Morons on the loose (or phone).

But wait, are we all morons? Indeed, at least most of us are. You see, we (that is you, me and just about everyone else) tend to engage in the interface of technology while driving. And this is dangerous. To you, to me and everyone else.

Come on, you must have seen it too: almost everytime you see someone in a car doing something particularly ignorant, they have a phone plastered to their head. Parking, backing up around a corner, switching lanes without signalling, trying to merge onto a motorway/freeway/interstate ... phone to head will ensure a certain remove from the situation putting everyone else at risk. It ought to be as serious as a speeding ticket, or worse.

And does the "hands-free" make a difference? Yes, I think so, but not as much as you think -- but at least two hands might be on the wheel or a spare hand free for signalling. But there is still a difference as compared to talking with someone in the car: I think that this must have something to do with focusing on someone that is not present and in that way removing the focus from the immediate environment. That is not to say that people in the car gabbing with each other do not pose a risk -- we have all seen (mostly two or more women) gabbing away trundling down the fast lane at 45 mph. Or gramps (but he is talking with the little green men that live in his frontal cortex). Lest anyone think that I am picking on the stereotype woman driver, let me add that I find the macho-teen/twenty-something male bozo with the mirror shades and baseball cap on backwards by far the riskier prospect.

What makes the hands free risky? You have to answer the phone -- or dial a number. And that requires taking your eyes off of the road. Mercedes has a voice activated system (as do some other manufacturers) that permits you to toggle a stalk on the steering column and speak your commands and numbers -- all the while you are presumably watching where you are going. But most people who have a "hands free" phone need to fiddle with it such that it is only hands free while talking to the other party. While better than holding the phone to your head, it still has its issues.

So what about NAV systems? Well, if you consider that a ton of accidents are caused by people fiddling with the radio, and that is a minor adjustment compared with setting up the NAV while moving, I can only hope that at some point in the future, the car companies will come up with a lock-out interface to prevent someone from entering an address or doing anything except, possibly, changing the scale on the map. 'Cause let me tell you from experience, this is an easy way to completely lose "sight of the ball."

Which brings me to the Blackberry. Yessiree, folks, you know that you need to send an email while driving. Or read stuff in your inbox that just can't wait until you stop the car. If you think that I am kidding ... I have seen it. But then again, I do live in Boston.

In Housing We Trust

If you, like me, have a largish percentage of your "net worth" tied to the value of your house -- and make longer-term financial decisions predicated on such value, I would suggest a conservative approach in making the valuation. For giggles, I picked up a magazine over the weekend that listed "exclusive and unique" houses in various parts of the country. In particular, I looked at houses in the broad band down the coast of Southern California. What I saw is both disheartening and scary: poop-boxes in Laguna or La Jolla are offered at prices that would buy a vast spread in other parts of the US, let alone some Third World nation. That is not healthy for us, any of us, including the people that own the poop-boxes in question.

You see, the chasm between real estate prices and sound long term valuation is getting a trifle wide. We all know that the money pumped (read printed) by the Fed into the economy since the tech bubble burst has basically funneled directly to houses and the increase in prices, in turn, has allowed refinancing at the low rates caused by fed-pump freeing people to buy stuff that their incomes would otherwise never have allowed.

Shut off the pump and the cycle of expenditures caused or enabled by low rates ceases. Then people have to take stock in the value of the house, versus their actual incomes: if you have a mortgage that at higher rates would only be supportable by higher incomes ... you have a problem Houston. The natural instinct is to lock in the "gains" represented by the house by selling at the inflated prices. If you manage to do this earlier than the bulk of others in a similar position (i.e. while the greater fool theory still holds), so much the better. Pay off the mortgage, down-scale and enjoy some gains ... provided you have not already refinanced and spent the "gains." If however you are late, or hold onto the house looking to avoid the "softness" in the market -- I'll sell in the Spring -- you may be holding an "asset" that is worth considerably less that you think it is. And if you have indulged in the refinance and spend game, you may be in deep poop.

Southern California may be in deep poop. There are way too many houses at prices that imply incomes far higher that are actually supporting them. It may just work at the rates that we have seen since the tech bubble burst, but these rates are historically low, too low. Spend the "gained equity" and all you are left with are mortgages that have nothing in common with their owners. In short, watch out for too many fat men trying to squeeze through a narrow door.

Whenever circumstances create the situation where well-off young people are functionally crowded out of the market for starter houses -- unable to board the housing ladder (itself a silly notion of trading one house you can't afford for a bigger one, because someone else is always willing to buy it for more than you spent on it), you have an imbalance that will retreat to meet the available incomes.

Note also, that China and other 3rd world / developing nations have held the paper represented by the Fed's money infusions into the economy: the money found its way there in the form of the refinanced expenditures and failure to save in the US. There is no guarantee that these creditors will continue to want to hold the paper. If they decide (inscrutably) to dump it or merely stop buying (we've had our fill in our portfolio), then US rates will rise. Steeply. In that instance, growth ceases in the US, housing "shits the bed" and all these leveraged-to-the-hilt houses for silly moeny head South. Lots of fat men and a veritable slit for a door.

All the real estate people are now saying "soft landing" -- this after saying that the market remain robust at the beginning of the year. So buy now, because this is surely the bottom of the market. The only person more dishonest (or self deluded) than a real estate broker is a car salesman (what car really has "value" or is a good investment ... less than 1/1000 of 1% ... and you can't afford to buy it in the first place, anyway). But real estate is a limited asset you say. What about a shrinking population in real terms and a rapidly shrinking population of people actually able to afford million dollar property (what is a mansion in Orange County -- in Pittsburgh is called a split level)? And the Boomers are shortly to go into cash-in mode and downscale ....

