... they just weren't coming right out and saying it...

y'know..

Condee Rice

Israel, Palestinians Agree Deal Before Rice Visit (washingtonpost.com)

As a red-blooded capitalist I LOVE the Blogthis! tool in my new Google Toolbar Beta. I had to try it out on the nearest news story I ran into.

Yes. I know Blogthis! has been around. But has it been in the Google Beta toolbar? Heck no. (I understand that this makes no sense but... well, I had to Blogthis! something eventually.

In any case, here's the deal.

Condee is going to be president if the Israel/Palestinian thing gets settled or appears to be settled while Bush is in office. That simple.

It won't get settled, of course.

But if it did. And she is involved.

Oh. man.

I am drooling just thinking about Condee kicking Hillary's #$% in '08.

Anyway, even if it doesn't, Condee's our man, I think. That's the spin, that's in the water, in the air, whatever. Conservatives like her because she don't take nobody's $@%# and cheesy Republicans like her because she is still politician through and through. (Watch her on the Sunday shows and you'll think she invented the political hedge.) No, those things aren't contradictory. One is for the fight in the inner-sanctum. The other is for public consumption.

After Hillary, the women (and men) of this country are going to fall all over themselves to vote for a more-than-competent, brilliant, headstrong female politician who doesn't have to play the ignorant victim to curry sympathy votes (and when I say 'votes' I mean poll responses that she is hoping will miraculously translate into election results outside of New York.)

I think Condee will turn out to be a lot like Bush Jr. Conservative overall, but she'll pick her battles. When she does so, it'll just make us die-hards cringe as we hope for the conservative revolution to culminate in a through-and-through principled conservative president.

Clinton loves paying taxes talking about being rich

Rush has made this comment a number of times over the last couple of months, and, frankly, I was somewhat dismissive. I thought that Rush did, on that point, tend to find somewhat obscure references that indicated the Clintons' wealth, but could pretty easily be spun another way. But this one just can't be ignored. Clinton really loves trying to convey as often as possible just how economically advantaged he is:

"I must be the only person in America that every time -- I pay the maximum tax rates -- every time I sign that tax form, I smile. I thank God I live in a country that gave me a chance to make the money I do," Clinton said.

What is his deal??

You would think Ken Starr would have indicted them at least once just for being so arrogant.

Eminem's balcony scene-stealer

Now, this is the sort of thing that causes careless politicians to suffer.

Eminem performs another brilliant little act of self-promotion by mimicking Michael Jackson's, "I might be utterly nuts but my baby goes with me.." stunt on a hotel balcony. There are quite a few people out there who idolize eminem, which is, well, let's say, 'inappropriate'. Yet, they do.

There is an entirely different group of people that does not idolize Eminem, but respects him in sort of the way that they respected The Fresh Prince of Bel Air when he suddenly became a legitimate hollywood force in spite of being, well.. The Fresh Prince.

Eminem has garnered increasing respect for trying to become a responsible citizen, with stories cropping up about early bedtimes and skipping parties that would infringe on his work ethic.

So it is these people who will look at a story like this and see a little line like:

The rapper's latest stunt adds to a catalogue of incidents that have secured his status as one of the most controversial figures in pop music today, leading George W Bush to label him "the most dangerous threat to American children since polio".

And when the ordinary run-of-the-mill American looks at that line, who looks a little out of touch/controversial/kooky? A rapper playing fun at the biggest kook of all, or a politician comparing that rapper to a disease that actually kills human beings by the millions if not constantly kept in check?

Let's be realistic. With lines like these, when people start claiming that Bush's tax cuts are destroying America, it'll hurt just a little to say they're exaggerating.

What happened to reasoned thinking??

Headline: A Mathematician Crunches the Supreme Court's Numbers

No, I am not a theoretical mathematician. I am a political junkie and legal hobbyist. However, the author of this article appears to be an intelligent theoretical mathematician and a lousy political and legal student.

Hence:

Nine independent thinkers who focus solely on the merits of cases might be expected to vote in all possible combinations over a long enough period. Dr. Sirovich's analyses indicate that the Supreme Court voting falls a long way from that pattern.

Now, assuming, (which I think is entirely fair from the context of this statement) that the preceding circumstances are being presented as preferable to other possibilities, the crux of this article is just plain silly.

The whole idea of constitutional judges is that they be dependent upon a host of variables - not necessarily ("Oh.. say can you see....?")"IN-DE-PEN-DENT"(rush of joy at the very mention...).

