Commentary

Pat Tillman's not the only one

2007-08-06T23:58:00.000-07:00

As I have read more about Pat Tillman's case and how the Pentagon -- and probably the White House, though I have to confess the link hasn't been proven yet -- concocted the cock-and-bull story of his being killed in a firefight with Taliban militants and covered up the fact that he had been killed by Americans for weeks, including cruelly misleading his family. The only consolation following last week's desultory hearings is that the White House is at least going to allow congressional investigators to interview former White House counselor Dan Bartlett, former press secretary Scott McClellan and former speechwriter Michale Gerson, though in private and without a transcript. Not that I expect an abundance of candor.

I was reminded by a blog called griperblade, however, that Pat Tillman is not the only military person killed under sad circumstances whose killers will probably never be brought to justice; indeed, we probably know something about his circumstances only because he was famous before he went in.

Griperblade tells the story of LaVena Johnson, who on July 19, 2005 "was found dead in her tent, a single bullet wound to her left temple (she was right-handed). Her nose was broken. One of her lips was so battered that a mortician had to reconstruct it. Two of her front teeth were knocked loose. Her shoulder or elbow was dislocated. A trail of blood led from her tent to outside."

Ruled a murder? No, a self-inflicted wound, and then later, when her family pressed the issue, a suicide. Her killer will probably never be found. The blog outlines four other suspicious deaths. There may be dozens.

Our blogger, goes beyond reporting the outrages to wonder how such things can happen, and concludes. "The best place in the world to get away with murder is on a battlefield," and he almost marvels that it doesn't happen more often. "We take them from home and drop them down in a foreign culture. We tell them that what is a crime at home is their job here, that doing evil is good, that hate overrides love. Anyone who comes out of that with their head still screwed on straight is admirable, at the very least. Sending people from home to bass-ackward moral reasoning-land and back home again would be damned confusing. Actions that make you a hero on the battlefield make you a criminal in Boise or Cedar Rapids or Los Angeles. It's hard to imagine that people in war aren't all a little mad for a little while."

Lost Weekend

2007-06-18T22:14:00.000-07:00

Not that it was a lost weekend personally. I got to visit with in-laws, see my youngest son and my nephew, took care of numerous errands, did a lot of clean-up work around the house, including trimming some of those overgrown oleanders, and got a matching shirt and baseball cap that say "SuperDad." And an improved semi-automatic pool-cleaning device is coming this week. However, I didn't do any blogging. Let's see if we can make up for lost time.

War czar has grim forecast

2007-06-11T23:51:00.000-07:00

I don't know whether to be amazed and encouraged or deeply depressed. Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, appointed "war czar" by President Bush, told senators at a confirmation hearing last Thursday that the situation in Iraq is pretty grim right now, mainly because the Iraqi "government" is mostly non-functional -- and that "I have reservations about just how much leverage we can apply on a system that is not very capable right now."

If the Iraqi government doesn't get its act together, Lute says, "we're not likely to see much difference in the security situation" a year from now.

Is it a hopeful sign that the Bush administration is willing to appoint an apparent realist, is Lute trying to lower expectations now so better-than-expected progress can be cited later? I don't know.

I do believe that if the war is still dragging on a year from now the Republicans might as well fold up their tents.

Iraqis prefer dependency?

2006-12-07T16:55:00.000-08:00

There's an interesting aspect to the Iraq Study Group report. Part of the report calls for a carrot-and-stick approach to the Iraqi "government." Sepcifically, while Recommendation 20 calls for continuing and even increasing U.S. aid "[i]f the Iraqi government demonstrates political will and makes substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security and governance,".

But Recommendation 21 states: "If the Iraqi government does not maske substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government."

This apparently has certain Iraqi politicians in a tizzy. "They have no right to do this. This is unfair," said Bassim Ridha, billed as a top advisor to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The U.S. should support the Baghdad government "all the way."

This suggests a fairly universal pattern. If you put people on welfare, they come to see it as something to which they are entitled, and they complain if there is even a mild threat that it might be cut off at some vague time in the future. To me this sounds as if people in the Iraqi government are becoming dependent on the U.S. and are liking that dependency. To me that's an argument to withdraw all the sooner, before those bonds of dependency get even thicker.

Water on Mars?

2006-12-07T16:51:00.000-08:00

I'm strangely fascinated and pleased to know that scientists now think there may be flowing water on Mars -- at least from time to time. Comparing photos taken by the Mars Surveyor in 1999 and 2001 and later in 2004 and 2005, they found a new gully, with a paler look that might be frost or minerals from flowing water. They don't know how the water got there; there may be pools beneath the surface that break through from time to time. They think it would have taken maybe five to 10 swimming-pools-worth of water (an interesting way for scientists to measure) to create the gullies.

Using similar before-and-after photos, scientists also figure Mars gets hit by about a dozen meteorites a year that are big enough to create craters. That could be dangerous for future astronauts, if any.

You and I could probably live without knowing this, and it might not have much practical impact -- though they said future astronauts might be able to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen, and use the oxygen for breathing and the hydrogen for rocket fuel. This doesn't seem likely to me.

No, it's just one more interesting fact for the restless minds of human beings to ponder and try to understand -- which is how we become more fully human.

A giant of freedom

2006-11-17T23:20:00.000-08:00

Sorry t0 have been away, but there were technical problems with the site -- something about switching to a beta version -- far beyond my knowledge, and apparently something I couldn't have fixed anyway.

On Thursday a tiny man who was one of the giants of economics and of the libertarian enterprise died. The biographies say Milton Friedman, who was 94, was 5'3". I doubt he was that tall, although he may have become shorter with age. I can hardly claim to have been a close personal friend, but I did have the privilege of meeting him a few times and having the opportunity to talk with him one-on-one. And he was kind enough to write a blurb for my book, "Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana,"

Here's a link to the editorial I wrote for the Register. I also did several items for the Register's blog, Orange Punch.

He is one of the few people I really wanted to meet, in that he was such an influence on me through his writing, and I'm grateful I had the opportunity. Years ago, when I was at UCLA, Friederich Hayek was a visiting professor, and I knew at the time, having read and been persuaded by "The Road to Serfdom," that he was something special. But I didn't have the opportunity to take a class from him -- I think he only taught a graduate seminar or something -- and I thought it would bepresumptuopus just to walk into his office and say "I read your book, and I'd just like to tell you how much I admired it," or something like that. I have regretted that shyness ever since.

My advice: If you have an opportunity to meet somebody you admire, jump on it! My experience since then has been that even quite famous people -- I tend to admire scholars and writers -- are flattered and maybe even pleasantly surprised that somebody liked what they did and seemed to understand it.

I met Milton at conferences and seminars, put on by the Pacific Research Institute and the Hoover Institution over the years. Despite his prominence -- he had already won the Nobel perhaps 10 years before the first meeting -- he was unfailingly gracious and kind. When I talked to him he looked at me squarely, with that little twinkle in his eye, and treated me as if I were the only person in the world who mattered to him at that moment. He listened to questions carefully and answered them in a way that made it clear that he had really understood them. He must have been a marvelous teacher.

Milton's (he invited that kind of familiarity) discipline was economics but his passion was freedom. He may have done more to advance it than anybody in the 20th century.

Compare Correa's board vote with "the Bulldozer" Daucher's stance

2006-03-01T10:45:00.000-08:00

The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously this week to approve "a ballot measure for the June primary that would establish an ordinance prohibiting county government from taking a person's property for transfer to a private business," according to the Register report.

Note that Supervisor Lou Correa was one of the unanimous people voting for this. Note also that his opponent in the Democratic primary for the 34th District senate race, Tom Umberg, voted in the Assembly -- after taking much heat from his caucus -- for Tom McClintock's bill to protect private property from cities and developers who want to take what isn't rightly theirs.

Notice also that the likely Republican candidate, Lynn Daucher, opposed any such reform in the Assembly.

I just saw a hit piece by Young Americans for Freedom on Supervisor Jim Silva about his eminent-domain votes on the Huntington Beach City Council, as he enters the GOP Assembly primary against Mike McGill, the Cypress councilman who still defends his vote to condemn a church and turn it into a Coscto.

Eminent domain is a big issue and will be a big issue in several legislative races. The Democrats should be able to make hay over Daucher's bulldoze-the-neighborhood-to-benefit-rich-developers approach.

I hope YAF does a similar mailer for the 34th Senate race, even if it benefits Umberg or Correa.

More on rampant police misbehavior

2006-03-01T08:48:00.000-08:00

An article on police abuse from Aaron Ginn on www.lewrockwell.com is a must read. Here are excerpts:

"I have a cousin who works for the Mesa, Arizona Police Department. In October of 2002, Dan Lovelace, an officer who works for the Chandler, Arizona Police Department gunned down a woman who attempted to pass a fake prescription at a local Walgreens. Lovelace claimed the woman attempted to run him down as she sped away from the scene, and he shot her in self-defense. Forensic and eyewitness evidence contradicted his testimony. Despite this, Lovelace was acquitted of all charges against him.

"At the time, I asked my cousin what he thought of the verdict. He simply stated that he would never question a fellow officer in the line of duty. "And besides, she was a felon. A drughead," he exclaimed. In his view, an officer should never be questioned. His (or her) authority is absolute out in the field. From what I've been able to discern, this attitude is systemic in police officers. The force is a fraternity. They stick together and watch each others' backs.

"I recalled this exchange in light of an undercover investigation conducted by a Miami local news crew that aired last month in which an investigator attempted to perform a seemingly simple task: to obtain a form to file a complaint against a police officer. The investigator went to 38 separate departments in South Florida in an attempt to obtain such a form. He walked out of 35 of them empty-handed. But the worst part of the story was the reactions he received from several officers when he asked for the form. Some of the reactions included asking for his personal information in a threatening manner, threatened citations, lewd comments about his wife, asking if he was on medications, etc. One officer went so far as to chase the man out of the office and down the street, at one point putting his hand on his gun in a threatening manner.

Slippery slope of torture

2006-02-28T17:41:00.000-08:00

Anthony Lagouranis, who served in the U.S. Army from 2001 to July 2005 has a remarkably honest op-ed in today's New York Times. Lagouranis served as an interrogator in Iraq for a year in 2004. He notes that his supervisors told him he could use dogs to intimidate detainees, but he finally decided not to because "I couldn't handle being so routinely brutal."

Lagouranis places a good deal of the responsibility for abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere on confusing orders from higher up, in that "a confusing set of verbal and written orders had supplanted the Geneva Convention."

Money graph: "Those who serve in the prisons of Iraq deserve to know clearly the difference between legal and illegal orders. Soldiers on the ground need a commander in chief who does not seek strained legalisms that 'permit' the use of torture ... I know, from personal experience, that any leeway given will be used to maximum effect against detainees. No slope is more slippery, I learned in Iraq, than the one that leads to torture."

Fat study: how conclusive?

2006-02-28T17:12:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago most newspapers and other media trumpeted a study that purported to conclude that reducing fat intake did not reduce the risk of heart disease or cancer in older women. A number of people wrote opinion pieces off the study. Most, like me, seemed pleased that the Fat Nannies had been debunked.

Recently, however, I have come (reluctantly) to the conclusion that this study was overhyped. For starters, it was done only on women over 50, whereas most low-fat advocates argue that cutting fat intake should begin earlier and take place over a longer period than the eight years that this study covered to have definitive health benefits. It also didn't distinguish between saturated and unsaturated fat.

As this article points out, the study attempted to get women to cut their fat intake to 20 percent of total calories. Most low-fat gurus advocate cutting fat intake to 10 to 15 percent of total calories, and supervised people on the Pritikin diet, for example, manage to acheive that. Few of the women in this study managed to stick to the 20 percent. As the study progressed the average fat intake of the women rose to 24 percent and in some it was as high as 29 percent. That's not all that different from "normal" fat intake, and so, perhaps, not really a good test of rigorous low-fat dieting.

Even here, however (as many stories didn't note) the women experienced a lowering of LDL cholesterol (though HDL wasn't significantly different from the control group), which is a risk factor for athersclerosis and cardiovascular problems. And those who managed to stick to the 24 percent diet saw a 9 percent drop in breast cancer, while those who stuck to the 20 percent saw a 15 percent reduction. That's hardly insignificant, and suggests that a more rigorous low-fat diet might show even better results.

Our "obesity epidemic is a myth" columnist Paul Campos noted that the fact that hardly any of those tested stuck to the 20 percent target suggests that in modern America keeping fat intake at that level might be an unrealistic expectation. That's a possibly valid criticism of the low-fat nannies, but in fact some people do manage.

As the author suggests, "we might consider that no research study is conclusive, that there will always be another study, and most media reports have a bit of hype built into their headlines."

Bright idea?

2006-02-28T09:27:00.000-08:00

I have before me a news release from the United Nations Foundation, which breathlessly announces that several Nobel Peace Prize laureates have signed on to a letter calling for a new U.N. Human Rights Council to replace the existing U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

Head-slap moment! Why didn't I think of that? Set up a new bureaucracy under the auspices of the United Nations and human rights will substantially safer, perhaps instantly! Of course!

None of these worthies mentions, whether or not they have given the topic a moment's thought, the possibility that limiting the power and scope of governments everywhere might do a little something to reduce the abuse of human rights. In fact, all of them -- Jimmy Carter was a prime mover -- seem to be fans of every proposal they have heard to expand the power and scope of government. None seems to descry anything resembling a contradiction.

The United States, through John Bolton, is opposing this idea, but not because it's misguided in that it doesn't recognize the importance of limited government. Our U.N. people claim there aren't sufficient mechanisms to make sure governments known as significant abusers of human rights won't get on the council, as they have the current commission.

Hillary attraction?

2006-02-28T09:09:00.000-08:00

I have no idea what this might mean for practical politics, and maybe I don't want to know. But as this Unconventional Wisdom column from the Washington Post explains briefly, Hillary Clinton may turn out to be more attractive as a candidate than some Republicans had hoped. Or maybe this has no real-world significance at all.