One good trigger -- oil prices spike again, Chinese debt moratorium, trade (im)balance causes run on the dollar (you cannot continue to run 60 billion dollar monthly deficits indefinitely), and then rates must spike. If that happens, put your head between your knees and kiss your sweet heine good-bye.

From my point of view, I just don't see how it can be avoided.

Turkey Day

Holidays in the United States generally seem to miss the point. Too much forced guilt and pretend merriment. Thanksgiving is another one of those occasions. Here people travel all over the country "to get to spend the 'holiday' with their families or other loved ones." Busiest travel days of the year. For what? In true American fashion we screw the nuts off of anyone foolish enough to have to use commercial transport to make their annual "pilgrimage" to their Turkey Day feast. Blackouts to travel and discount fares make this a fantastic opportunity to pillage the pocketbook of the Average Joe.

Then you have an entire industry built to produce food for the feast, featuring a basically tasteless bird, package bought "stuffing", potato buds, canned cranberries (which almost nobody eats at any other time of the year), disgusting psuedo vegetables such as sweet potatoes, turnips, and pumpkin pie. Gag. Just because someone has surmised that the Pilgrims ate such fare, we should be subjected to it? Are you kidding me? Furthermore, we didn't even begin to "celebrate" Thanksgiving with all the trimmings and football until relatively recently.

The first Turkey Day was held sometime in late September, 1621. Not November. In the early 1800's New York State adopted the celebration as an annual custom. By the mid-1800's many states had done so. In 1863, Lincoln declared the last Thursday in November as Thankgiving Day. In 1939, Roosevelt declared that it should be the fourth Thursday in November. So you see, it is not exactly some sort of miraculous thing that started back in the days of the Pilgrims and has carried forward to us intact.

In fact, the Pilgrim's initial September harvest feast lasted three days and they ate a VERY different menu. There would have been many different kinds of meat (meat was for when you wanted to celebrate), fish, lobster (almost a pest, there were so many), clams, corn, berries and of course, wild fowl.

Which brings up one of the things that bothers me most about American-style "holidays" (note that Thanksgiving is certainly not "holy" as in a holiday), they only lasts one day. The Pilgrims partied for three days. Three!! Now that would make a longish trip and fleecing by the airlines more worthwhile. Christmas is virtually universally two days outside of the US. Here, we shop, make merry have cocktail parties and plan/scheme and fret over gifts for a holiday that lasts 35 nanoseconds until the kids demolish the wrapping. Whoopee. Let's get real about this too: Christman is rooted in a pagan feast celebrating the shortest night of the year and was a multi-day event. The Catholic church shanghai'd it for their purposes (if the peasants are going to party anyway, let's make it about our gig) ... cause most scholars figure that Christ was born in February or March. Hey, I could do with a party then, and not some penance period starting and lasting for 40 days. But getting back to the plot, Boxing Day is civilized. Going back to work on the 26th as though nothing has happened, then pretending to work until New Year's Eve is insulting. In Europe (not extactly the model of working ethics, but...) the whole she-bang basically shuts down from December 20th until January 4th or so. Now that's what I am talking about.

And the fleecing of the public that goes on at Christmas too -- not only do you have to travel, you pay stupid sums for goods that will be sold for half of the price you paid, only days later. All to assuage some form of guilt drummed into us by the advertising agencies that would have you believe that McDonald's is good for you (I'm loving it). Imagine if you spent all those shekels on good food and wine ... you'd have a party that you would remember until the next year. Or, in perhaps a way that will brand me as un-American, you gave the money that you would have spent on gifts to charity and feeding the homeless. Hmmm. Now that's an idea. Even Christian perhaps?

Well, time to go out and buy lights, a nice pagan tree, spend money on gifts people don't want and support George Boosh's economy. Joy to you too.

Deborah Lafave

There used to be a time where young gentlemen of a certain class in various parts of the world were "educated" in the arts of interacting with the females of the species in a more physical way. This education was arranged by their fathers with experienced ladies of more dubious background -- but often as part of the father's social presence with his mistress, his son(s) were expected to follow the lead.

Thankfully this practice is mostly a thing of the past in the Western world -- although I would not bet too heavily on its demise on other parts.... But this raises the question that all teenage boys have: when and where (soon, please) and how will I ever learn? Equally, I could easily see where a young woman might prefer to enjoy an encounter a young man who actually knows how to open a bra and what the various anatomical bits are.

Which brings us back to the older woman. As we all know statutory rape is a creation of law and not consent. It arbitrarily presumes a failure of consent -- public good, feeble young minds, recklessness ... all of these are serious and valid points. Thing is, there are lots of teenagers (not merely the feeble minded) who are seriously into the giving of consent and with a more than average understanding of the consequences. True, we cannot as a society say, "you can, because you are intelligent and you can't because you are a box of oatmeal" with reference to establishing who can give consent, but what of the large notion of who is taking advantage of who? I mean, take the putative intelligent, 15 year-old boy: a jar of hormones, eager to try anything. Can we say that this individual is too young for sex?

In the bad old days of the industrial revolution and before (basically since the dawn of time) the initiation into the existence and reality of sex was at a very young age -- living 10 to a room in a shanty/teepee/hogan/yurt/[whatever] it is in your face. Frankly, I am glad to be alive after the Victorian era. I am not sure I could stomach the other possibility. But there is no question that the 15 year old of today is FAR FAR more aware of sexuality than were the previous 5 generations and physically and medically far closer to maturity. Emotionally ... back to the intelligence and unfathomable quandry.