Judges that even attempt to act faithfully to the constitution are utterly dependent on the opinions of those who have sat before them, those who wrote constitutional law, those who authored the constitution itself, and then those who debated its ratification, the decisions that have come down before, and so on.

The ideal set of nine judges is one that agrees on every single case 100% of the time based on law that is fairly clear and retained only when it is consistent with the constitution. Yes, law has been muddled and misinterpreted, and judges, dependent on history, tradition, principle and other factors, trying to make the best of the situation will inevitably end up disagreeing. But that is the problem, not an aspiration!

Judges are to be independent of one particular thing - the zeitgeist - unpredictable and subject to radical change. It is dependability and predictability that should be the norm of proper judges. Granted, we are a long, long way from such a possibility at this point, considering just how bastardized the Constitution has become. Still, since the subject is legal theory the point cannot be lost in the romance of modern mathematical art.

The future's so 'bright' I gotta wear a bull#%@$ detector

Richard Dawkins wants to 'raise consciousness' about atheism by 'co-opting a word with cheerful associations'. The new word to describe these pseudo-intellectuals?

Bright.

Apparently, those of us who believe in God aren't 'bright' enough to recognize the blatant implication that to be 'bright' is to be atheistic. "Heavens no," say the, um, 'brights', "we just casually came up with some common adjective to switch around to a noun that would be used to mean 'atheistic'. But gee whiz, now that you mention it, that term does make it seem like atheists, agnostics, rationalists, secular-humanists, and, everyone but churchgoing folk are the smart ones, doesn't it?"

I'm guessing if pressed, though, 'celeb-atheists' might be willing to go so far as to say that the choice was.. providential.

Brussels: Ban sought on sexual stereotyping

Apparently, Brussels doesn't have to worry about selling beer. But more significantly, Brussels is unfamiliar with the phenomenon known as 'halftime'.

Dean!! Dean!! Dean!! etc!! etc!!

I have done my patriotic (read: Republican) duty! I have voted for Howard Dean in the MoveOn.org primary!! Three cheers for George W. Bush!! Hip Hip Hooray!! etc.

Well, assuming Howard Dean is announced the victor, I can only say that I hope to be sitting on my back porch eight or ten years from now, drinking a fine beverage, enjoying a fine cigar, and recounting how I aided the quiet demise of the Democrat party for perhaps a generation.

Howard Dean is the perfect illustration of a number of Republican claims. Let us consider:

1. It is the Republican party that is inclusive, not the Democrat party.


Howard Dean is the best example of the visceral pro-choice, pro-government, pro-social-reconstructionist, pro-high taxes, pro-class warfare, etc., and mainstream Democrats are shocked that he is doing so well. The reason is a reinforcement of Republican assertions: the Democrat party is itself extremely left wing because its power base is, by nature, the money donated by many extremely focused special interests. In spite of this, mainstream Democrats go along for the ride because they feel alienated by the apparent authoritarianism of the Republican party. Republicans are funded by the most broadly held beliefs in the party, NOT the most restrictive, such as free-markets and a reduction of government intrusion. Because of this, it is the principal of individual liberty that actually tends to have primacy.


2. It is the Republicans who tend to be willing to compromise, NOT the Democrats.


As the most left-wing of the candidates, he is supported by phrases like this: the only candidate running on Democratic values and principles. Sure, if 'Democratic' values and principles are ALL of those things that he stands for without compromise. But I think it is more fair to say that he stands for some principles that are particularly 'Democratic' while other candidates support other or even the same principles to varying degrees. "No, no," says the activist, he's the ONLY one.


3. The Democrat party is not centrally interested in protecting this country.


At this point, this almost goes without saying. But let's put it this way. It is those who are most active in the Democrat political machine that dictate the early leaders of states' (and now online) primaries. Dean has had a surprising lead from almost the get go. What made him stand apart from the crowd from the beginning? He never waffled once in absolute opposition to the war with Iraq, and has certainly gone further in suggestions that Bush has misled the country or lied. America disagrees, by and large. If the Democrat activists were representative of the country, they too would disagree - yet they embrace Dean.