What some psychologists at Stanford did was to expose test subjects to a mythical candidate for Senate whose face was a morph of two not-well-known-outside-their-districts congressthings morphed with better-known national figures, specifically John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Rudolph Giuliani. None of the test subjects figured out that the "candidate's" face was a morph with a better-known national figure, and if you check the photos accompanying the story you won't be surprised at that.

Morphing the face 20 percent or 40 percent with Bayh, Hutchinson or Giuliani did nothing to change the candidate's perceived attractiveness to potential voters. Morphing the face with John McCain made them less attractive. But morphing the face with Hillary made them more appealing, and a 40 percent morph made them more appealing than a 20 percent morph.

I have no idea what practical significance this might have, but I thought it was interesting.

Ackerman gets his way, but to what end?

2006-02-27T22:23:00.000-08:00

I don't begrudge Van Tran for pulling out of the senate race. He has a safe Assembly seat and a strong career ahead of him. The race has always been risky, but of course many of us feel a certain disappointment. I agree with Tran that he would have made mincemeat of Lynn Daucher in the primary but would have had a tough time in the general election. And the party leadership, namely Dick Ackerman, has been lining up cash for Daucher and dissuading support for Tran.

Tran would make a good senator, whereas his GOP opponent Lynn Daucher will, if she wins, be the most liberal Republican in that body. She is militantly pro-choice, was against the car tax repeal, sided with Democrats on some key budget matters, is a strong supporter of using eminent domain on behalf of developers, is a member of the anti-property-rights Smart Growth caucus, supporter of left-wing gay-rights causes, and on and on.

If Daucher is the best Republicans can do, why bother? The answer is: they shouldn't bother.

Supervisor Lou Correa is arguably the more conservative candidate. How often do we find a modern Democrat outflanking a Republican to the right these days? Plus, Lou is a very nice and decent fellow who does not go out of his way to anger conservatives. Daucher, by contrast, seems to enjoy riling conservatives and rubbing her left-wing views in their face. Why else would she have been on the confirmed list recently to attend a cocktail party celebration of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, which featured Kate Michelman of the National Abortion Rights Action League as host?

Conservatives can support Correa without any guilt, notwithstanding the efforts of Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman to get Daucher nominated. Why has Ackerman, a conservative, been Daucher's champion? Why has he pulled out all the stops to keep Tran out of the race, even going so far as to malign his reputation to everyone who will listen?

Defenders of Ackerman say that his word is his bond and he promised Daucher to support her when there was no other viable candidate. That is fair, and Ackerman does have an honorable reputation. But last year, reports circulated that Ackerman had tried to push Daucher to run for the supervisor's seat now held by Chris Norby, a fine conservative/libertarian office-holder. I don't know what explains a good, decent conservative pulling out all the stops to get a very liberal Assembly member -- actually, someone hostile to conservatives and conservative ideas -- elected to another seat.

Politics is strange indeed.

Well, now Sen. Ackerman will get his way and Daucher will get her way. Fortunately, the voters still have a say. Many will come to the same conclusion that I have come to: Democrat Lou Correa, an opponent of eminent domain abuse and someone with close connections to the district, would be a far better choice ... not just for liberals, but for conservatives also. It's a tougher call with Correa's opponent, Tom Umberg, but still it's better to let the Dems have the seat and come back and fight another day rather than be stuck with a liberal until term limits force her out.

Republicans now have a Republican governor who has morphed into a Democrat, and Republican leaders are pushing them to accept a Senate candidate who is basically a Democrat. At the national level, Republicans are acting like Democrats in terms of budget matters. There are no principles left ... only a pursuit of power. It's time for conservatives to regroup and reconsider their strategy. Clearly, they keep getting rolled by depending on Republican leaders to advance their causes.

Van stands down

2006-02-27T22:17:00.000-08:00

I just talked to Assemblyman Van Tran, who confirmed to me that he is not going to run for the 34th District Senate race. Tran, favored by conservatives against the Republican In Name Only Lynn Daucher, said he isn't concerned about beating the liberal Daucher, but is concerned about raising enough money to win the general election fight. "It's not about Lynn, but about the general," he said. Clearly, Supervisor Lou Correa, favored on the Democrat side, is a formidable opponent. More on this in a few minutes.

Poochigian to Lockyer: Investigate Reiner

2006-02-27T16:27:00.000-08:00

Sen. Chuck Poochigian, the Fresno Republican who is running for attorney general, and who will likely face Jerry Brown in the general election, wrote the following letter to Attorney General Bill Lockyer calling for an investigation into Rob Reiner and the abuse of government funds to, in essence, run a TV campaign that shores up support for Reiner's preschool initiative. Poochigian is completely right. Doubtful the partisan Lockyer will do the right thing, but at least the letter highlights the situation.

Dear Attorney General Lockyer:

I am writing to request that a formal investigation be opened regarding the use of taxpayer funds for campaign ads intended to influence votes for Proposition 82.

From December 2005 to January 2006, First 5 California Children and Families Commission (First 5), spent $23 million in taxpayer funds on a "Preschool for All" television ad campaign. Contemporaneously, committee chairman Rob Reiner was gathering signatures for a ballot initiative also titled "Preschool for All." It has been reported that the day the requisite number of signatures was gathered, the television ads ceased.

The sequence of events suggests coordination between First 5's efforts to promote preschool via the "Preschool for All" television ad campaign and the effort to collect signatures for his initiative: "Preschool for All," or Proposition 82. As you know, serious concerns have been raised about the actions taken and the monies spent. The matter has been the subject of considerable media attention as well.

Under Section 8314 of the California Government Code:

a) It is unlawful for any elected or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.

c)1) Any person who intentionally or negligently violates this section is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day on which a violation occurs, plus three times the value of the unlawful use of public resources.

The expenditure of $23 million in public funds is in question. In the event that suspected improprieties prove to be in violation of Section 8314 or other state law, as much as $69 million dollars (treble damages) may be recoverable.

First 5's ad campaigns have spent over $230 million of the taxpayers' money. Since its inception, $170 million of taxpayer funds went to GMMB, a public relations firm endorsed in its 2004 bidding package by Mr. Reiner. GMMB was apparently retained to manage Mr. Reiner's "Preschool for All" (Proposition 82) campaign. I am also urging your office to investigate to ensure that the proper selection procedures were used by First 5 in retaining consultants.

Again, I am requesting that a formal investigation be made into these matters because your office is best situated to scrutinize the circumstances and ensure the public trust has not been violated. Please feel free to contact my office with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Charles S. Poochigian

McClintock's rousing convention speech

2006-02-27T14:25:00.000-08:00

Some excerpts from the McClintock speech:

Never has the choice been clearer between the two parties in this state.

They offer the rationing of shortages. We propose a renaissance of new public works to restore the abundant water, clean electricity and open roads that we once took for granted.

They have handed control of our schools over to the unions. We propose to restore control of our classrooms to the teachers and control of our schools to the parents through local control and charter schools.

They offer stifling central planning to manage every aspect of our lives, they offer higher and higher taxes and more and more costly regulations. We offer freedom.

And that's what's really at stake in this election -- freedom: The freedom to enjoy the fruit of our own labor -- without endless tax increases to feed the insatiable appetites of union bosses;

The freedom to work as hard as we want and go as far as our abilities and ambition take us -- without an army of bureaucrats who seek to restrain, regulate and stultify every impulse of enterprise;

The freedom to live where we wish -- without central planners who would force our families into dense urban cores and condemn our children to ever spiraling housing prices;

The freedom to be secure in our property -- without local officials seizing our homes and shops for the private profit of their politically well-connected friends;
In short, the freedom to live our lives according to our own best judgment without having to get the permission of the likes of a Phil Angelides or Steve Westly every day.

Let us here resolve to embark upon the greatest political crusade in California's history -- to restore the California of plenty; of opportunity; of abundance; and of freedom, that once was (and with God's help and the people's support) soon will be again.

Let us be forthright in painting our positions in bold colors and engaging every Californian in this campaign.

Let us be tireless in taking our message to every community in our state, especially those who don't consider themselves as Republicans.

Let us have faith that our principles are sound; and that if we are true to them, and true to the people, we will ultimately prevail.

And let us be fortified in the absolute certainty that California is worth fighting for -- no matter how long or hard that struggle might be.

Ladies and gentlemen, look around this hall. A day will come when all that you see will be gone, all the fury and passion of these times will be as quiet as the grave. And on that day, history alone will look back upon our generation to judge our stewardship of this state. And when it does, let it be said that our generation rose to the occasion; that we struggled and sacrificed and ultimately succeeded in restoring to our children that Golden State -- that California of opportunity and plenty -- that our parents once gave to us.

Even liberal Bee gets it about pensions

2006-02-27T14:03:00.000-08:00

Should the bulk of our tax dollars go to pay for the good life of public employees, who can retire in their early 50s with 90 percent to 100 percent of their pay guaranteed for their lives and the lives of their spouse forever ... courtesy of taxpayers? Their health-care benefits are beyond belief.

Even liberals are starting to recognize that some of the other programs they value need dollars, and that the public won't simply accept endless tax increases to pay for union demands. Here's a great editorial from the Sacramento Bee, which has a liberal editorial voice. Hat tip to Jack Dean of www.pensiontsunami.com for calling attention to this article. If you're interested in these issues, be sure to get on Jack's e-mail list.

From the Bee:

A new, real fiscal crisis

Say you were run over by a truck and badly injured 30 years ago. You
have just awakened from a long coma when someone hands you a bill for
$70 billion.

That's a very rough analogy to what's about to happen to the state.
New federal accounting rules require California and every other state
in the nation to add up the costs of providing promised health care
benefits to public employees after they retire and to devise a plan
for how to pay for those benefits. ...

In its new report, "Retiree Health Care: A Growing Cost for
Government," the Legislative Analyst's Office has done its own rough
calculations. The LAO pegs the state's health care liability for
current and retired state workers at somewhere between $40 billion and
$70 billion. That is a huge number. At the upper end, it exceeds the
governor's proposed $68 billion infrastructure package. ...

The state should be looking for ways to reduce its liability,
beginning with reducing retiree health benefits for future hires. It's
incredible, but the state provides a richer health care benefit for
its retirees than it does for its current workers. The state pays 100
percent of health care premiums for retirees and 90 percent for a
retiree's eligible dependents compared to just 80 percent to 85
percent for most current workers and 80 percent for their dependents.
That must change. California can't afford it.

The state is not alone. Most of California's school districts, cities,
counties and special districts have promised some health care benefits
to their retired workers too. Over the next few years, they too must
begin to add up their liability and explain how they intend to pay
those costs. It will require difficult financial adjustments. The
sooner the state and local governments begin to make those
adjustments, the better.

Rust never sleeps, unions never stop enriching themselves at your expense

2006-02-27T13:54:00.000-08:00

No matter how bad the public financial situation gets, greedy unions will continually push for more and more, using their considerable power to shake down legislators to transfer dollars from taxpayers to them. Here's a great OCBlog post about our local ravenous unions.

A chance for Silva to prove himself?

2006-02-27T13:38:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows that Supervisor Jim Silva, who is running for Assembly, has been grumbling about the hard time he has gotten for his pro-union voting record. For instance, this supposed conservative was one of the majority who dramatically increased pensions for county employees, a revolting retroactive pension deal that quickly put the county budget in a bind. He also supported a project labor agreement giving labor unions a monopoly on county work.

Now he has a chance to at least partially redeem himself and prove that his conservatism means something more than words. The Register's Norberto Santana has written an excellent blog about the way the county union chief is muscling the planning department to avoid outsourcing planners, even though the department is in the financial hole.

Here's a part of Santana's post:

"Tomorrow, county supervisors get to see the deal in private. Though by reading the closed session listing CS2 on the supervisors weekly agenda http://cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher/agenda02_28_2006.htm , the public would hardly know what's being talked about. Gotta love that kind of commitment to open government, eh?"

Will Silva stand up for the taxpayer over the union? How about another supposed conservative, Bill Campbell, who led the charge for the county pension spike? Does he still put the union above the taxpayer?

By the way, I am emphasizing Silva because he is running for higher office now, and he is uncomfortable with his liberal pro-union label as he competes in a Republican primary. The other culprit, liberal Supervisor Tom Wilson, never claims to be a conservative and isn't running for anything after his disastrous bid for the Assembly.

Come on, Jim, time for action over words. Why not stand up to the union over this issue? What are the chances?

A real-world voluntary city?

2006-02-27T12:11:00.000-08:00

My book review from Sunday was about "The Voluntary City." League of Cities types might scoff at any idea that diminishes their power, but it's good for Americans to think about limited government and private associations in the world of municipal government. Here's a news story of plans for a private city in Florida, one oriented around Catholic themes. That's a great idea. A free society -- granted, most people these days don't want to be free -- should encourage individuals to create cities around their own concepts.

Here's a story from The Times of London:

"A FORMER Marine who was raised by nuns and made a fortune selling pizza has embarked on a £230m plan to build the first town in America to be run according to strict Catholic principles.

"Abortions, pornography and contraceptives will be banned in the new Florida town of Ave Maria, which has begun to take shape on former vegetable farms 90 miles northwest of Miami.

"Tom Monaghan, the founder of the Domino's Pizza chain, has stirred protests from civil-rights activists by declaring that Ave Maria's pharmacies will not be allowed to sell condoms or birth-control pills. The town's cable television network will carry no X-rated channels."

Nipped in the bud

2006-02-27T11:13:00.000-08:00

I always laugh when I think of Barney Fife, using one of his favorite silly expressions: "I nipped it in the bud." The actor who brilliantly portrayed Fife, Don Knotts, wasn't exactly nipped in the bud when he died at age 81. But it's still sad to lose one of the comic greats. Not too long ago, my wife caught me watching a rerun of some "Andy Griffith Show" episode I certainly have seen at least 30 times. She rolled her eyes, but then sat down and watched. Within a few minutes, we both were laughing heartily at Deputy Fife.

I'll miss Barney, but thank goodness there's no limit on the number of times I can watch the reruns.