So along comes Mary Kay LeTourneau (sp?). She seduced a young boy of polynesian extraction. She went to prison for it. They were in love. She was released from prison, went straight back to him -- a violation of parole. Ultimately, they get married. In love, apparently. A career destroyed, time wasted festering at the pleasure of the state ... for what? Oh, and don't let me forget the baby she bore him while in the joint. Predator? I am sorry, but I can't get there ... but still a profound abuse of trust and fiduciary duty. Fit to teach young children? Hardly.

So we come to Deb Lafave. She is stunningly good looking, even to a 14 year old. Tall, natural pale blond, crystal blue eyes ... and a predator according to the DA. Let's be clear, the student wanted to. You are male going through puberty, you jump at the chance. Mensa or not. This is a pin-up wanting to show you the ropes. Duh. But consent ... in any possible sane meaning of the word the teen gives it. Societally, he did not. She was 11 years his senior and in a position of trust. She was hot for him and she was hot for her. Heck, we teach kids that age to practice safe sex - better abstinence, but if that fails, safety. Why would we teach that if not for the sneaking suspicion that they will do it anyway?

Deborah Lafave plea bargained her way out of prison (possible 15 years on each count -- mostly likely concurrent) to avoid the trial. She can never teach again. She has to register as a sex offender (predator) in her state. Stay away from children. Etc. But what if the tables had been turned? Deb was Dan and the teen a she? No doubt but that we'd be looking at time. Serious time. And sex offenders do not have a good time of it in prison.

Is it OK if the teenage boy wants it and gets it, but not if the teenage girl does the same: that is, the older party, if male goes down, but if female, slides? From the teenage boy point of view this is terrible that anyone does time. From the teenage girl's point of view ... probably the same? From society's point of view: JUST WHAT IS SOCIETY'S POINT OF VIEW???? Huh? Double standards in the land of equality and gender neutrality? How do feminists justify it? Should anyone have to justify it? Should this be a case by case analysis based on the capacities of the individual at the time (this starts to make better sense to me) or ... how about application for a fornication license for those under the statutory age? A neutral magistrate makes the inquiry and issues a binding opinion, subject to judicial review, if a third party intercedes?

Or we have the Milton Academy issue: teenage girl 15 years old has a "thing" for providing oral sex. Voluntarily and eagerly, by her own admission, she provides the same to the entire (substantially) basketball team and then later on a different date, the hockey team. Those receiving said services that are over 16 themselves are guilty of statutory rape. They will now have to register as a sexual predator and for the next 20 years will have to keep the state informed as to their whereabouts. They really did almost nothing except drop trou. Careers and lives ruined. Expelled from school. The provider? She continues to attend the same establishment. Fair? Consent? Application of the laws? Oh, right, they should have said "no."

Confusing, isn't it? Most sane people agree to a need to prevent teen pregnancies and the evils of young persons being manipulated by older persons -- but let's be honest, this legislation was about older men and younger girls. Not the other way around. When contemplated, in abstract, it should apply equally. But looked at from the side, it is not about an older man abandoning a pregnant younger woman -- or abusing her psyche, it is in Deb's case about an older woman taking advantage of a younger man (boy - she is a perv). And the consequences here would be what ... a pregnant older woman and a school age father unable to take care of the baby financially? MKLeT was and is apparently in love and did time through the equal application of the law, rightly or wrongly.

What strikes me most strongly is the abuse of position: both women were teachers. Hey, didn't Van Halen do a song about "Hot for Teacher?" Society demands higher conduct from its teachers (sorry, teachers). So do I. Apart from that, where do I stand on this? Heck, I don't know. She's a perv, plain and simple, that is true. But if the individual teen was capable of giving a true and reasoned consent ... then I don't know.

However, if you presume that a male teen cannot give consent as to bonking an older woman (not a teacher or doctor or other person charged with a fiduciary duty), you most surely cannot charge ANY teen for murder, conspiracy, RICO, distribution of drugs or just about any serious felony where a state of mind is part of the crime. So when I see kids 12 years old charged as an adult for a crime ... well the double standard bothers me. You?

Airlines and other vermin

Flying first class inside the US is not worth the money. Even if someone else is paying. Firstly (no pun) the service staff (aka Stews) are the oldest on the plane - a function of seniority that allows those with most time in to pick their posts. As a result, the young and eager -- read polite and helpful -- are in the back of the bus getting a lesson in how to be sour and the battle-hardened and jaded are in the front, ready to be cooly rude and having perfected insolence to a fine art. "I am sorry sir, but we have run out of eggs -- you'll have to do with the fruit plate." A quizzical look is rewarded with the explanation: "we serve breakfast in order of highest frequent flyer status." "Am I the only one not getting eggs?" "If you'd like, I will put extra fruit on your plate." "I just want some eggs. Can you get a plate from the back cabin?" "No I can't do that. Would you like more fruit or not?" "I guess whatever you serve me will be just dandy." Checking my boarding pass, I note that my frequent flyer number is missing. Hell of a way to treat a putative first timer. Why come back? Ever?

And I wonder why they have not gone out of business sooner. I hope. Actually, apart from someone else paying, there is no way I'd pay for the privilege in the US. None. Flying in the US on main carriers is a farce. The planes are old, they charge you the same as the low cost carriers for drinks, the only service difference being the "food." Since most sane persons would rather pay for Mickey D's in the concourse or the cheese and crackers on the plane ... why fly a big carrier? Compare Delta (I flew them back on First -- the Flight Attendant was unspeakably rude to my wife) with its daughter airline, Song. I'f rather fly song ANY day of the week, in preference to flying First on the main carrier.