4. The Democrat party structure is not concerned with the opinion of the people, as its leadership claims.


Republicans do not generally pretend to this. Republicans generally insist that they are acting on longstanding principle, which is more often than not more important than the ever-shifting sands of public opinion. However, liberals champion their desire to 'stand with the common man' and 'represent the people' and so on. Yet when POLL AFTER POLL AFTER POLL demonstrates that America believes George W. Bush is and has been honest with them, fought a war that needed to be fought, and has their support for his domestic agenda, and their faith in his ability to encourage economic recovery, the response from party activists is to support the most anti-W candidate possible. Dean regularly ridicules the expressed opinion of the people by suggesting that we are in dire jeopardy because of George W. Bush, when polls show just the opposite belief. Polls demonstrate that America believes we are SAFER, precisely because of George W. Bush.

So yes, I supported the further distancing of the Democrat party from the people they claim to represent.

And one more thing, some would respond with anger that I have manipulated the system. This, of course, only illustrates the absurdity of another Democrat position. It is liberals who have been fighting again and again for open primaries, but claiming that it certainly wouldn't become a tool to manipulate the outcome in the enemy camp. We are the enemy - politically - and we believe in pre-emptive strikes, let me tell you.

Scalia and I think alike

Reading further I find Scalia makes essentially the point that I have made, which is that the court now becomes referee instead of handing down a clear decision.

Unlike a clear constitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are impermissible, or even a clear anticonstitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are OK, today's Grutter-Gratz split double header seems perversely designed to prolong the controversy and the litigation.

Follow the link, and you find that he even goes further to suggest numerous iterative arguments that one may infer from these contradictory decisions.

Silly decisions on race

The Supreme Court has, today, made itself not a court that hands down decisions, but a referee. What caused such an illogical pair of decisions to come about? Ms. O'Connor, who likes the phrase 'swing vote' more than she likes the law.

CNN's story, linked here, is basically useless. I link it because this is the tripe that people will be reading - thinking that they are educating themselves on the subject, AND for this quote:

"This is a wonderful, wonderful day -- a victory for all of higher education, because what it means at its core is that affirmative action may still be used and the court's given us a road map to get there," said University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman. "So we're very, very excited and very pleased."

The court also "gave us a road map for changing our undergraduate system," she added. "The central principle is that affirmative action may be used -- and that's what we were fighting for."

Now, of course, the most significant part of that quote is factual. The Supreme Court has again validated affirmative action, without admitting so.

You see, the law supposedly only permits racial preferences for the purpose of achieving a 'compelling interest' to the party that is being discriminatory (in this case the university). A university can't just claim that it wants so many Blacks, Hispanics, or Native-Americans for its own sake. To do so would be illegal because it is discriminatory based on race - whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not.

To get around that, the university came up with a convoluted explanation for its particular 'compelling interest':

obtaining 'the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.' They contend that a "critical mass" of underrepresented minorities is necessary to further that interest. Respondents and school administrators explain generally that "critical mass" means a sufficient number of underrepresented minority students to achieve several objectives: To ensure that these minority students do not feel isolated or like spokespersons for their race; to provide adequate opportunities for the type of interaction upon which the educational benefits of diversity depend; and to challenge all students to think critically and reexamine stereotypes. (This is quoted from Chief Justice Rehnquist.)

Well, of course, this is simply not logical, because, as Rehnquist further points out:

In practice, the Law School's program bears little or no relation to its asserted goal of achieving "critical mass." Respondents explain that the Law School seeks to accumulate a "critical mass" of each underrepresented minority group. ("The Law School's ... current policy ... provide[s] a special commitment to enrolling a 'critical mass' of 'Hispanics' "). But the record demonstrates that the Law School's admissions practices with respect to these groups differ dramatically and cannot be defended under any consistent use of the term "critical mass."

From 1995 through 2000, the Law School admitted between 1,130 and 1,310 students. Of those, between 13 and 19 were Native American, between 91 and 108 were African-Americans, and between 47 and 56 were Hispanic. If the Law School is admitting between 91 and 108 African-Americans in order to achieve "critical mass," thereby preventing African-American students from feeling "isolated or like spokespersons for their race," one would think that a number of the same order of magnitude would be necessary to accomplish the same purpose for Hispanics and Native Americans. Similarly, even if all of the Native American applicants admitted in a given year matriculate, which the record demonstrates is not at all the case,* how can this possibly constitute a "critical mass" of Native Americans in a class of over 350 students? In order for this pattern of admission to be consistent with the Law School's explanation of "critical mass," one would have to believe that the objectives of "critical mass" offered by respondents are achieved with only half the number of Hispanics and one-sixth the number of Native Americans as compared to African-Americans. But respondents offer no race-specific reasons for such disparities. Instead, they simply emphasize the importance of achieving "critical mass," without any explanation of why that concept is applied differently among the three underrepresented minority groups.