Pringle endorses Duvall for Assembly

2006-02-27T11:02:00.000-08:00

Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle's endorsement is more good news for Yorba Linda Councilman and Assembly candidate Mike Duvall, but it's no surprise given the pro-tax, anti-property-rights bent of Duvall's opponent, liberal Marty Simonoff of the Brea City Council. Mayor Pringle, of course, is a pro-property-rights, tax-cutting, regulation-slashing sort of guy, and he is redeveloping Anaheim, with the help of two Democrats and one Republican, in a market way.

Here's the announcement:

Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle Endorses Mike Duvall for Assembly

Mike Duvall, Republican candidate for the 72nd Assembly District, today announced he has been endorsed by Former Assembly Speaker and current Mayor of Anaheim Curt Pringle. The endorsement adds to an impressive coalition of Republican leaders who are supporting Duvall in the race to replace termed-out Assemblywoman Lynn Daucher.

"I’ve worked extensively with Mike and I believe his strong conservative values and commitment to private property rights make him the most qualified candidate in the race," said Mayor Pringle. "We need to send people to Sacramento who oppose the use of eminent domain and believe in the virtues of the free market and Mike is the right guy for the job."

Pringle joins Congressman Ed Royce, Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman, Assemblywoman Mimi Walters, Assemblyman Bob Huff and Orange County Treasurer John Moorlach in supporting Duvall, who is currently the Mayor of Yorba Linda.

"Mayor Pringle is a leading conservative in Orange County and has successfully implemented many great GOP ideas such as deregulation, lower taxes and protecting private property rights in his city," said Duvall. "I look forward to working with Curt to bring positive change to Sacramento to ensure that the rights of private landowners are protected from bureaucrats and smart growth advocates throughout the state."

Muslim rally against terrorism

2006-02-27T09:58:00.000-08:00

Here's a blog post about a Muslim rally in London in response to all the mosque bombings in Iraq. The focus was anti-Zarqawi, anti-bin Laden. Reportedly organized by English Shia Muslims. Peaceful and opposed to terrorism. It's pretty tough to find hopeful signs these days, but this might be one.

Will UCI promote free speech or bow to pressure of PC groups?

2006-02-27T09:52:00.000-08:00

From Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine:

This Tuesday evening at UC Irvine (UCI) there either will or there won't be a student-led discussion about the violence in parts of the Islamic world that flared up over the Danish political cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. Along with the riot-inciting Danish political cartoons the College Republican club sponsoring the event will also show anti-Western and anti-Semitic (really, anti-Jewish, as Arabs are Semites as well) cartoons that routinely appear in Muslim nations. ...

Meanwhile, Marya Bangee, a UCI sophomore and member of the Muslim Student Union, was quoted in the L.A. Times as saying "unless they are living in a bubble, they (the College Republicans) have to know what has happened around the world ... We don't want to limit anyone's freedom of speech, but with freedom comes responsibility." ...

If UCI prevents this event from occurring on campus, what will happen next? Allow me to give you some easy examples of events that might draw the ire of an emboldened Muslim Student Union:

-- A Sudanese refugee and former slave of Muslims speaking on modern-day slavery practiced by many Muslims in Africa

-- A Muslim woman who suffered genital mutilation speaking on that barbaric practice, common in parts of the Islamic world

-- A Muslim woman lawyer speaking on sharia (Islamic) law and how under sharia, a woman is worth half a witness in a court of law (one reason why rape is hard to prove under sharia law)

-- A religious scholar speaking about Islam in any way deemed unacceptable to the Muslim Student Union

The young and earnest members of the Muslim Student Union must realize that in America the College Republicans are free to show political cartoons while the Muslim Student Union members are free not to attend the offending event or to try to persuade the poor infidels of the errors of their ways by peacefully sharing with them why Islam is superior to other beliefs or non-beliefs.

If the event does go forward at UCI, they may spark a resurgence of free speech and discussion on campuses across America.

Madison on property

2006-02-27T09:41:00.000-08:00

Orange County attorney Keith Carlson is the new California Republican Party treasurer. You've got to appreciate an attorney who, in the middle of a discussion about politics over drinks, pulls out his Blackberry and immediately sends along a link to Madison's chapter on property rights from the University of Chicago's "The Papers of James Madison"!

CHAPTER 16|Document 23

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomicaluse of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

Quotable, but what does Bebitch Jeffe have to say?

2006-02-26T16:02:00.000-08:00

Newspaper readers interested in state politics surely are familiar with the name Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a USC political science professor. She always is quoted on state politics. Her quotes rarely seem insightful, and they tend to the left, in my humble estimation. They are predictable and banal. So why is she always quoted? I ran a nexis search and found 13 hits in the past week, with one of those hits an op-ed she penned for a newspaper.

Well, guess who spent the better part of two days IN the press room at the Republican convention? Yep, it was Bebitch Jeffe. This was legit, given that she has a press credential because she does commentary for a TV station. But she was there and easy to reach for a quote. And she is a virtual quote machine. Note that today's Sacramento Bee news story quotes her extensively.

Here's one typical quote: "It can't hurt Arnold in the end to have this right-wing, small segment of the base angry at him."

I didn't see her in the general assembly, where the votes clearly went in the governor's direction ... but the conservatives were no tiny fringe faction, and they did win two votes, one by a slim margin (tabling infrastructure) and the other overwhelmingly (judicial appointments).

I don't mean to pick on any reporter, but how tough would it be to walk 10 feet across the room over to near the refreshment table to talk to this "expert." Come on, there was a convention filled with people from every walk of life, yet Bebitch Jeffe's voice is the one many readers hear because she was, well, easily accessible. No wonder blogs are gaining more attention. At least they don't rely on such tired, overused sources.

No resolution

2006-02-26T15:48:00.000-08:00

The final fight on the convention floor at the general assembly this morning "didn't even amount to a good food fight," in the words of Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman. True enough. The conservative insurgents, namely Stephen Frank and Mike Schroeder, politely used parliamentary procedures to try to a) pass a revised initiative critical of some of the governor's fiscal policies; b) add an amendment to a budget accountability resolution to call for a "pay as you go" bond financing system; and c) send a resolution supporting the governor's infrastructure bond plan back to the initiatives committee, thus tabling it for now. They succeeded on the last point, failed on the first two. The debate was polite and reasonably short. They succeeded in getting passage of a watered-down resolution on judicial appointments, calling on a Republican governor to appoint more Republican judges. They really won that battle on Saturday at the resolutions committee meeting.

I'll go into the event in detail this coming Sunday, but the bottom-line choices were clear: Support the governor to promote unity or pass resolutions criticizing the governor in an indirect way for straying from basic Republican principles. By and large, the gathered Republicans chose unity, although the conservatives succeeded in reminding the others and reminding the governor that it's important to still stand for something. Winning is great, but what does it mean to win without much of a coherent governing strategy?

So there's no resolution to these two views. Instead of unity, I expect official party support for the governor, most of the grassroots supporting the governor, and conservatives grumbling under their breath and not working too hard to get Schwarzenegger re-elected.

Angry debate surfaces at convention

2006-02-25T16:21:00.000-08:00

The most contentious issues of the convention surfaced at 2:15 at the resolutions committee, which considered 21 resolutions. Most are non-controversial at a Republican convention -- i.e., support for the death penalty, opposition to giving state jobs to illegal immigrants, etc. But conservatives had pushed resolutions that would undermine the governor's latest policy objectives. The most controversial one would have withdrawn the party's endorsement of the governor. That was, in essence, halted before the convention. Conservatives argued that a deal was struck that would pull that resolution in exchange for letting the other resolutions go to the floor for debate. The others criticize a proposed increase in the minimum wage, an unbalanced budget, the governor's bond plan and the governor's excessive number of Democratic judicial appointments.

Well, the resolutions committee formally killed the resolution to withdraw the party's support for the governor. The committee approved sending the criticism of the governor's judicial appointments to the full committee for consideration with a recommendation for approval. The committee opposed the other resolutions, which caused the conservatives to decry the administration for breaking a deal. But GOP chairman Duf Sundheim just pointed out that the committee took the unusual step of allowing the resolutions to go to the general assembly, although with a recommendation for opposition. So the debate will go on tomorrow.

Sundheim was speaking to journalists shortly after a press conference by conservatives who denounced the administration's stances on the above-mentioned issues. Led by former party chairman Mike Schroeder of Orange County, the conservatives argued that the grassroots will stay home or not get excited enough about the governor to do the hard work necessary for his election.

Sundheim said the party is committed to diversity of thought and was proud of the spirited debate, although in my view he and the party staff didn't seem too thrilled about the press conference.

Clearly, the party is pushing the unity them -- we hear it every few minutes from someone -- but there is much grumbling about the specific positions this not-very-Republican governor is taking. Nevertheless, everyone knows that the Democrats are reason enough to embrace the governor, and hurting the governor will only hurt the conservative cause by defeating the other statewide GOP candidates.

Boring inside baseball, perhaps, but this incident reveals a true debate -- which is something that doesn't hurt anyone.

Too bad McClintock isn't our governor

2006-02-25T13:42:00.000-08:00

State Sen. Tom McClintock, candidate for lieutenant governor, gave the kind of speech that truly roused the gathered Republicans. It roused me, also. He made the case for supporting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, asking: "What do you think are greater -- the differences among us as Republicans or the differences between us and the Democrats?"

What was really stirring, however, was McClintock's discussion of freedom:

"Never has the choice been clearer between the two parties in this state. They offer the rationing of shortages. ... They have handed control of our schools over to the unions ... They offer stifling central planning to manage every aspect of our lives, they offer higher and higher taxes and more and more costly regulations. We offer freedom."

He took a wonderful shot at the Smart Growth/New Urbanist crowd: "The freedom to live where we wish -- without central planners who would force our families into dense urban cores and condemn our children to ever spiraling housing prices ...

And he slammed redevelopment and eminent domain abuse, in calling for "The freedom to be secure in our property -- without local officials seizing our homes and shops for the private profit of their politically well-connected friends."

Great stuff. Imagine a politician concerned about freedom.

Damage already is done

2006-02-25T12:40:00.000-08:00

There is something unbelievably outrageous and, yes, corrupt about state government using tax dollars to mount a campaign to encourage taxpayers to pay higher taxes for more government programs. Reports today's LA Times: "Facing pressure from legislators and others, producer Rob Reiner said Friday he is taking a leave as chairman of a state commission that spent $23 million for ads touting the value of early education while he is promoting a statewide preschool initiative."

Big deal. The damage already is done. The state already has blanketed the airwaves promoting preschool. Sure, the ads did not specifically call for passage of the initiative, but they took place during signature gathering for a preschool initiative. Come on. That poisons the well. Imagine, say, a conservative AG using tax dollars to promote tougher sentencing during a signature drive for an initiative requiring tougher 3 strikes restrictions. Wouldn't liberals get upset by that obvious abuse of the process?

Where are they here? Is it OK as long as one supports the cause being supported? I hope not. I think the initiative should be tossed off the ballot because the state already has rigged the result.

Daucher's got an ugly record

2006-02-25T12:09:00.000-08:00

Another funny flyer handed out by Young Americans for Freedom features a picture of a young tough with the headline: "Did a Bully Ever Force You to Date his Ugly Sister?"

Then there's a portrayal of Assemblywoman Lynn Daucher's "ugly record." Daucher is the Brea Republican who is running for the 34th Senate District seat in central Orange County, and is being supported by Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine.

Daucher's ugly record, the flyer states, includes union backing, tax raising, indifference to illegal immigration, and pro-choice views.

Fun stuff ... for those who enjoy politics.

Good enough for government work

2006-02-25T10:22:00.000-08:00

Was the governor's speech enough?

In it, he hit some good notes for the conservative activists he needs to energize in preparation for his re-election bid. He pointed to past successes: reining in the structural budget deficit, fixing workers compensation, revoking the "outrageous tripling of the car tax," repealing the law to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

He hit some sour notes, too. Does any conservative, or anyone really care that "We became the only state in the union to ban junk food and sodas from our schools."? But he hit home the one theme that seems to unite Republicans these days: "We did not raise taxes."

There was an appealing sincerity to the talk. The governor thanked Republicans for working hard on his behalf in the failed special election. "Last November we fought the good fight for reform. We fought with all of our heart. And I want to thank you for that."

A bit hokey, but this story was charming: "During the election, I remember when all of those commercials were playing, one of my kids got very upset and went to Maria and said, 'Mom, what happens if Daddy loses? Daddy always wins, but what if he loses? It will be embarrassing.

"And Maria said, 'My son, there is no shame in losing. The shame is in not trying."

So at least Arnold depicted the special election as an honorable effort. But the problem is his new policies. Can Republicans embrace a Pat Brown-style massive infrastructure agenda?

Tom McClintock, the conservative state senator, is completely behind the governor's agenda. Note that McClintock often writes about the state's infrastructure crisis, so this isn't a big surprise, although the governor's plan doesn't seem to meet the fiscal standards McClintock has outlined in the past. These statewide bonds will certainly violate the senator's admonition against using state bonds for local projects. This is a far cry from pay as you go.

The governor's agenda is a significant one, but it is not a particularly conservative one. And the infrastruture portion is the best portion from a Republican standpoint. The Susan Kennedy appointment, the minimum wage hike proposal, the Democratic judges ... that's tough to take.

The big even is the resolutions committee meeting this afternoon, where delegates will vote on four resolutions critical of the governor's proposals. McClintock gives the luncheon address, so that will be interesting to hear also. There also are discussions of a press conference by disgruntled conservatives.

Back to the original question: Is it good enough? Probably not to energize the base, but probably enough to win re-election.

Guerrilla warfare behind unity

2006-02-25T10:08:00.000-08:00

Young Americans for Freedom is among a few conservative groups that are leading good-natured guerrilla campaigns against the convention's pledge of unity. A funny flyer handed out last night before the governor's speech showed Gov. Schwarzenegger dressed up as Patty Hearst, and holding a gun. The flyer declares: PATTY Schwarzenegger ... Yes, Arnold is the CRP's Patty Hearst. It goes on to describe Stockholm Syndrome, in which a hostage comes to identify with his or her captors. The end of flyer includes many quotes from Democrats praising the governor's conversion to their cause.