And you know? You are not entitled to enter the Clubs in the various airports because you are flying first. Nope. In Europe, or flying intercontinental, you can (at least if flying British - but not United), but not in the US. I mean, come on!!! What can you drink or eat in the club as compared to the stupid premium paid to be pooped on from a great height in First?

Jet Blue totally blows any mainstream carrier away. So what if I pay for my food? It is edible and served with a friendly smile. Not some crone with an entitlement and wicked chip on her shoulder (the creep on United was male -- and no, I would not want to shake hands with him).

When it comes down to it, the business culture that supports First Class within the United States is out of their minds. Which is akin to the idiocy of flying on the main carriers on planes that saw their maiden flights in the 1970's. Lots of old-line staff, defined benefits plans, equality and entitlement for everybody except for the schmucks paying the bills: the customers.

And if you are stupid enough to complain -- don't. You see, flight staff now have the right to get you trussed up like a turkey and seen off the plane at the other end by federal marshalls to face felony charges in federal court. All of which is far more dire than you might imagine. I mean, that means statutory federal time. Not like a State prison. To be sure, they should not have to put up with violent drunken passengers, but the standard is set to the baseline of what is perceived by the flight staff and not the rational passenger. As we have discussed above, this is necessarily far apart. Net result the rudest people in a service industry and no real recourse. If you raise a stink at the gate, you get threatened with Homeland Security personnel depriving you of your liberty. Again, expensive and time consuming to rectify at no real cost to the smug son of a bitch behind the counter.

If you have an unquenchable urge to poop on your fellow citizens and dispense random rudeness and insults, become a member of the flight staff of an airline. As to the asshole terrorists who have created the need for a regime whereby you now have less rights than a Rainbow Warrior in Soviet Russia: you guys are to blame. Another reason to seek your immediate demise.

How about those warm nuts that MUST be served to Business and First class? Our daughter has a nut allergy -- specifically peanuts -- and so we always ask that they not be carried or served on the flights we take. We always specify this in buying tickets and are told that this is not a problem, but be sure not to forget to tell the agents at the gate and on the plane. Flying to the UK on American this summer, we did exactly that. The dragon at the gate told us that under no circumstances would the airline refuse to serve warm nuts to Business and First. After the laborious explanation of the process whereby we came to be at the gate and the assurances given, she simply said that she couldn't help it and would not help us. Another gentleman taking the tickets of those boarding beckoned us over. He said that he would go and ask the Captain: it turns out that the Captain of the plane has ultimate control over the decision whether to serve them or not. He did as offered and they agreed not to serve nuts. Another person overhearing this (also airline staff) loudly told us not to fly American, but choose some other carrier where our daughter's disability would not inconvenience others on the plane. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOME WARM NUTS AS OPPOSED TO A FATAL ALLERGY.

I truly hate the airlines and virtually all associated with the provision of this "service." Dehumanizing and tedious -- as well as dangerous. But what REALLY BURNS MY BUTT is that where someone is differently disabled ... say requiring a wheelchair, the airlines will fall over themselves to avoid all sorts of lawsuits involving access and availability of service. But you have a food allergy that is potentially airborne: you can die for all we care. Or is this a way of saying that if you have an airborne food allergy, you cannot fly?

Tell me your stories.

H5N1

Do we all know those letters and numbers? Are any of us scared? No? Were you scared about the prospect of global chaos at the millenium?

Well let me tell you this, I will buy Tamiflu over the internet and stash it in a very safe place. Why? Am I "Chicken Little?" Chicken Little is a bird and will croak if infected. So will you. Unless something is done to mitigate symptoms. Enter Tamiflu. I will stockpile enough for each member of my family for a certain hit. Get the new flu shots, but if H5N1 is present in the community and a virus hits any member of my family, then Tamiflu it will be for them.

The Discovery Channel did a neat little piece about it which they repeated tonight. That is enough. It was not a scare session, but a reasoned analysis of the threat. So what if it costs me $1000 to secure a source? Mercifully I can afford it (or would sell a car to be able to). If this baby goes global -- and it is really only a matter of time before one of them does -- then you are at the mercy of your government for treatment. And I, for one, do not like that prospect. And I am also about to run out and secure a good source of masks -- just enough so that I can transact what I need to in the event of the virus hitting these shores.

What transactions? Food. Enough for a month. School? Are you kidding me? Perhaps I can get the teacher (if still alive, in the worst case) to send the information by internet and the kids can return work product accordingly. If a highly virulent and morbid strain comes to Boston, I figure that in about a month, the worst will be over and we can at least poke our heads out and deal with what is left.

Of course, if nothing happens, I have a rotating food supply to manage and drugs to keep in good condition. If all hell breaks loose, I am headed north to ski country and keep the heck away from my door in that case.

The risk here is actually far larger (as posted before): who in the world will venture out to malls and work (let alone school) if it hits? We are talking a trigger of vast proportions to global economic ruin. Let's fund what we can to keep the lid on this beast at its point of origin: currently south-east Asia.

By the way the 1918 pandemic was direct bird to human, without the mixing of human genetic code that is the norm with virtually all flus since. H5N1 is a direct vector, just like 1918. Enjoy your cornflakes tomorrow morning.

What a nice evening

Last night was extra-special Mr. Fawlty ... excellent food, wine and friends. Thanks. For those of you living in the general vicinity of "the Hub", Campania, in Waltham is a real find. Last night the special appetizer was papardelle with shaved white truffles, and truffle oil. Hoo boy. The veal chop was similarly stunning. The Chocolate souffle was disappointing, though.