So, very simply, the excuse that the university gave (achieving 'critical mass') isn't even being done in the school AT ALL. If it were, they would seek to have as much of one underrepresented race as any other, because 'critical mass' has nothing to do with the national representation of that race. It only has to do with the size of the student body compared to the size of that racial group.

Seeing this logically, the only explanation for the inconsistency of the university is that they are employing very standard RACIAL QUOTAS.

According to the law RACIAL QUOTAS are NOT ok. It is a truly 'compelling interest' that SUPERCEDES that law, and it is that alone that the Supreme Court had agreed to adjudicate. Because they have again abrogated their duty, they have made themselves a referee who will have to decide just how much of a racial preference is ok and how much is not.

These are the things you will not see in any of the mainstream media, because most people just don't want to have to think about the nuts and bolts of the law, even though the want to have opinions about it.

Here are the links to the Gratz decision and the Grutter decision.

It's not the device. It's the driver

Today we have a shocking report that hands-free devices are no more safe than handheld cell phones. Of course, this is only shocking if you have bought into the fearmongering, reactionary stories about the danger of cell phones in the first place. As I have already explained, some time ago, cell phones are, first of all, not even the most significant threat in the car. But this is not emphasized when stories are written about the dangers of cell phones.

Why?

Because it is NOT cell phones that are the danger. It is not a stereo. It is not an accident along the roadside. The dangers on the roads are DRIVERS. Drivers either allow themselves to become distracted by myriad variables on the roads or in their cars, or they DO NOT. When they do, they become dangerous.

This, again, is why my point is vindicated as usual. Although politicians will reference the title of the article linked above:

Hands-Free Phone Not Safer for Drivers-Sweden Study

thinking, reasoning people will reference the much more important line tucked near the end:

hands-free technology may not reduce the risk of accidents because a driver's attention, rather than problems with physically handling a cell phone, is a more important factor in safe driving

It is a driver's accidents that should be cited and punished, not whether they have stereos, or drive past fender-benders, or utilize cell phones during their commutes.

Why even conservatives get duped sometimes

All of Christianity and, by extension, conservativism, is based on a single principle: proactive LOVE. It is from this foundation that everything flows. It is a simple error to flip this principle to its opposite, which is dependency on people.

This is why sometimes even conservatives get duped. They believe that it is the same thing to want to help others as it is to set up programs (esp. government programs) that systematically help others. The technical term for this is: "bass-ackwards".

Whenever a systematic form of assistance is created, without the material involvement of he or she who benefits (i.e. without him or her having to explain the needs and circumstance to the provider of assistance) then that person stops feeling accountable to that person, or anyone else for their need. Now, at this point, you say to me, "But Shawn, you heartless bastard, who are you to hold someone accountable for the fact that they sometimes need help? You need help sometimes. Should we turn you over and lash you with a cat-o-nine-tails just because you didn't do so well one year or something?" That is, of course, not at all my perspective, so please hear me out.

Instead of thinking from that perspective that it is mean to hold someone accountable for their poverty, reverse the perspective to that with which I began. We should all be proactively LOVING. So then the question becomes this: If it is our job to be proactively loving (e.g. giving money to those in need, shelter to those in need, food to those in need, clothing, and even time to those in need) how can you actively be providing those things for others, if you cannot provide them for yourself, and must, in fact depend on others. And so, it is simply the higher aspiration to desire self-sufficiency as a means of helping others.

Unfortunately, for most people, including myself, of course, there is a natural tendency to want to be comfortable, even complacent. As I pointed out: when systematic welfare-type programs are created to help the needy, they then have little accountability to those helping them (not the social worker - the taxpayer). Because of this, they simply have less incentive to take that material assistance and then work very very hard to become self-sufficient to the point of being able turn around and actually help others who find themselves in need.

So yes, we want to be compassionate. But we do not define compassion the same way as it has been defined for the last 60 or so years. We define it as it has been defined for the last 1000 or so years. Compassion is helping people in whatever way possible to truly live more fulfilled and complete lives - it is NOT to just give people the "stuff" they want or need at a particular moment.

So, you say, "Ok, Shawn, I get it, you're not an entirely evil demon and I sortof take back the bastard comment. However, if the government doesn't provide for these people, no one will."

Ok, that's tomorrow. But I'll deal with that, seriously. And no, I don't have to think about it and figure out something that sounds good because, "gee I hadn't considered that..."

hehe.