Funny stuff. Funny too were the buttons plastered in many places after the speech declaring "Where's he taking us? Why are we following?"

Governor's speech -- judge for yourself

2006-02-25T09:55:00.000-08:00

Thank you. Thank you. Please sit down. Thank you very much. Wow. What an exciting crowd. This is terrific. What a great convention we have here. It is wonderful to see all of you here today.

It is great. I want to thank all of the organizers that organized all of this here tonight. It is just really terrific.

I just want to begin by expressing also my gratitude to our party leaders ... my very dear friends, Dick Ackerman, Kevin McCarthy and Duf Sundheim. Let's give all three of them a big hand. Dick and Kevin, I am proud to serve with you. And I want to thank you for working with me day in and day out on behalf of the people of California.

And Duf, what a champion you are. You have worked so hard to bring all us together. Duf, you are a great leader of our party, and I know when I say that, that I speak for everyone here when I say thank you. Thank you. Thank you for everything that you have done. Thank you.

I also want to take a moment to express my deepest appreciation to our county leaders and to the thousands of volunteers who have been there for me since the beginning. The Republican Party is my home and I’m proud of your support and I'm grateful for your friendship.

I, I know how hard you've worked on my behalf. I know how many hours you logged at the phone banks and how you were going door to door because you believed in what we were trying to do.

Last November we fought the good fight for reform. We fought with all of our heart. And I want to say thank you to you for that.

During that election, I remember when all of those commercials were playing, one of my kids, got very upset and went to Maria and said, "Mom, what happens if Daddy loses? Daddy always wins, but what if he loses? It will be embarrassing."

And Maria said, "My son, there is no shame in losing. The shame is in not trying."

So today I want to say to all of you here. Thank you for trying with me. Thank you very much.

And while I know that we may not agree on every single issue, I hope that you know that I have your family's best interests in my heart as I govern this state. My goal is to work as hard as humanly possible to keep California growing, and to improve our quality of life, to protect our values, and to prepare our people for a global future.

I want you to know that I approach this job with an immigrant's optimism, and a businessman's commitment to fiscal discipline and a father's desire to keep our children safe and healthy. I can honestly say to you tonight that it has been such a joy, such a privilege for me to serve the people of California.

That's why I am humbled and so grateful to you for your support in the upcoming election.

It is an honor for me to be on the ballot with men like Bruce McPherson, our Secretary of State, and with my friend Tom McClintock, our next Lieutenant Governor. I want to say to both of these men, I am proud to be running with you.

And I want to thank you for your graciousness to me and for all of your support. My fellow Republicans, we have so much to be proud of.

Over these past two years, we have accomplished extraordinary things together. Just think about where we were two years ago -- where we were and where we are now.

California was on the brink of bankruptcy.

Our credit rating was worse than Croatia.

Our budget deficit was so large that no one knew exactly how big it actually was.

Our worker's comp was the highest in the nation.

And in a reverse gold rush, businesses were fleeing our state and taking jobs with them. In one month alone I remember, July 2003, we lost 23,000 jobs. People were struggling just to comprehend, let alone pay for, the outrageous tripling of the car tax.

Think how far we have come.

I am proud that together we saved this state from bankruptcy.

We reduced our structural deficit by nearly 75 percent.

We're paying down our debt and we're putting money into the rainy day fund.

We rescinded the increase in the car tax.

And we repealed the drivers licenses for undocumented Immigrants.

And we fully funded transportation and education.

And we became the only state in the union to ban junk food and sodas from our schools.

We created the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, the largest preservation of land in our state's history.

And we have record revenues flowing into our treasury.

We have done all of this while abiding by a basic Republican principle: we did not raise taxes.

Does anyone here doubt what will happen to our taxes if the other party reclaims the governorship? Think about that for a second. Republicans are the last line of defense against higher taxes, and I stand with my fellow Republicans.

Now, another bold thing we did was we fixed the worker's comp system and rates are already down by one third.

Now, let me put a face on that progress. Because we have with us here tonight Sal Acosta, who owns Acosta Manufacturing here in San Jose. And Sal's company saved 250,000 dollars last year from worker's comp reform. And As a result, he took that money and he expanded his business. He bought new equipment and he hired 15 new employees. That is the way Republican economics work.

Where is Sal? Is Sal here with us? Right over here. Sal, stand up. Give him a big hand. Thank you very much for making California's economy stronger and for providing jobs for our people. Thank you very much Sal. Thank you.

With economic growth and worker's comp reform, California has gone from losing jobs to gaining jobs. We now have more Californians working than ever in our history, with nearly 500,000 new jobs created since I came into office.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a record that we can be proud of, a record we can run on, and a record we can win on.

Now, are things perfect? Of course not. You will never find the words "perfection" and "politics" in the same sentence. We still need to put the pressure the federal government to do its job securing our borders. We still need to continue our economic growth, and we need to pass Jessica's Law.

But the fact is we are making huge progress. And we can do even bolder things in the future.

After all, we Republicans have a history of boldness. I love that.

Abraham Lincoln struck down slavery.

Teddy Roosevelt fathered the environmental movement.

Dwight D. Eisenhower built the interstate highway.

And Ronald Reagan tore down the wall and defeated communism.

This is a time in California's history that calls for similar boldness, a time when our solutions must be as big as our problems. I believe in boldness not in band-aids.

Now here’s the situation that we face.

California was once like a fine automobile, a first-class engine. But it was not maintained. And today its motor is knocking; its tires are nearly bald; and its seats are frayed. The people know it needs repair.

They are tired of sitting on the gridlocked roads.

They are fed up with their kids trying to learn in overcrowded classrooms.

And after Katrina, they are rightly worried that we are one huge storm, or one big earthquake away from a major Katrina-type disaster.

California has huge needs that have been neglected for years. And I am not going to allow those needs to be passed on to our next generation.

My fellow Republicans, my fellow Republicans, we cannot be infrastructure isolationists and say that if we don't build it they won't come. As Senator McClintock says California stopped building three decades ago but the people came anyway. And he's absolutely right. He’s absolutely right. Half a million people move to California every single year.

Now, what is the future of the Republican Party in this state if we ignore the needs of California and its people? I can tell you what it is: it is a dead end.

We desperately need to renew and expand our infrastructure.

Take our ports for instance. When I was in Japan recently on a trade mission, the first thing out of Prime Minister Koizumi's mouth was, "Governor, please unload our ships. Our ships have been waiting too long." Ladies and gentlemen, the ships will be unloaded. The question is just where? Will it be right here in California or will it be in some other country like Mexico or Canada?

I say let's fix our infrastructure problems. I want those ships unloaded right here in our state in the great state of California.

That's why I proposed a growth plan that is smart, strategic and fiscally responsible. We are not just going to throw money at those problems. No. We will build in restraints, such as the 6 percent debt limit so that our credit rating does not slide backwards. And We will build in reforms, so that the money is spent in a fiscally responsible way.

You see, when I ran for governor I said that I believed California could recover; that it could reform; and it could rebuild. That was my goal then and that is my goal now.

We will continue to fight for recovery and for reform. If it is pension reform, education reform, redistricting reform or if it is budget reform -- we will fight for all of those reforms.

But here is where I believe we Republicans must begin to change our outlook. We cannot just fight; we must build. We cannot just follow; we must lead.

Two years ago when I ran for governor, no one in this state could define a vision for California. I know because I asked. I asked politicians. I asked business leaders. I asked educators. I asked experts in think tanks. I asked everybody. No one knew California's plan for the future because we didn't have one.

Now, the whole state is talking about it. There is a sizzle up there in Sacramento. Democrats and Republicans are debating over California's future for the first time in decades and that is fantastic. I love it.

When I immigrated here in 1968, California without any doubt was the greatest state in the nation. We had the best universities, the best highways, the best future. And As I have said before, I believe in the future of California every bit as much today as the day when I first moved here.

And you would not be involved in politics if you didn't have the same optimism as I do. You understand better than most that the future is not something that you wait on; it is something you achieve. It is something that you make happen.

These years let me say, I tell you, these years at the beginning of the 21st Century are absolutely critical for California. These years will determine whether we maintain our greatness, our strength, our vitality or let it pass just from us.

I say, let us renew our party by renewing our state.

Let us be known as the party that believes in building California; the party that has the boldness to take the people forward; the party that returns the Golden State to its golden era.

Now, I am not a historian, but if you look at the sweep of history, you will see that those civilizations that side on the side – that err on the side of caution decline and those that err on the side of boldness go forward.

California is ready to go forward. It is waiting for our leadership.

My fellow Republicans, let us boldly go forward together for the sake of our party, for the sake of our state and for the sake of our future.

Thank you very much and God bless all of you. Thank you very much.

Governor's speech was well received

2006-02-24T21:20:00.000-08:00

I'll write extensively about the speech tomorrow, but Gov. Schwarzenegger was well received tonight as he gave his address to the GOP convention. He focused on the successes he has had in reducing the deficit, reforming workers compensation, rolling back the car tax and stopping a bill to give licenses to illegal immigrants. He went easy on the rags to riches immigrant story, and didn't shy away from the differences he has with mainstream Republicans. But he emphasized that Democrats will raise taxes and that Republicans are the last line of defense against such hikes. He pledged to continue his support for pension reform and other failed reforms from November.

He got a couple of standing ovations, although they were not overwhelming. "More than polite but less than exciting" -- that's how one reporter I'm overhearing is accurately portraying it.

"So what?" asked California Republican Assembly President Mike Spence. "No matter what the governor says at this point, he needs to show action on the agenda that got him elected." I'll talk to more conservatives and see what they think.

The governor pushed his infrastructure agenda, declaring that we cannot be infrastructure isolationists. He called for a bold agenda to rebuild the state, comparing it to a great old car that has been neglected. The governor also emphasized his Republican credentials and reiterated that the attempt to reform the state in November, even though it failed, was a noble fight. There's no shame in losing, only in not trying, he said.

Will this conciliatory speech be enough to excite the base? We'll see.

Unity, blah, blah, blah

2006-02-24T18:42:00.000-08:00

Except for a handful of Young Republican activists who are holding small, sit-in type demonstrations opposing a minimum wage hike, it appears that everyone at the convetion is getting aboard the Arnold team. There's talk of requiring a two-thirds vote to pass resolutions, which effectively undermines the attempt to pass resolutions critical of the governor's policies. But one activist I talked to said a press conference is planned for tomorrow highlighting the governor's 50 Democratic judicial choices. Got to get ready for the speech ...

State of emergency?

2006-02-24T16:41:00.000-08:00

I'm on a press call now with administration officials explaining the state of emergency the governor announced with regard to the levee system. They are saying we can't wait for the bond to pass. There are 24 critical erosion sites, a growing number, that could fail during the next flood event. The governor has declared an emergency and will repair the sites before the next flood season. The rest of the details are background, the officials said.

Lame excerpts from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech

2006-02-24T16:25:00.000-08:00

Based on early quotations from the governor's speech, conservatives are going to grumble. This is lackluster rhetoric. There's the same old immigrant stuff that was charming during the recall but has been overused, and then an attempt to push Republicans to change.

Here are a few snippets from the governor's speech tonight:

"I want you to know that I approach this job with an immigrant's optimism, a businessman's commitment to fiscal discipline and a father's desire to keep our children safe and healthy."

"We Republicans have a history of boldness. Abraham Lincoln struck down slavery. Teddy Roosevelt fathered the environmental movement. Dwight D. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system. And Ronald Reagan tore down the wall."

"We will continue to fight for recovery and for reform. For pension reform, education reform, redistricting reform and for budget reform. But here is where I believe we Republicans must begin to change our outlook. We cannot just fight; we must build. We cannot just follow; we must lead."

Governor declares state of emergency

2006-02-24T16:24:00.000-08:00

I have not details, but the governor's press person announced that the governor has declared a state of emergency in the state's levee system, given their poor condition.

Triumph of low expectations?

2006-02-24T16:10:00.000-08:00

I'm in a press conference right now with California Republican Party Chairman Duf Sundheim. What does he hope to accomplish this weekend at the GOP Convention? "The key thing is to come out of this convention united behind the governor."

The governor has put in a good bit of work mending fences before the convention, to stop a conservative revolt. And having state Sen. Tom McClintock, an unquestioned conservative, on the ticket as the lieutenant governor candidate certainly will help conservatives unite.

Sundheim did admit that being united doesn't mean agreeing on everything. That's a good thing, given the party's current divide. He isn't worried about the governor's poor poll ratings, arguing that ultimately the race will turn on the differences between the Republican and Democratic platform.

Regarding Susan Kennedy, Sundheim says we need to step back on that issue and points to Abraham Lincoln who had rivals on his Cabinet. "It's part of the Republican Party DNA to have healthy constructive debate on issues." He's confident the party will come together at the end.

Good question now: What are the governor's core values?

Sundheim: "We're here to enable the working men and women of California to realize their dreams ... those who have lived here for generations or those who have come from another state or another part of the world." He's pushing the crime issue, and notes that Democrats are soft on that issue, and he wants to make sure that education dollars get to the classroom, and he supports a strong environment -- but making sure the money gets spent on actually fixing up the environment. And he emphasized the need to keep down taxes. No surprise, no going out on the edge, from what I hear.

Illegal immigration? "That is an important issue today, but it falls over into all the other issues we talk about. ... That's a federal issue, so a lot of times when we try to address that issue it goes back to a federal problem that requires a federal solution."

Mostly blather, but the emphasis on unity is the issue to watch. Can Republicans quell the understandable anger among conservatives and even if they do, will that be a good or bad thing going into November?

Boring news from Join Arnold

2006-02-24T15:59:00.000-08:00

From the campaign:

"Governor Schwarzenegger's reelection campaign today announced two new additions to the campaign's senior staff. Deputy Chief of Staff to the Governor Mindy Fletcher will join the campaign as Deputy Campaign Manager and Deputy Press Secretary to the Governor Julie Soderlund will join the campaign as Press Secretary.