Being a souffle 'ho', I am picky about the consistency and most important of all that sublime light egginess of the finished product. Hands down the best souffle in Boston is at Olives (at least the most consistent). The best souffle ever in my book (this is really hard given how many I have easten around my travels) is still probably at Justine's in the Four Corners building in Zemalek in Cairo. Grand marnier souffle with creme anglais. I could eat one of those every day for the rest of my (hopefully long) life.

Back to Earth. Why is it that children all of a sudden develop a serious terror of something? They are just fine, well adjusted, then wham ... "I am not going into any room that does not have an adult that I know and trust in it." Spare me the psycho analytics, sometimes the fear is so bizarre that it beggars belief. My middle son is right now in exactly such a place. And he has been so brave and confident heretofore.

Did I meantion some excellent wine last night too? Nero d'Avola, from Sicily. A native, almost forgotten grape as a stand alone, now discovering some vogue among vintners there, I would describe this varietal as a cross between a zin and a syrah, a tad more tannic, full bodied, but not bombastic like the Tuscans. Ours was the Don Antonio made by Morgante, a house dedicated to the nero d'avola -- also called calabrese -- and 2001. Just fantastic. During a little Google session today to learn more, it is a wine made from lower yeilding old vines and represents their premium effort. It also turns out that up until recently the nero grape was sent to French and northern Italian producers to blend in some body to their efforts. I have to run out and score some others to get more background.

I have been indulging in a love affair with the Malbec - Argentina's prime drop. Really good value it is too. The Tikal Altos Hormigas is a prime example of value. One thing about that bottle is how heavy it is. When you pick it up after draining it, you are pursuaded that ata least one more glass is in it, because the bottle is so heavy. So like a moron you keep trying. Even when you know it can't be true. A waiter at Olive's (where they serve this) confirms that he does it practically every day: as he puts it, "I know by weight how much is left in the bottle, without even having to look. This one is different." As to the malbec grape is its better Argentine guise, it too is spicy, full bodied, hints of leather, chocolate and pepper, with delicious soft mouth feel. Very extracted and deep purple/red. Yummy.

A few weeks ago I had the dubious pleasure of consuming the better part of a bottle of gewurztraminer paired with an Indonesian rijstafel. Dubious because anything else I had that night simply tasted like dishrag. Oh, God, it was sublime. I have to get the name and list it here, although you have to be a Rockefeller to drink it with any regularity, it was so expensive ($150 plus). And the pairing, however bold was perfect. PERFECT!!! Whew, I about wet myself just thinking about it. We also tried an Australis shiraz with it: good, but simply blown out of the water by the white. When was the last time that happened to you?

As I write, I am sipping away at a Ravenswood Lodi Old Vines Zin. No wimpy wines indeed. Great value too -- available at Costco for about $14/pp. It just makes me want to carve off a little Scharfenberger 70% choc and watch something stupid on the tube. Sooner or later I will go back to visit Rhone valley wines, the ubiquitous Brodeaux, etc., but I am just so lost in the unusual at the moment. And I am finding incredible value out there, well separated from the "names." Hmmm. Time for a refill.

Weekend update: Boosh gets angry

GW Boosh yesterday bust a gut about those nasty Democrats complaining about the war in Iraq and how they were misled and how they never really supported it in the first place.

Boosh sounds shrill. But in this case he is absolutely right: the Senate Intelligence Committee did check out the information and did support the decision to go to war. The later review of the info to see if Boosh (and cronies) had tampered with the evidence to induce the initial vote came out to clearly support the administration. In short, no foul here. Yet 3 out of 5 Americans distrust Boosh's motives and use of the facts that led up to war. That is a PROPAGANDA triumph for the press and liberals. It sort of supports Joseph Goebbels' contention that you tell a lie often enough, it sticks as truth, even the big lie (and no, I am not implying that the liberal press is the equivalent of Joseph Goebbels, only that the techinques of the disemination of propaganda remain as valid and viable today as in 1936: you control the press, you control the minds of the electorate).

Ws of MD: lets be clear about this too. If you believe anything Saddam Hussein's administration told you about weapons of any kind, you are an idiot. Plain and simple. We KNOW that Saddam had WMDs (that acronym is grammatically offensive): he used them against Kurds and Shiites in his own country and against Iran. That much is totally beyond dispute. The inspections to ensure the destruction of said WMDs post Gulf War #1 were inconclusive to say the least. Never were the inspectors given unfettered access to the sites requested, and there remains a great deal of suspicion as to how effectively Saddam had penetrated the inspections teams and process (think oil for food -- could someone have a secret abnk account somewhere??). Hans Blix couldn't find his own nether end in broad daylight with both hands, let alone thwart a dictator like Saddam.

So, assuming the rational, that is that Saddam kept at least some goodies, where did they go? All that has been found are some shells with traces of chemical weapons that some insurgents tried to use as improvised devices against marines. Again, let's get real and point to the elephant(s) in the room: Syria and Iran. Before considering Syria, let's take Iran for a moment. Would Saddam give WMDs to Iran, his erstwhile enemy and against which he used the same weapons? Why, yes, of course! Think like Saddam for a moment (or use Middle Eastern logic, if you will), better to give them to a regime that might use them against the West or even better Israel (and be really quiet about having them) than have them fall into the hands of his ultimate nemesis. Duh.

Syria. Ruled by a Baathist President for Life. Sound familiar? Would Bash-baby like to own some of those weapons for security purposes? The Assad family has never shown a particular reluctance to murder large numbers of people. Hafez was known to have had 20,000-30,000 people slaughtered when it appeared that his rule was threatened. And Syria is relatively homogeneous as compared to Iraq: those were his own people, ethnically. Remember also that Syria has controlled Lebanon as a vassal state for at least the last 20 years. Remember too, that Syria encouraged the various violent groups in Lebanon dedicated to the extermination of Israel, Jews and all things Western, even letting in Iranian Revolutionary Guards to train some of these groups. Syria last got its teeth knocked out in the Bekaa valley before letting PLFP, Hizballah, and others continue to pester Israel. Syria also recently got caught with its fingers in the pie of the assassination of Rafik Hariri. These are not nice people, folks. And critically, they are Ba'athist. Yes, that's right folks. The self same purveyors of peace that continue to assert themselves in Iraq, albeit a slightly different brand of the Ba'ath orthodoxy.

Syria's border with Iraq is long. Syria has absolutley no intention of going the way of Iraq, The Assad family and the Ba'ath party like where they are, what they have and have no intention of letting someone upset the status quo: as long as there is fighting in Iraq, nobody is going to turn their beady eyes on Syria (have you checked out how beady the Boosh eyes are?). All this has been known and anticipated (at least anyone who knows spit about the Middle East, which might well preclude such knowledge from the Boosh administration and the US military) for a long time. Would Saddam send his WMDs to Syria -- given that he knew that the gig was up? Would he send his goodies to Damascus in the hope that if he goes down, someone will use them effectively some time in the future? Maybe even to kill some (or a lot of) Americans and Jews? Or even to provide a staging post and a fearsome weapon for the faithful to seize control of Iraq back from whatever government forms there? In short, would Saddam just give the WMDs to the Americans/Brits? No. Under no theory of war or power politics does that make sense. He had WMDs. He almost certainly did not destroy all of them. They are gone.

Where did they go? The ability of Saddam to make WMDs vanish was underestimated by the US and UK. This is not a political issue for partisan politics as practiced by the DNC. It is a grave mystery in need of an answer.

Syria is also a grave threat to the new Iraq and US/UK alliance: Syria has every reason to destabilize Iraq and we have more than a little anecdotal evidence that they are working hard to forment discontent and assist the Jihadis in bringing violence and death to Iraq. Never has Syria shown a reluctance to spread misery, they have the whole Lebanese experience and their own internal repression as models. The Syrian intelligence machinery was trained and designed by the Soviet Union. The political goals of Syria have not changed a whit since those distant days when Brezhnev rattled sabres against the West and funded wars with Isreal. They perceive themselves as politically pure and the guardians of the ideology of the pan-arab state to come. In that goal they have the support of the Saudis, the Gulf, and wherever one-party politics predominates. Not to mention any group that would like to rid the Earth of Israel.

What the Western news and media need to do is wake up and smell the coffee. Heck, let's vote to demote Boosh as dogcatcher. I'd be thrilled. Rarely has anyone been so unsympathetic, unlikeable, arrogant and offensive as President. I'd have to go back to LBJ to find one ... wait a minute, see a similarity there??? But seriously, we CANNOT continue to undermine the work we are doing in Iraq and the incredible harm we are inflicting on American soldiers for the sake of partisan politics. We are there for better or worse and we HAVE to see it through. The political need to remove Boosh cannot justify the actions being taken by leftists and liberals in this country. Lies, half-truths and base political grandstanding is disgusting and far beneath the process. And before we get to finger pointing saying that I must be referring to Boosh, remember that the people who have the most reason to hate Boosh have already done their due diligence on the matter: they cleared him. Digging this stuff up again has its base in a political desire to muddy the waters in anticipation of electoral gain. At what price?

If the left wants to attack Boosh, do it where it hurts. Let's have a good look at the contracting process in Iraq. That is fair game. That has not been reviewed by independent process by either house. And we KNOW that this will be juicy. If we choose not to, it can only be because we are are afraid of angering the people that will fund our next re-election campaigns -- the left and right are equally complicit in not addressing that can of worms. Teddy K, (the other great unindicted and the greatest Windbag beside the GoodYear blimp) is a prime example of what I am talking about. "Let nothing get in the way of our pork." Certainly not something so vital as corruption in contracting and undue influence of business in the government -- it is far easier to just claim that Boosh lied and that is why we are in a mess (and didn't Kerry and Windbag get to review that same intelligence? Kerry loudly proclaimed his support for the military action).

Huh? And these elections change things?

Our country had some elections yesterday. No surprises except, perhaps, in California. Ahnold got his privates whacked. Four ballot proposals defeated. All of which were desgined to slow spending, reign in the power of California's public service unions and give the governor's office greater power in forming the State budget. Critically, Arnold had decided to do exactly as he had told everyone he would when he was running for office: he went directly to the electorate.

Gov. Terminator had a problem in the California State Legislature: it was dominated (not merely controlled) by far left loonies (only remotely related to main stream Democrats, sort of similar to the relationship between baboons and homo sapiens). Now, a conservative governor simply cannot make headway against the nuts, fruits and flakes that make up the box of granola that is the State House in Sacramento. Even if what he says makes sense. The entrenched interests could care less if California goes belly up -- so long as they faithfully represent their perceived electoral mandate -- what they have unilaterally determined is the "right" thing to do. So, in frustration, our favorite Austrian immigrant decided to go directly to the people -- the very platform on which he was elected.