"'Californians are lucky to have a Governor who is committed to putting the people first. I am excited to continue my work building support for the Governor and his agenda around the state," said Fletcher.

Aren't you glad the governor puts people first?

Why Schwarzenegger ultimately will win new term

2006-02-24T15:52:00.000-08:00

Here's the lead from a Sacramento Bee article today: "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's infrastructure bond proposal came in for a raking Thursday by environmental groups and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides who separately blasted the plan as shortchanging public transportation while loading up on highway construction spending."

In other words, the Democrats' leading candidate wants to spend as much money as Arnold ... but not to upgrade infrastructure but to build social engineering schemes such as light rail.

Schwarzenegger a victim of Kennedys?

2006-02-24T15:28:00.000-08:00

As Arnold goes left, many people attribute it to his wife, Kennedy family member Maria Shriver. But a Sacramento Bee article today made it clear that the real Kennedy problem comes from his new chief of staff Susan Kennedy, no relation to those other Kennedys. A former Cabinet Secretary to Gray Davis, former California Abortion Rights Action League official and gay rights activist, Kennedy doesn't easily appeal to the Republicans gathered here in San Jose.

Her politics is actually centrist on business issues, though, and the Bee points out that Democrats are treating her as a traitor, which speaks somewhat better of her. Nevertheless, the Kennedy appointment will loom large this weekend. Kennedy says she is tired of the partisanship and wants to do "right." I don't question her sincerity, but her policies are problematic. Do we want limited government or enormous government? Halfway between the two isn't a great choice, either, and the governor's attempt to take that path is alienating everyone.

Stay tuned for 34th District battle

2006-02-24T15:18:00.000-08:00

Assemblyman Van Tran's campaign announced today that he has pulled papers for the Senate race for the 34th district seat being vacated by Joe "I am so far to the left you can't believe it" Dunn, D-Trial Lawyers. Speculation has been rampant this week that he might not run, after getting continued pressure from Republican leaders who are sticking with Lynn Daucher, the most liberal GOP Assembly member. Talk centered on whether Tran would pull out, then run for the supervisor seat that will likely be vacated by Lou Correa, the Democrat who is the favorite to win the race. Correa is moderate, and Dunn is backing the liberal, scandal-plagued Tom Umberg.

Some Republicans at the convention in San Jose argue that Daucher and her benefactor, Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, ought to get their way. Let Lynn have the nomination, they argue, given that she is sure to lose.

Candidates already are getting ready to replace Tran in the Assembly. There's Garden Grove Councilwoman Janet Nguyen, a GOP rising star whose star is flickering because of her insistence in running now, against Jim Righeimer, a conservative who is the arch-enemy of the labor unions. Nguyen has a ideology that tends conservative but isn't well formed and she is quite young and inexperienced. Righeimer is an old pro and party favorite. I'll track down O.C. Republicans this weekend to get their thoughts on the race. I just talked to Righeimer, who is preparing his bid to get a California Republican Assembly endorsement. That shouldn't be too hard, given that CRA is a conservative group.

Latest word is the governor won't speak until 8:45, so you can watch curling or whatever else is going on at the oh-so-boring Olympics.

You can't win by selling out

2006-02-24T15:12:00.000-08:00

The governor must have thought that he would bring aboard some union support by moving to the left, but police and firefighter organizations released a statement today that shows that such a leftward tack will do no good. Said the unions: "California police and firefighters were sharply critical today of Governor Schwarzenegger's decision to attend an out-of-state fundraiser rather than the funeral of fallen CHP Officer Earl Scott, calling his absence 'despicable' and 'absolutely shameful.'"

There's nothing despicable about the governor's lack of attendance at the funeral. What is despicable is that the unions will exploit the death of a police officer for cheap political gain. The statement is further evidence that police and fire groups are simply part of the liberal political machine. This is an attempt to undermine the governor for partisan purposes. Police and fire talk about public safety when they appeal to the public but their unions are almost entirely about increasing pay and benefits.

At the convention, Republicans are passing along the joke: We heard the governor is coming to the convention. Really, the Republican convention?

When you abandon the base and go left, the left only smells weakness and won't help you, and you lose the support of the base. Fortunately for this governor, the Democrats are likely to nominate one of two terrible choices.

Bob Dole still cashing in

2006-02-24T14:51:00.000-08:00

A possibly minor but interesting sidelight of the Dubai port takeover controversy is touched on in this article from today's Washington Post. It seems that former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole -- remember him? -- now 82, is now working for a law firm (Alston & Bird LLP) that has been helping guide the Dubai firm, Dubai Ports World, through the regulatory maze. After the purchase deal was criticized, the firm beefed up its lobbying efforts, in part by hiring Bob Dole last week. Bob is married, of course, to Elizabeth Dole, who is the Distinguished Senator from North Carolina and might have a vote on legislation related to the deal eventually.

Bob Dole has vowed that he will confine his lobbying to the Bush administration (which doesn't seem to need lobbying on this issue). "I have not nor will I 'lobby' Members of Congress on this issue, even at home," he said in a written statement.

As the post points out, this is an increasingly common controversy. "According to Public Citizen's Congress Watch, at least three dozen members of Congress have relatives who are working for lobbyists." Like Dennis Hastert's son, Trent Lott's son, Harry Reid's son-in-law, Joe Biden's and Orrin Hatch's sons and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt's wife.

Even back in the dark ages (the 1970s) when I lived and worked in Washington, everyone knew that while elected officials might have the power to make important decisions, it's the lobbyists who pull down the big bucks. So why not keep it all in the family? Elected officials whose relatives are lobbyists all say their relatives don't lobby them, and some relatives are actually forbidden, by private agreement, from lobbying places where their relatives are members. Still, it's hardly a news flash to lobbying firms that people in the families of elected officials -- even if they really adhere to ethical standards regarding their relatives -- might have a little more clout than some other anonymous kid straight out of grad school.

I don't know if there's a real solution to this problem except for reducing the role of government to the point that its decisions don't have such a huge impact on the fates of private businesses and interests. Can you pass a law that forbids somebody from pursuing a certain occupation just because he or she is related to an elected or appointed official?

More on Harvard President

2006-02-24T13:42:00.000-08:00

Martin Peretz, editor and publisher of the liberal magazine The New Republic, has this to write (in his first paragraphs; you have to be a subscriber to get the rest) about the resignation of Larry Summers as president of Harvard:

"CAMBRIDGE DIARISTSummers's End by Martin Peretz Post date 02.23.06 Issue date 03.06.06

"I know something about the Harvard academy's propensity for self-pampering and self-importance. And the problem with Larry Summers is that he never joined what the American cultural critic Harold Rosenberg devastatingly called "the herd of independent minds." I'd encountered Summers a few times before his return to Cambridge--most memorably when both of us skulked around a Nashville hotel suite on November 7, 2000, waiting for NBC to decide whether Al Gore or George W. Bush had been elected president.

"Summers's arrival at Harvard was bracing. The Harvard Corporation had finally decided to bring the university into modern times, and it had chosen an at once dazzling and sober intellectual to do it. You could feel the walls of the faculty club tremble. Well, the walls of the club that serves the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), anyway. This is an important distinction. There are other faculties at Harvard--law, medicine, public health, business, et cetera--and it's hard to find more than a handful of professors at these places offended by what Summers has said or done. They, in fact, have been cheering him on.

"So, in forcing Summers's resignation, the FAS, in an alliance of frightened souls and hyped-up orators, has pulled off a coup--facilitated by the fact that hard scientists, true social scientists, and serious humanists lack the inclination to go to conspiratorial caucus meetings...."

Having taught at Harvard and (I think) endowed a chair, Peretz knows a little something about the institution. Of course he was impressed with Al Gore when, as a young man, Gore took a class from him. Maybe Gore was more impressive as a young man than he was when he grew into self-importance.

Will Republicans be too nice?

2006-02-24T13:34:00.000-08:00

I've just arrived in San Jose, site of the state Republican convention. Not too many people are here yet, but it will be interesting to see tonight whether these grassroots Republicans give Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a rousing welcome. They probably will, given that Republicans like to avoid vicious battles. They still revere Ronald Reagan, who commanded Republicans to speak no ill of one another. But I see rumblings of a revolt, even if it is a small one. I've seen a preview of some hard-hitting campaign-style flyers that will be distributed, painting the governor as a turncoat.

The governor does not deserve anything more than common politeness, however. It will take more than his new Bush campaign operatives to make Republicans really excited about their governor as they head toward a November race. This governor is filling his administration with liberals, is filling the courts with Democrats and has basically given up an pretense of a conservative agenda. Republicans are stuck and they have many reasons to be depressed given the Republican sellout at the national level. Remember when we were promised that Republicans would really roll back government once they had control of Congress and the executive branch, yet government is growing at record levels. State government is back from the brink, but this governor isn't interested in pursuing serious fiscal reforms any more. I'll keep posting and will let you know the reception he receives right after the speech tonight at 7:30.

Jack Kemp: Return to the gold standard to end inflation

2006-02-24T09:54:00.000-08:00

Inflation is back -- with a vengeance. Inflation was up a whopping 4.5 percent here in Orange County last year, as the Register reported.

The reason: Alan Greenspan, the fortunately departed Fed supremo, doubled the price of gold since the early 2000s. His successor, Bernanke, doesn't seem to be any better.

Jack Kemp, who should be heading the Fed if Bush had any sense, explains what's going on in a column:

"Here is the lesson the new Fed chairman must learn immediately if he is not to allow himself to be whipsawed trying to adjust to contemporary inflationary impulses over which he has no control by using backward-looking models and non-rigorous impressions, which will only intensify the turbulence and reinforce problems by untimely actions.

The rule is simple: too much liquidity, inflation; too little liquidity, deflation. The best way the monetary authority can know whether it is injecting the right amount of liquidity is to watch price-sensitive indicators, like the price of gold.

"As economist Donald Luskin at Trend Macrolytics pointed out recently, inflation from excessively loose monetary policy during the past couple of years is now baked in the cake, and 'there will be a great deal more inflation than anyone expects now - and a lot more market turbulence'."

Summers' problems

2006-02-23T17:07:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting piece on why Larry Summers turned out not to be the right president for Harvard's faculty, by Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic, so hardly a right-wing avatar. Turns out Summers wanted yeachers to teach and didn't think it was a point of pride that 90 percent of Harvard students graduate "with honors." The heretic had to go!

Agran continues board dominance

2006-02-23T15:34:00.000-08:00

Had Larry Agran been interested in allowing a little sunshine on his Great Park operation, he would have supported putting Bill Campbell on the Great Park Board to fill the vacancy. Instead, Agran and his cronies voted 6-2 to appoint Bill Kogerman to the board, with only Christina Shea and Stephen Choi objecting. Kogerman runs Cassie DeYoung's campaign for supervisor, which leads one to wonder whether the DeYoung campaign is ploy by Agranistas to get one of theirs onto the Board of Supervisors.

Schwarzenegger's infrastructure hypocrisy

2006-02-23T15:17:00.000-08:00

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pitching the need to spend $222 billion on infrastructure statewide, yet he is essentially neutral and the parks commission is opposed to the 241 toll-road extension from Oso Parkway to the I-5 at San Clemente. The toll-road board voted today to approve the alignment, with only Irvine's councilman Larry Agran opposed to the EIR, and two other board members joining him in opposing the specific route.

Here's infrastructure that won't stick it to taxpayers and where is the governor? Hat tip to Matt Cunningham at Flashreport blog for alerting us to the vote.

Neanderthal LIBERALS?

2006-02-23T13:00:00.000-08:00

Over the years I've often been called a "neanderthal conservative." The assumption is that conservatives/libertarians are "behind the times" by opposing such modern, up-to date programs as socialized medicine, tax increases, Meathead Reiner's bureaucratization of preschool initiative, etc.

Now, a new study shows that it's liberals who more closely resemble Neanderthals. "Neanderthals in Europe were killed off by the advance of modern humans thousands of years earlier than previously believed, losing a competition for food and shelter, according to a scientific study published Wednesday," AP reports.

So, who believes in hunting other species, doesn't mind if some species become extinct, and loves competition? Conservatives/libertarians.

Who wants to ban hunting, is obsessed with environmentalism, and favors socialism instead of competition? Liberals.

Don't you love science?

Free the grapes!

2006-02-23T12:47:00.000-08:00

State Sen. Carole Migden wants to make Zinfandel California's official wine. Not surprisingly, makers and lovers of Cabernet, Pinot Noir, Merlot, etc. are unhappy about it. As for me, as Ross Perot might say, I don't have a horse in that bottle.

But if Migden really wants to help California vintners and wine lovers, she should sponsor a bill that cancels all taxes -- sales, income, property, etc. -- for wine. Free the grapes!

As was said by Thomas Jefferson, himself a vintner, liberty can be judged by the price of wine. The lower the price, the more liberty. Let's make California wine the cheapest, least-taxed in the world, spreading a slightly stewed liberty everywhere, especially here.

Governor is a squished armadillo

2006-02-23T12:11:00.000-08:00

You don't find anything in the middle of the road except yellow lines and dead armadilloes, said some Texas politician. The Public Policy Institute of California poll has found that our centrist Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger is keeping company with those armadilloes. He's not really dead, given how awful the Democratic candidates for governor are, but he has been run over by the semi. Overall, Californians give him a terrible 35 percent approval rating. But his approval rating among Republicans is only 66 percent.

Actually, the governor isn't driving down the yellow lines, but is swerving, first along the right lane and now along the left lane. He has succeeded mainly in alienating everyone. We all have it figured out now, that this guy has no firm principles.

The weekend state GOP convention in San Jose should be interesting. How will Republicans react to him on Friday night. I'll be blogging from the convention.

Wiping away free speech in Germany

2006-02-23T09:35:00.000-08:00

H/T to Drudge Report for linking to this news story:

"A German court on Thursday convicted a businessman of insulting Islam by printing the word 'Koran' on toilet paper and offering it to mosques," according to Reuters.

"The 61-year-old man, identified only as Manfred van H., was given a one-year jail sentence, suspended for five years, and ordered to complete 300 hours of community service, a district court in the western German town of Luedinghausen ruled."

And we wonder how totalitarianism creeps into a generally free country?

Brave media ... in the Middle East

2006-02-22T17:07:00.000-08:00

Today's New York Times featured a story on Middle Eastern journalists who resisted the censors and threats of violence and reprinted the Danish cartoons and who criticized the violence by many Muslims against those cartoons. One Jordanian journalist, Jihad Momani, wrote: "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictues of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras, or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony?"

The brave journalists the Times featured are facing prosecution in their countries. Yet so many Westerners are taking the side of the mobs, insisting that printing the cartoons and saying "insulting" things is wrong.

Blogging from GOP convention in San Jose

2006-02-22T16:41:00.000-08:00

I'll be blogging from the Republican Convention in San Jose this weekend, for anyone interested in what should be one of the more interesting state GOP conventions in recent years. There's a mild grassroots revolt against the governor, given that Arnold Schwarzenegger has been governing more like a Democrat since his initiatives were defeated in the special election. Stay tuned.

Washington's wisdom

2006-02-22T15:57:00.000-08:00

Today is the real Washington's Birthday, not the day they came up with to give people a three-day weekend without giving too much prominence to any one president over any other the others. Here's a bit of his wisdom, which shows that some of the issues that worry us today were already old news more than 200 years ago. Would that the solution were as close as he hoped them.

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society," - George Washington, in a letter to Edward Newenham, Oct. 20, 1792.

Mosque bombing photos

2006-02-22T15:52:00.000-08:00

Here's a photo essay from Time magazine on the ravaging of the Shia mosque in Ramalla.

Civil war in Iraq?

2006-02-22T15:39:00.000-08:00

First the bombing of Shia mosques, then a mob in Basra (a southern, mostly Shia city) storming a prison, taking out mostly Sunni "militant" prisoners and killing 11 of them, after in some cases torturing them. Is this the beginning of the civil war so many have feared but thought was inevitable in Iraq? I certainly hope not, but I have a bad feeling.

The problem in Iraq -- and to be sure, in most of the world through most of history -- is a lack of effective protection of minority rights. When minorities have reason to believe that they will not be persecuted, they are usually willing to acquiesce more or less peacefully in rule by a majority. When they have no such assurances, they are usually either oppressed unmercifully or tempted to turn to violence.

Relatively peaceful partition might be one way to handle the dilemma in Iraq, but it might be too late for it to be peaceful.

The fat-chance department

2006-02-22T09:27:00.000-08:00

Good job, Van Tran, in reminding voters that his likely Republican opponent, Lynn Daucher, is a pro-tax liberal. (Explain to me again why Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman is behind Daucher.)

From Assemblyman Van Tran's campaign for Senate:

Assemblyman Van Tran today has invited Lynn Daucher to join him at the California Republican Party Convention to debate the 1998 car-tax cut which Daucher had so vocally opposed.

"As candidates for Senate, let's have the discussion on the defining differences between us," said Assemblyman Tran. "The Republican convention offers an ideal venue to discuss our ideas and make our case as to why we should carry the party’s banner in the 34th Senate seat."

As Mayor of Brea, Daucher vociferously opposed state Sen. Tom McClintock’s effort to cut the car tax. Daucher even penned a letter to legislators urging their opposition to McClintock’s measure.

"Let's have both candidates explain their positions on this issue," added Tran Spokesman Paul Hegyi. "It will be a healthy discussion and will give the party faithful an opportunity to gather information on both candidates."

The anti-free-speech lobbies

2006-02-22T09:18:00.000-08:00

My column for Sunday (yes, this is a shameless plug) deals with the issue of "responsibility" and speech. Does the First Amendment really come with a between-the-lines requirement that speech be used responsibly? Who judges? Rather than answer the question here, I answer it in the newspaper.

But this week the Orange Grove has run two pieces from local religious-based civil-rights groups. In the first one, the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Sabiha Khan made the speech = responsibility argument. CAIR is one of those groups that argues that cartoons and other things that offend Muslims should not be printed.

Today, we ran a piece from the other group, the Anti-Defamation League. Local associate director Kevin O'Grady pointed to anti-Jewish cartoons in the Arab media and called for an end to such things that are demeaning to Jews. In the beginning of the column, however, he argues for free speech: "Democracy honors discourse and debate, which at times can be hateful and bigoted."

How hypocritical. ADL was on the forefront of efforts to censor Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" because ADL feared that the Biblical portrayal of Christ's crucifixion was anti-Semitic. It used considerable pressure to try to censor or edit what we get to see in the name of its sensibilities. And on ADL's national Web site you'll find its leader's defense of the jailing of an Austrian man for the crime of denying the Holocaust.

My Dad was a Holocaust survivor, yet the idea of jailing someone for expressing a view -- even an untruthful and evil one -- is disgusting.

Clearly, these groups need a more consistent defense of free speech. Instead, they operate as ethnic/religious lobbies that are in the business of rooting out things they find offensive. Many of the things they point to are, indeed, offensive, yet the most offensive thing is the constant pressure from activist groups to shut down a spirited debate.

Has our country gone nuts?

2006-02-22T09:02:00.000-08:00

Watching the court-ordered drama over the execution of Michael Morales and I'm left wondering whether our country has gone totally crazy. We're worried that there might be some speck of pain felt by a guy who raped, tortured and murdered a 17-year-old girl, striking her 23 times in the head with a claw hammer?

As KABC/790 AM talk-show host Doug McIntyre pointed out this morning, what about the pain the justice system is inflicting on the girl's family, which has waited 23 years for justice -- and now another delay? There is no justice here, only a war of technicalities. It's revolting and appalling.

I understand why some anesthesiologists didn't want to participate in an execution, but I laughed when the head of the California Medical Association unctiously denounced any participation in the execution of a torturer/rapist/murderer/vermin as a breach of the Hippocratic Oath. They are meant to heal, not kill. Don't doctors and anesthesiologists participate in abortions? Isn't that a killing also? And I can't think of any unborn children who raped or tortured anyone.

Yes, this is a crazy country indeed.

Chuck's a poet. Now you know it.

2006-02-21T17:41:00.000-08:00

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore has has written a poem based on Dante's Inferno. Let's hope he's not exiled, as happened to Dante, for belonging to the wrong party.

Here's the beginning:

Two hundred and thirty years after our founding
we were unknowingly in danger,
for we had strayed from our firm grounding.
Sensibilities offended turn debate to anger,
in that square so inane, profane, and senseless,
even honest thought risks a dagger!
It is so corrosive, terrible war is damaging less --
but to rediscover our natural right,
we need apply freedom in its fullness.

The quail speaks

2006-02-21T16:31:00.000-08:00

Here's a moderately amusing animation imagining how it might be if the Cheney quail held a press conference.

A property-rights resurgence?

2006-02-21T15:58:00.000-08:00

Perhaps even Oregon judges could see the handwriting on the wall given the backlash from the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision last year allowing the use of eminent domain for economic development. The Oregon Supreme Court just ruled in favor of property owners by upholding Amendment 37, which requires governments to compensate property owners for regulatory takings. This doesn't deal with eminent domain, but the judges certainly could see how public sentiment is shifting in a pro-property-rights direction. Here is a release from the Institute for Justice:

Oregon Supreme Court Upholds Ballot Initiative,
Private Property Rights Vindicated

Arlington, Va. -- The Oregon Supreme Court today affirmed the will of Oregonians in upholding a popular ballot initiative designed to reintroduce fairness and equity into the state's land use decisions.

The initiative, called Measure 37, requires the government to either compensate property owners when new regulations reduce the value of their land or forego implementing the regulation in question. In short, the initiative requires the government to fairly distribute the costs of a land use regulation to the public at large, instead of requiring some property owners to bear the complete burden of promoting the government's view of the public good. Measure 37 did not affect traditional forms of regulation protecting public health and safety, so nothing in the ballot measure requires compensation for a rule against, for example, polluting.

Despite being outspent four-to-one, Measure 37 passed by a substantial margin.

"In upholding the initiative, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the essential principle that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people," said Institute for Justice attorney Bill Maurer, who co-authored an amicus brief in the case.

"It's a great day for Oregonians and for everyone who believes that government actions should reflect basic notions of fairness," Maurer said. "The court soundly rejected the argument that it was somehow unconstitutional for the government to be fair when it regulates property. Instead, the court correctly decided that the state constitution does not require the government to force individual property owners to pay for the entire cost of land use planning designed to benefit all Oregonians."

Added Institute for Justice attorney Jeff Rowes, who also worked on the brief, "Not only is this a victory for Oregonians, it is a victory for property owners everywhere because it illustrates that people have the power to set limits on what their government can do."

Chip Mellor, President and General Counsel for the Institute for Justice, noted, "Oregon is at the forefront of a nationwide movement to ensure that government treats property owners fairly and with respect. This victory will inspire others to press ahead and serve as valuable precedent for other state supreme courts considering similar challenges."

Summers resigns

2006-02-21T13:03:00.000-08:00

I haven't been able to get the link to the Harvard Crimson to come up, but apparently it's official. Lawrence Summers has resigned as president of Harvard University. It will be interesting to see what people closer to Harvard than I am think about the Meaning of It All.

Heroism on torture

2006-02-21T12:49:00.000-08:00

Jane Mayer has an interesting and information-filled piece on Alberto Mora, former chief counsel to the U.S. Navy, who has opposed torture and cruel treatment of detainees from the git-go, in internal battles, most of which he lost, who has been in the news recently. He was informed early on of dubious treatment at Guantanamo and was concerned about an early Rumsfeld memo that allowed more "aggressive" interrogation techniques that he believed would lead eventually to outright torture.

Turns out Mora is the son of a Cuban father and a Hungarian mother, both of whom fled communism and feel very strongly about the rule of law and the proper role of government, especially the U.S. government, with its traditions and founding documents stressing individual rights, in protecting peoples' rights rather than violating them. And with those attitudes he rose to a high position in the Navy and served under both Bushes.

Money quote from Mora, on the distinction between cruelty and torture:

"To my mind there's no moral or practical distinction. If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America -- even those designated as 'unlawful enemy combatants.' If you make this exception, the whole Constitution crumbles. It's a transformative issue."

I think we have a hero here. Nice to know there are still people like that in the government.

Summers quitting Harvard?

2006-02-21T09:23:00.000-08:00

Well, after posting a piece suggesting that Harvard president Larry Summers is still popular with Harvard students, here comes a report that he will step down before next Tuesday. Since the Wall Street Journal, which apparently got the first leaks, requires a subscription, here's a piece from the Harvard Crimson.

Apparently there's widespread criticism of Summers' "management style," with the catalyst being the resignation of Dean of Faculty William Kirby, which many suspect Summers engineered/forced. But people at the Law School and the Kennedy School apparently aren't upset with him.

We'll just see what happens.

Harvard students OK with Summers

2006-02-20T15:56:00.000-08:00

Lawrence Summers, the former Clinton administration official who heads Harvard University, is in trouble again with the faculty senate. He got into trouble last year, remember, by suggesting the ppossibility that one reason there weren't more women in hard sciences had to do with capabilities and inclinations as well as discrimination. Recently, with the resignation of Faculty Dean William C. Kirby in late January, Summers came under fire again.

The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper, however, did a poll of students, and the results show that just 19 percent say Summers should resign, while 57 percent said he shouldn't. Only 27 percent of Harvard students say they "lack confidence in the leadership" of Summers, while 55 percent say they do not.

Do you supose the Harvard student body is less politically correct than the faculty?

Happy Presidents Day

2006-02-20T15:40:00.000-08:00

The joys of Presidents Day -- virtually no traffic coming to work. Doesn't that suggest that there are too many government workers and explain why it's so hard to rein in government spending?

I offer some quotations from Grover Cleveland, courtesy of Brainy Quote, as a fitting tribute to this day:

For redevelopment officials: "He mocks the people who proposes that the government shall protect the rich that they in turn may care for the laboring poor."

The only worthwhile pensions: "I have considered the pension list of the republic a roll of honor."

A scary thought these days: "A government for the people must depend for its success on the intelligence, the morality, the justice and the interest of the people themselves."

For trial lawyers: "A truly American sentiment recognizes the dignity of labor and the fact that honor lies in honest toil."

Sustenance during lean times: "It is better to be defeated standing for a high principle than to run by committing subterfuge."

Tell this one to Democrats: "The lessons of paternalism ought to be unlearned and the better lesson taught that while the people should patriotically and cheerfully support their government, its functions do not include the support of the people."

Yes, limited government matters: "When more of the people's sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government and expenses of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion ... ."

Patrick Henry warned us about the presidency

2006-02-20T12:06:00.000-08:00

The great patriot Patrick Henry opposed the imposition of the U.S. Constitution in a speech before Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788:

"Besides the expenses of maintaining the Senate and other house in as much splendor as they please, there is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers -- the powers of a king. He is to be supported in extravagant magnificence; so that the whole of our property may be taken by this American government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our [state and local] laws at their pleasure."

He sure got that one right -- to a T, for tyranny.

The presidency: The founding fathers' mistake

2006-02-20T11:40:00.000-08:00

America's founding fathers were remarkable men, devoted to country and liberty. They seceded from George III's tyranny and, after a bloody war, won their independence and freedom. Too bad they didn't stop there.

Instead, they went to Philadelphia and held the Constitutional Convention. The U.S. Constitution has many fine points, especially the Bill of Rights. But they created a chief-executive office that, over time, has metastasized into a position far more tyrannical than old, mad George III ever dreamed of being.

The Founding Fathers modeled the presidency to fit George Washington, a man of the utmost rectitude. They should have realized that the job would be held by people like Nixon, Clinton, Carter and the two Bushes.

It didn't even take long for the tyrannies to begin. President Adams, one of the greatest of revolutionaries, imposed the Alien and Sedition Acts, that day's version of the USA Traitors' Act (aka, the USA "Patriot" Act). Jefferson campaigned against that tyranny, won, and abolished the acts. Then, using unconstitutional means, he perpetrated the Louisiana Purchase, giving us Arkansas, and eventually Bill and Hillary Clinton.