Sorry, Arnie, you counted on the people of the Great State of California standing up, listening to reason and flocking to the polls to do what it needed to get their State in order. Have you been smoking the weevil eed again? Since when do people give up entitlements? Since when can you get the collective fat asses of the public out of their seats and into the polls? You only got elected because your predecessor was so totally beyond the pale that those people that did turn up to vote couldn't follow decades of training by voting the party line. It was a fluke. This time the people who did turn up to vote SMASHED your proposals. That is because the politically motivated in California are the same trail mix that demonstrate, vote for Nancy Pelosi and Feinstein, and think that Hollywood stars are worth listening to by the sheer force of their celebrity. Fool. (Where have I heard someone say that word "fool" before?)

Actually the people of California are fools. Here they had a prime opportunity to take back their State, reinvigorate the electoral process, and bring fiscal sanity back to the forefront. But Warren Beatty and Annette Benning were following the Governator around loudly proclaiming that this was against the electoral process and short-circuiting democracy, yada, yada, yada. Huh? Having the electorate vote directly on matters that most concern them is anti-democratic? Ideally, it would have forced the state representatives to start to listen to their districts, to bring back representational democracy, not some theocracy of the Church of the Eternal Left. But since the indolent and stupid (useful idiots) have once again saved the day for the State House gravy-train sluts, we are back to basics again.

Don't stick any California debt into your portfolio for retirement or to pay for your kid's education. We look for a downgrade to "junk."

NPR was crowing about Arnold's defeats and the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey this morning. "Democrats elected to the Governor's seats in Virginia and New Jersey yesterday and DNC Chairman Howard Dean states this as proof that the nation is unhappy where the Republican leadership is taking the country." Uh, sorry to urinate on that parade, but both those states already had Democrat governors before this election. I find it hard to see how this changed anything. A heavily favored incumbent wins.... You've got to be able to come up with some better spin than that!!! I don't doubt for an instant that the country is moving left away from Boosh, but you need to sculpt your spin with care.

Michael Bloomberg was re-elected as Mayor of New York. Strange, but the only thing that NPR had to say about that was that he spent $66 million in defeating his underfunded opponent Fernando Ferrer. Come on, people, Bloomberg CRUSHED Ferrer. 20 points in a overwhelmingly Democrat voting state. Before, you cite me as a dogmatic Republican (actually think of me more as a conservative anarchist), I want to note that this indicates to me that the electorate in New York are a tad more serious about their responsibilities as voters and actually think about what they are doing when they vote. The only brainfart in this regard is that they elected the Great Unindicted, the Carpetbagger of the Century, Hillary.

Hey, speaking of brainfarts, where are Charles and Camilla? Are they still here? Can we send them over to Warren and Annette? You guys could really stink up the place together.

Now wait a minute

Let's be clear that when I speak of Arabs, referring to the folks raising mayhem in France, I actually refer primarily to persons of North African extraction who are almost exclusively muslim in religious orientation. In fact, they may be Berbers, Moroccans, Touregs and a dozen others ... or Arabs. During the zenith of the Islamic era, the entire area affected was dominated by the Arab culture, bringing with it Islam, learning, culture and a society that prized knowledge, cleanliness and worldliness into a cesspit of darkness, ignorance and bigotry that was North Africa, (and Spain and France). Charles Martel changed the tide of that expansion (imperialism and conquest) and the rest, shall we say, is history.

Also, please note that I by and large do not run back and edit what is a stream of thought so that you, the reader, may admire my gift for prose, grammatical perfection and literary accomplishment. I could care less in this forum. Stuff it. If it bothers you ... well, I hope that it torments you. And that you keep reading, you anal weasel.

Now to the business of torture and detention:

So what? No, really, I am against running into someone's house and just grabbing them and subjecting them to torture. That is just a wee bit too Stalinist for me. However, you see some dudes with RPG7s running into a house, you follow them and there is just this picture of domestic tranquility when you open the door ... plug 'em in. But never a child. For that, you consign yourself to the torture of eternal damnation. And I hope it hurts. But if it just that smiling, jolly old poor peasant, you need to indicate that it would be in his immediate best interests to cough up the the gents that just entered, or .... Because, IMHO, I don't really care that he/she is in mortal terror that if he/she rats on the recent visitors, he/she might journey to meet the Almighty. If one American or Brit should die because of the squeamishness to extract the relevant information (notwithstanding the understandable terror felt by the poor wight whose abode was just "visited" by members of the local insurgents), it is too high a price to pay for failure to commit a disgusting act on our part. And that is assuming that the smiling (and terrified, perhaps) villager / merchant / sheepherder is in fact a witlesss, innocent victim. Remember Vietnam? Lots of innocent villagers digging tunnel all night and peacefully tending rice paddies by day.

Also consider the moron caught trying to light his shoe on an airplane. Rights? Excuse me? What, we should accord this piece of fetid crap human rights? This excrement that was attempting to murder an entire planeload of innocents? (Though, of course, in his world view there are no innocents and the plane was loaded with infidels deserving, nay, needing extermination.)

In the course of the War on Terror, may of these creatures will and have been caught in various stages of preparation to commit atrocities on us (you and me, living in the West). We should just coop them up without trying to find out where they got their materials, instructions, indoctrination and other support? Really? That would represent an act of such monumental stupidity that the supporters of such a course of action deserve the just reward of their failure to vigorously interrogate their captives ... a grisly demise. To say that these people should be accorded their rights is plain foolish: they want to kill you and don't really care how you die, notwithstanding your inalienable human rights to pursue your own, life, liberty and happiness. But no, you feel the need to take the high road (or in the immortal words of AC/DC, you "highway to hell"). Just don't take me. I'd prefer to switch on the juice.