What should the founding fathers have done? They should have stuck with the superior Articles of Confederation, which had a weak presidency. But if they had to go through with the Constitution, they should have made the presidency an office held for three months -- and no more, ever -- by someone chosen by the U.S. Senate, but from outside that body. And of course, the odious 17th Amendment, which made senators elected by the people instead of by the state legislatures, never should have been imposed in 1913 during the "regressive era." Doing so further stripped the state governments, and in fact the people of the states, of much power.

Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court was wrongly constructed. Instead of being appointed by the president, the justices should be made up of 13 state supreme court justices, each serving a year on a rotating basis.

So much for my utopia.

The essence of the presidency

2006-02-20T09:36:00.000-08:00

"The president has kept all of the promises he intended to keep," George Stephanopoulos, a top aide to President Clinton, said on "Larry King Live" in 1996.

That sums up the presidency. Presidents take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- and then do so, but only where they intend to do so. Where they do not intend to do so, they flagrantly violate the Constitution and willfully destroy our liberties.

Down with the presidency!

2006-02-20T09:19:00.000-08:00

It's Presidents Day, so traffic was light this morning because the government shirkers were home while taxpayers trundled off to work to pay for the whole government regime of regulation, waste and death.

To celebrate, I re-read the best short article ever written on the presidency, "Down With the Presidency," by Mises Institute President Lew Rockwell. He wrote it during the dark, disastrous years of the Clinton regime. At the time, conservatives were denouncing Clinton for increasing federal power, snooping on citizens, and other abuses of power -- which abuses most conservatives now embrace because they're the policies of President Bush, a Republican!

Rockwell, writing in 1996: "The presidency -- by which I mean the executive State -- is the sum total of American tyranny. The other branches of government, including the presidentially appointed Supreme Court, are mere adjuncts. The presidency insists on complete devotion and humble submission to its dictates, even while it steals the products of our labor and drives us into economic ruin. It centralizes all power unto itself, and crowds out all competing centers of power in society, including the church, the family, business, charity, and the community. I'll go further. The U.S. presidency is the world's leading evil. It is the chief mischief-maker in every part of the globe, the leading wrecker of nations, the usurer behind Third-World debt, the bailer-out of corrupt governments, the hand in many dictatorial gloves, the sponsor and sustainer of the New World Order, of wars, interstate and civil, of famine and disease. ... Look at the human toll taken by the presidency, from Dresden and Hiroshima to Waco and Ruby Ridge, and you see a prime practitioner of murder by government....

"Each president has tended to be worse than the last, especially in this century. Lately, in terms of the powers they assumed and the dictates they imposed, Kennedy was worse than Eisenhower, Johnson was worse than Kennedy, Nixon was worse than Johnson, Carter was worse than Nixon, and Reagan -- who doubled the national budget and permanently entrenched the warfare State -- was worse than Carter. The same is true of [George H.W.] Bush and Clinton. Every budget is bigger and the powers exercised more egregious. Each new brutal action breaks another taboo and establishes a new precedent that gives the next occupant of the White House more leeway."

And Bush II is much worse than Clinton. Bush II has given us the tyrannical Traitors' Act (a/k/a the "Patriot Act"", the endless Iraq war started under a fusillade of lies, domestic surveillance without court order in violation of a thousand years of common law, national ID cards like the Soviets had (the Real ID Act), and massive deficits that will lead to tax increases. The only good thing one can say of Bush II is that he is better than whoever his successor will be, which could be Clinton II.

Down with the presidency!

Does free speech require responsibility?

2006-02-17T16:45:00.000-08:00

If I hear one more person say that, "yes, I believe in free speech, but with free speech comes responsibility" I will run out of the building screaming. Well, maybe I won't actually do that, but I will be annoyed. That has been the line of those who condemn the Danish cartoonists. Actually, beyond some basics -- the old yelling fire in a theater and other direct incitements to mayhem and violence -- the whole idea of free speech is that it is free. The speaker gets to decide what to say, not some outside observer. It doesn't need to fit anyone's idea of responsibility.

If my speech was dependent on others believing what I say to be responsible, then I have no speech rights. I have heard many times in my criticisms of public officials that I am being irresponsible for criticising them. My opinion: too bad. Toughen up and grow up.

It's my decision what to say, not my critics' decision. Of course, that doesn't mean we have the right to say or write anything we want at any time. My employer sets standards on my writing and other private and public organizations set standards for speech. But those who make the speech/responsibility argument really are arguing for people to shut up. They won't come out and say they oppose free speech, so they say they are for it. But they don't want you to exercise your rights because they don't like what you have to say. They are offended by what you say and in their view that should trump your right to say it. They might not use the law to silence you (although many people would use it), but they do want to shame you or scare you into staying silent. They want self-censorship if not actual censorship.

On another point, critics of the Danish cartoonists say that no one should insult another person's religion. That's nonsense also. I am a religious person, but I don't want my Christian religion pandered to and shielded from criticism. I sometimes find some criticisms of Christianity offensive, but I don't want critics to shut up. I want religious ideas to play a greater role in the public square. But that means that those ideas must be subject to criticism. You can't have it both ways -- insisting that one's religious ideas be taken seriously then act like a shrinking violet when people attack those ideas.

If I think you should believe in the virgin birth, then I should be willing to allow you to debate that idea and criticize that idea and even lampoon that idea. That's what an intellectual give and take is all about. I can't be intellectually honest and tell you to believe what I believe, then claim some right not to be offended when you argue against that idea.

Nonreligious people can be equally sensitive, as debates over intelligent design suggest. Hard-core evolutionists want to shut down discussions of intelligent design. But why? Let the debate roll on. Let the sacred cows be slaughtered. In a free society -- and most of the people burning down buildings over the cartoons don't live in free societies -- you have no right not to be offended. And, yes, writers and cartoonists will write things simply to shock readers. Big deal. That's called freedom.

People who are easily offended, religious or otherwise, need to grow up and take part in the great debate of ideas rather than try to shut down those who they don't agree with.

No gay parade in Moscow

2006-02-17T16:41:00.000-08:00

Moscow's city government has put the kibosh on what was to have been the first gay pride parade in the city's history. Mayor Yuri Luzhkov's administration said it wouldn't even consider an application for the parade, which was to have marked the 13th anniversary of the elimination of criminal penalties for homosexuality in Russia, because the very idea has caused "outrage" in society.

What elements of society? Well, there's Chief Mufti Talgat Tadzhuddin, who warned that Russia's Muslims would stage violent protests. "If they come out on the streets anyway they should be flogged." he said. "Any normal person would do that." This isn't a jihadist but the leaders of Russia's mainline Muslims.

One Bishop Daniil of the Russian Orthodox Church didn't threaten bodily harm, but called plans for a gay pride march "the propaganda of sin."

Under communism, of course, homosexuals were jailed for five years. Homosexuality may not be illegal now, but tolerance doesn't seem to be much in evidence.

Whatever happened to the notion that the precepts of a religion were binding on those who believe in that religion but don't give those who are believers the right to impose their beliefs, physically and violently, on others who may not hold the same beliefs? Or is that a "decadent" Western concept?

Dianne Harman's big-government health care plan

2006-02-17T16:37:00.000-08:00

Dianne Harman, who is running for the 67th District Assembly seat, sent out a statement on the state's health care crisis. The plan she advocates is one that promotes big government. One can only pretend to be a Republican for so long without one's true colors showing. Here's part of her solution:

"1. We need to get uninsured children enrolled in programs which are presently available and would be paid for by the federal government, not the state or the county. Basically this means no added cost to you and to me as we are already paying for it.

"2. We need strong educational programs which teach people how to minimize their chances of becoming obese or a type II diabetic. I attended a health conference last year and one of the speakers made the statement that '50% of the public is health illiterate.' In other words, 50% of the population leads lifestyles which result in obesity and diabetes because they simply are not aware of how they can make healthier choices.

"3. Mandatory health care insurance should be required for all California residents. We already have mandatory auto insurance. Why shouldn't we have mandatory health care insurance? The State can intercept income tax refunds for those who don't pay (it's already doing that for deadbeat dads who don't pay child support)."

Danish roses

2006-02-17T15:01:00.000-08:00

Just in case you wanted to see a fairly authentic source on the matter, here's an Al Jazeera story about bakers in Tehran renaming Danish pastries "Roses of Muhammad Pastries." Guess all sides are capable of silliness when it comes to names. With apologies to the Bard, however, perhaps a rose by any other name is still a Danish?

Arnold continues to go left

2006-02-17T10:07:00.000-08:00

O.C.'s Mike Schroeder should bring back his resolution for the Republican Party to withdraw its support from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at the party convention in San Jose next week.

Here's the latest evidence that the Republican governor has gone completely to the other side:

From the San Francisco Chronicle: "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration is expected this month to release a plan to combat global warming that recommends raising petroleum prices and requiring industries to report, for the first time, their greenhouse-gas emissions. The increase in gas prices would fund research into alternative fuels."

Both parties should go to San Diego

2006-02-17T10:02:00.000-08:00

The North County Times is reporting today that San Diego will not bid for either national party convention. The mayor says the city has other priorities, which makes sense given the massive pension scandal and unfolding fiscal crisis. Actually, both parties should go to San Diego for their conventions, given that the once well-managed city has become a poster city for waste, fraud, labor-union dominance, excess spending and perhaps even bankruptcy. Both parties are spending this country into bankruptcy, so why not go right to the belly of the beast.

Send the U.N. to Guantanamo!

2006-02-17T09:57:00.000-08:00

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan demanded that Guantanamo prison be closed. It should be, with its prisoners either charged with crimes in U.S. courts or released.

Then the U.N. should be moved from N.Y. City to Guantanamo. The U.N. has more affinity for, and more in common with, Fidel Castro than it does with the USA.

It's far past time to get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the U.N.

Smoking Nazis strike

2006-02-16T13:23:00.000-08:00

Well, the Smoking Nazis have struck again. The city of Calabasas has passed an ordinance, to be effective some time around mid-March, banning smoking (or tobacco, although other substances are probably included by inference as well) in all public places, including outdoors -- places like parks, sidewalks and outdoor businesses.

There will be exceptions. Private residential properties are excepted (at least for now) and hotels and motels can disgnate up to 20 percent of rooms as "smoking" rooms. There can also be designated smoking "outposts" (presumably the word "ghetto" had too many unfortunate connotations) in shopping mall common areas.

Although a law that bans smoking outdoors is manifestly absurd, it may be that a city has more of a "right" to do so there than it does indoors. Insofar as parks, sidewalks and the like are "public" (actually government) property, the government has a right to make rules as to what can and can't be done there. It has no right, in my opinion, to dictate to private businesses like bars and restaurants what rules they make about their patrons do, including inside.

Well the totalitarianization of America -- all in the name of health and safety, of course -- proceeds apace.

More evidence of police abuse

2006-02-16T12:34:00.000-08:00

The Los Angeles Times today reported that a jury ordered the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to pay $18 million to a Bellflower teacher charged with assaulting and kidnapping a girl because the detective withheld evidence that the man did not commit the crime. How many times do police do this, engaging in what is known as "testilying?"

The sheriff's department should pay up and pay up big. The detective should face criminal charges. Maybe at some point police organizations, which protect their own Band of Brothers, will start rooting out such behavior. Unfortunately, taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

Should Anaheim host GOP convention?

2006-02-16T10:33:00.000-08:00

According to today's Register, "Anaheim is among 31 cities that the Republican National Committee on Wednesday invited to make a pitch to hold the party's 2008 presidential nominating convention. The party plans to narrow its list this summer and visit the finalist cities. The committee will pick the winning city by Feb. 1."

In the past, I might have argued that Anaheim is the ideal city for the Republican Convention. After all, the officials there actually are trying to put into place Republican ideas of deregulation, lower taxes, competition and decentralization. I know I've said it many times before, but this really is significant given the degree to which most cities have embraced big government and central planning.

But who really thinks Republicans care about ideas any more? At a recent conference of Republican mayors, Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle was the ONLY one to oppose the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which said that cities can use eminent domain to take properties from working people and give them to big corporations.

At the national level, Republicans have shown an equal zeal for big government as Democrats. At the state level, a Republican governor is acting just like a Democrat, and the Senate Republican minority leader is pushing for the Senate a candidate who is as liberal as most Democrats.

Apparently, Republicans are just like Democrats now: vying to control the levers of power for personal gain, rather than about advancing fundamental limited-government values.

So why not pick a more fitting city, such as Portland or Detroit?

Must be global warming

2006-02-16T10:21:00.000-08:00

Permit me some rambling thoughts on global warming and the housing bubble. Could the bubble be bursting from too much heat?

From a National Association of Home Builders press release:

"A temporary sag in interest rates and the warmest January on record nationwide combined to bring about a 14.5 percent surge in new home construction for the month, the U.S. Commerce Department reported today."

It must be tough being a liberal. You do want your house to go up in value, but you're sure that any indicator of warmer temperatures in the present is a sign of a warming trend over the entire history of the Earth.

Oh my goodness, it was 89 the other day! In February! Must be global warming! Note that I never heard such statements in December when there were record levels of cold. Of course, what about the snow storms in the East? Yeah, but that Friends of the Dirt press release warns about the melting Anarctic ice pack or some other such nonsense.

Really, don't worry about the warming. 1 degree in 100 years, not to mention the difficulty in measuring such things then vs. now. Most of the so-called warming took place in the first half of the century before all the fossil fuels were being pumped into the ozone.

Don't worry and enjoy the nice weather, even though it is a tad cool today. (Do you think the New Ice Age scientists warned about in the 1970s is making a comeback? Warming or cooling, who cares? Any excuse will serve a tyrant, and the tyrants want YOU to stop driving so much and to stop building so much and to stop procreating so much and to stop just about anything it is humans are designed to do.)

But do worry about the front page of the Register today, showing the first decline in home values in the OC in quite some time. All that global warming is causing a longer building season, which means more housing starts and more supply in a market that is, believe it or not, driven by supply and demand. So global warming leads to a deflating house bubble.

Maybe we all should support Kyota now.

Abu Ghraib: new photos

2006-02-16T09:26:00.000-08:00

Salon magazine has done a piece that includes a gallery of the new photos from Abu Ghraib, originally published in an Australian newspaper and by an Australian TV network. These are supposedly the ones the ACLU has been trying to get and the administration has been resisting releasing. So far as I know the Aussies aren't saying how they got them, but they're all over the Internet by now.

Some of these are disturbing, so view at your own discretion. The link above won't take you directly to them; you'll have to click again.

Despite reports, no decision on Angel lawsuit appeal

2006-02-15T11:53:00.000-08:00

Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle just told me that, despite reports that Anaheim will not appeal the decision in its lawsuit against the Angels, that the city has yet to make any such decision. The city, he said, has not taken any action related to the appeal at this time.

Cherry-picking intelligence

2006-02-15T10:13:00.000-08:00

Paul R. Pillar, who served in the CIA as National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, has written a fascinating piece for Foreign Affairs magazine. It essentially argues that the Bush administration, in the process of making the case for the war in Iraq, didn't just "cherry-pick" the intelligence it thought would be useful to make the case, it actively ignored the bulk of what the intelligence community came up with. Money quote:

"What is remarkable about prewar intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades."

He complains that under George Tenet the CIA became not a disinterested provider of the best information it could come up with for policymakers to do with as the chose, but a more active participant in the policy process than is healthy for an intelligence agency; one example is Tenet visibly sittting behind Colin Powell when Powell did his "good soldier" presentation at the U.N., virtually all of which turned out not to be true. This is hardly likely to improve under Porter Goss, who is a former CIA officer but also a former Republican congresscritter and diehard administration loyalist.

Maybe this is a disgruntled old CIA veteran upset with the new leadership Bush has put in or doing a knee-jerk defense of the agency he served for so long. But anyone who makes that case without reading the entire piece and doing a detailed, point-by-point refutation is not being intellectually respectable and doesn't deserve serious attention.

Unfortunately, good sense prevailed

2006-02-14T15:31:00.000-08:00

Mike Schroeder, the former California GOP chairman and co-author of a resolution for the GOP convention calling on the party to withdraw its support of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, told the Register today that he would request that the resolution be tabled in San Jose. When I talked to him Friday, Schroeder was still standing firm on his support for the admittedly controversial measure at the Feb. 24-26 convention. The four other resolutions questioning various Schwarzenegger policies (i.e., eminent domain, the Susan Kennedy appointment) will still go forward. That, of course, is sensible. It will make it tough for Republicans to fend off a challenge by left-winger Phil Angelides or liberal Steve Westly if the governor doesn't have united Republican support. Perhaps the governor got the point just from the resolution being proposed and the four issue-based resolutions are not personal.

Still, I would have relished the debate at the convention. I'm tired of Republicans accepting anything from their leaders simply because Democrats are always worse. No wonder conservatives never get anywhere. They are too easy. I've reached the point where I don't see much downside in scuttling Republican nominees who veer too far off course. The recall is dead anyway. Sure, an Angelides will always be worse, but when a governor embraces big-spending policies and appoints Democrats to most key positions, why bother?

Same goes with the 34th district Senate race. When Republicans endorse a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-eminent-domain, pro-Smart-Growth, pro-tax candidate, why bother? Isn't it better to let the Democrats win and try to win back the seat the next go round? When liberal Republicans win, then Republicans are stuck with that candidate until the cows come home. When Democrats win, then Republicans can organize to beat them in the next election.

Besides, if conservatives don't inflict pain -- real, political pain, even to the point of losing an election -- on those Republicans who abandon conservatism, then they won't be taken seriously. Conservatives will be taken advantage of because they will always jump on board anyway. I'm enjoying the Young Americans for Freedom mailer targeting Supervisor Jim Silva's liberal votes even though Silva is running in a contested primary for Assembly. Here's a guy who has supported pension spiking, new fees at the Sanitation District, Project Labor Agreements, CenterLine, etc. Why should conservatives back him simply because one of his opponents is more liberal?

Is this cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, or a sensible long-term strategy to teach Republicans that the conservative base means business, and you better fear it as much as you fear the labor unions?

Birdshot and secrecy

2006-02-14T08:55:00.000-08:00

There's a certain amusement in watching both sides of the "why didn't you tell us sooner" aspect of Cheney's unfortunate shotgun incident. On the one hand the impression you get from the press is one of wounded dignity masked by high-minded talk about the people's sacred right to know. The following exchange also illustrates press secretary McClellan's effort to cover up the delay with a false choice about making sure the victim had medical attention -- as if the gaggle of vice presidential hangers-on was personally pulling out birdshot with tweezers or performing CPR or whatever and just didn't have time to make an announcement to the press.

Q Why didn't we hear about it for 24 hours?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the first priority was making sure that -- and I don't think that's correct, on the 24 hours -- but I think the first priority was making sure that Mr. Whittington was getting the medical care that he needed. And I know that the Vice President's Office worked with Mrs. Armstrong to get that information out, as well. And my understanding is that Mrs. Armstrong contacted the local paper early Sunday morning.
Q Can you say what the Vice President did immediately after the accident, what the sequence of --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, my understanding from his office is that he was making sure that Mr. Whittington was getting the care he needed....
Q You and the press duty officer don't administer medical treatment. So why couldn't the press office have alerted us Saturday night, when you guys found out?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the Vice President's Office was working to get that information out, and they got it out Sunday morning through Mrs. Armstrong.
Q Well, why the wait? I'm still confused why --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think they wanted to make sure that he was getting the care he needed. And then -- I mean, they proactively worked to get it out.
Q But didn't they actually --
Q -- both at the same time. I don't understand that.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, you want to make sure he gets the care; and, two, then you want to get the facts together. And they got it out early Sunday.
Q Well, I mean, you know, you can certainly make sure he's getting the care and tell us, too. I mean, it's a pretty big shop that you're running here.
MR. McCLELLAN: And they worked to get it out....
Q You don't think there was any real delay in announcing this to the public? What do you mean, work with --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that --
Q -- there were people there watching it and so forth and they knew what happened.
MR. McCLELLAN: And they worked to get that information out. The first priority, again, was making sure that Mr. Whittington got the care he needed, which they did. And the Vice President's team was -- the Vice President's team did great work doing that....

"They worked to get it out."

Apparently they didn't work very hard, or they worked with the usual efficiency of a government operation.

The less-amusing aspect of this is that it reveals the instinct of this administration and especially the vice president's office: that virtually everything is properly a secret until somebody else demonstrates a "need to know." It took them 24 hours -- or maybe less, but we're quibbling -- to figure out it would be good form to make a public announcement of what happened. It's not quite as egregious (or as serious in consequences for the victim) as Ted Kennedy after Chappaquiddick, but it's the same cover-up instinct.

Wonders never cease; Skelton right on Schwarzenegger

2006-02-13T16:52:00.000-08:00

I never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with LA Times columnist George Skelton (Not to be confused with the late, great comedian Red Skelton, pictured at right).

George says that Arnold is a political naif. He's right. Arnold said: "Ever since I came to California I have been a Republican, and I have had mostly Democrats working for me ... when I worked in the movie business and everywhere. And no one ever asked me, 'Who is working for you?'...."

Except there's a big difference in putting together deals in a Democrat-dominated industry to make brain-dead action movies (many of which I have enjoyed) and being a Republican politician.

Arnold presented himself to us in the 2003 recall campaign as a quick learner. But he isn't, any more than most people. It took him years to get to the head of the bodybuilding industry. Then it took him about 15 years, from the immortal "Hercules in New York" in 1970 to the top of the Hollywood heap in the late 1980s. It would take him about 15 years to get up to speed with California politics, which is highly tricky.

It's not surprising he's made so many blunders. What he should do is not run for re-election, and instead run for state assembly or senate, waiting until about 2108 to run for governor again.

NY Republican challenger is worse than Hillary!

2006-02-13T16:44:00.000-08:00

Hillary's expected GOP challenger in NY is John Spencer. But he's more pro-government than she is. Where do Republicans get these candidates?

AP reported that "a fiery speech to the state Conservative Party leadership in which, during a defense of the Patriot Act, he also attacked the administration of former President Bill Clinton.
'I wish we had it before 9-11,' said the former mayor of Yonkers. 'And, I wish we had an administration in Washington that wasn't an appeasing, liberal, whining administration in the 90's that allowed the terrorists to build up the way they built up'."

But the "Patriot" -- really, Traitor -- Act goes against the very foundation of liberty on which America stands, as truly patriotic Republicans, such as former Rep. Bob Barr, have contended all along.

And this guy Spencer doesn't even know that the "Patriot" (Traitor) Act was cobbled together by the flummoxed Bush regime in the wake of 9/11 from tyrannical proposals of the Clinton regime in the mid-1990s! In those days, the Republican Congress resisted the Clinton proposals. Unfortunately, by the time the same proposals were brought back by Bush in 2001, the GOP Congress had become immersed in power and no longer resisted such fascist ideas.

Fortunately, Spencer will be wiped out by Hillary. Because of mass immigration, which leads to immigrant votes 70% Democratic, and which is supported by the Bush regime, NY now is almost permanently Democratic, like California. The only Republicans who can win in such places are Democrats, such as Schwarzenegger and, in NY City, Bloomberg.

Milosevic trial drags on

2006-02-13T13:00:00.000-08:00

Just in case you might have been wondering just how long Saddam Hussein might be able to get away with turning his trial into a circus, here's a piece explaining that the trial of former Yugoslav strongman Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague enters its fifth year this week. But don't worry. The court expects a verdict by the end of this year.

CIA honcho sacked for opposing torture?

2006-02-13T12:01:00.000-08:00

According to this article in the London Sunday Times, Robert Grenier, head of counter-terrorism at the CIA, was fired after a year on the job "because he opposed detaining al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons abroad, sending them to other countries for interrogation and using forms of torture such as 'water boarding,' intelligence sources have claimed."

"One intelligence official" told the Times Greneier was fired because he wasn't aggressive enough. But Vincent Cannistraro, also formerly head of counter-terrorism at the CIA told the Times,"It is not that Grenier wasn't aggressive enough, it is that he wasn't 'with the programme.' He expressed misgivings about the secret prisons in Europe and the rendition [ sending to other countries for interrogation] of terrorists."

I don't know how reliable Cannistraro is. If he's close to accurate, however, it's a strong piece of evidence that under Porter Goss as chief the CIA has become thoroughly politicized, giving the administration what it thinks the administration wants to hear and punishing those in the ranks who question the official line -- which is something you would think an agency concerned with getting close to the truth would encourage.

Garden Grove still trying to become Hawaiian Gardens

2006-02-13T11:45:00.000-08:00

Garden Grove officials, who resemble the folks in Music Man, will buy any dumb idea that comes down the pike in the name of redevelopment. They continue to push ahead the idea of luring an Indian casino to Harbor Blvd. Officials should look at nearby Hawaiian Gardens, which also has a casino in its midst. Despite that city's lovely name, it's not a garden spot.

Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle is pushing ahead a plan to ban casinos in Anaheim, as a way of making a point to Garden Grove. But the folks who run GG don't get "points." Led by the three council liberals (Bill Dalton, Mark Rosen and Harry Krebs), the city continues to push ahead with the same big-government, redevelopment ideas that continue to fail.

If I were an Anaheim official, I wouldn't care what the council does in Garden Grove. There's no way this crowd will pull together a successful economic development project, so there's no fear of competition, and no way the governor will OK a casino in central OC. Just let Garden Grove remain as it is -- a testament of what not to do in urban planning.

Faulty intelligence?

2006-02-13T11:44:00.000-08:00

My super-secret conspiratorial sources tell me that Dick Cheney was told by George Tenet that it was a "slam-dunk" that his quail-hunting companion was really Osama bin Laden in a clever disguise and that was why he shot at him. The fact that the hunting companion was only scathed and is likely to survive is simply in line with how effectively the U.S. is waging every aspect of the fabled War on Error.

Is it necessary to mention this is a feeble attempt at humor lest I be firebombed and branded a traitor for leaking top-secret intelligence?

Chuck DeVore is right on Angels name controversy

2006-02-13T11:20:00.000-08:00

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore wrote on OCBlog: "As the only lawmaker from Orange County to vote 'no' on Assemblyman Tom Umberg's bill to force the Angels to use only Anaheim in their name, I feel a bit vindicated by this verdict. I said on the floor of the Assembly that this was a contract dispute that would be settled in the civil court system and that it had absolutely no place being debated in the Legislature.

"For that comment and vote, I got a little bit of hate mail from Angels fans... ."

It's just a game, folks. But Chuck is right: This is a contract dispute. And do we need any more laws increasing government power even more over private activities? No, we don't. But we do need more laws reducing government's power. And let's remember that this whole problem stemmed from Anaheim using $20 million in money stolen from taxpayers to refurbish Angel Stadium, which the city owns. Here's an idea:

The Freedom of Sports act would ban any taxpayer subsidy going to any stadium used by a professional sports team in California. Second, it would mandate that all stadiums currently owned by government entities be sold within one year to the highest bidder, with the money refunded to the city/county/state taxpayers on a per-capita basis.

When in doubt, keep it secret

2006-02-13T11:08:00.000-08:00

During the Clinton administration, that president's natural first reaction to any event seemed to be to lie. As one pundit noted, President Clinton lied even when he didn't have to lie. The Bush administration is afflicted with a natural reaction toward keeping things secret, even when it offers no benefit. The funny Cheney-shoots-hunting-partner story (it's funny because the guy is OK) resulted in the same desire to be secretive.

From the Associated Press:

"President Bush knew Saturday evening that Vice President Dick Cheney had accidentally shot a hunting companion, but the information wasn't made public until the next day -- by a private citizen -- the White House said Monday.

"Spokesman Scott McClellan said the vice president's staff was focused on making sure that the shooting victim, Austin, Texas, attorney Harry Whittington, was receiving adequate medical care after the shooting on the private Armstrong Ranch in south Texas. Whittington and Cheney were hunting quail together."