The trouble is the grey area ... who needs a bit of pursuasion and who is just an innocent jerk caught up in the dragnet. The great dilemma. Sadly, I can offer no wisdom except to say, if you catch the SOB with a gun in his hand or swabbing positive for Semtex, break out the pentothal and what ever other goodies that medical science may have been able to refine and let's do what has to be done in the least invasive, painful way possible. But do it.

Detention. Again, the impulse is to say, "so what?" Experience in Germany, Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan has showed us that the release of enemy combatants back into the general population is a bad idea. The Soviets understood this and only released broken, old men back to their foes. While I cannot even begin to understand and appreciate the misery and evil that these people suffered, the Soviets did not suffer the flow-back combatant phenomenon. As American (and Brits) did. Back in the day if you let an IRA bomber out, in no time he is back in business: the captor not having the balls to see through the fight. WW2 Germans were notorious for insurgent attacks. People forget that it took well over 4 years to "pacify" Germany. If it was in fact ever really accomplished. But today in our 30 nanosecond MTV world, we want the Baath Iraqis to just shrug and say, "from today I will be a good Iraqi." Christ, they must be peeing their robes in mirth at our short-term views and committment.

Where does this lead? Well, to detention of likely characters that will march to the nearest weapons cache and kill some US soldiers. Is that so hard to comprehend? If we cannot hold them here in the US because some leftist Cambridge liberal will file suit in District Court to secure "humane treatment" and his release from unlawful detention, we must find some other place where people have the spine to stand up and act on the premise that it is better that the murderous radical is imprisoned than this snake should be free to wreak more havoc on me and mine. It is just too stupid for belief to accept that the detained will peacefully go home and start farming or what ever. Wake up!! They have sworn holy oaths to kill you. They believe in your demise. Sooner rather than later. And they want to be the mechanism for the execution of Allah's will (or at least as they have been told that Allah might will it).

But, you say, Islam is the religion of peace!! Yes, I agree with you. The trouble here is that a great many people mindlessly accept someone else's interpretation of that great book and the words of the Prophet. The net result of that being actions and words that have no basis in the religion of peace. Are you going to let someone who will tell you to your face that you must die (and that he/she would be honored to be the vehicle of deliverance), free to walk the streets? In the US we might even send these people to centers for criminally insane, were they Christian and American citizens. Too dangerous. But we should let them go because they are enemy combatants and further detention is inhumane and illegal? Huh? Say what?

Getting back to the basics: just another dude, swept up off the streets, you must let him go. Catch him in the act trying to kill you for ideological reasons ... all bets are off. Polish prisons for Taliban? Let's build some.

Let's get this straight

Let's get this straight, we are seeing the fruits of more than 50 years of French foreign and domestic policy. Ever wonder why the French were (and are) so craven when it comes to appeasement of the Arab world? Voila.

But let us not forget that France has always prided itself as the pro-Arab European power. The Arab world was a primary market for French goods, and French was always the second language among the Arab elite. Nouveau riche Arabs went to London. The old elite always had the Cote d'Azur and Paris. And the Arabs always bought French arms and weapons. Fat lot of good that did for Saddam.

Back to the plot: we have a zillion out of work Arabs (they might have French passports, but let's not mistake the heritage) who are also unemployable. Anecdotal evidence has the unemployment rate among the muslim youth of the French ghettos at over 80% (between 18 and 30 years of age). Not the paltry 30% that the French government like to cite as the figure for poor youth in France: it is more convenient to lump them all together rather than cite the reality that faces a muslim teen in France. They are unemployable, poorly educated as compared to their ethnic French counterparts, and once employed, they are not easy to fire due to the ludicrous effect of French employment restrictions. So no employer is willing to take the risk of hiring them. Then there is also a very real sense of prejudice and racism in France. Was not the wife of the Prime Minister overheard to be complaining about those "troublesome Jews" referring to Israel? But at least the Jews are in Israel, the Pied Noir are on their doorstep. Dark, speaking a different language, defiant in their reglious affiliations ... better to ignore or keep cooped up in Saint Denis or Clichy. Good forbid they should sully Neuilly or the 16th!!!

So the youth (European newspapers have an inverted prejudice -- they cannot label them as muslim youth, even though overwhelmingly they are) rampage to protest their lot in life. Use SMS to text/flash the next site of an attack, ride their motos and cars (paid for with the taxes forked over to keep them quiet) to the designated target and "bombs away." But be careful not to burn down muslim-owned businesses. Burn some more cars, "yes, that is what you get for ignoring us." We will burn your symbols of Western Imperialism and our enslavement.... Never mind that the government stipend that houses and feeds them is far better than the destitute misery that they would endure in their homeland of origin. Never mind that if they were back in Algeria or Morocco, the local governments would simply shoot them: in Islamic law, they would risk far worse than arrest and detention at the Sante prison. But I digress....

France is witnessing its very own Intifada. It is the opening shots of what I will dub the "Great Struggle to Come." Europe has a demographic problem: in a few short years, maybe 20 maybe 40, many European countries will be in a position that Islam will be the dominant religion. Even absolute majority of the population. Stick that in your eye, Pierre. Damn. Worried about Iran getting the bomb? Within two generations (short ones, the Muslim sector breeds fast and often), Islam will have "la bombe." And an aircraft carrier, a few very good nuclear submarines, some excellent passenger aircraft and a "force de frappe." If that population is radicalized, we may yet see a last battle on the fields of Europe.

And of course, Europe is far too tolerant to ever get serious about rooting out sectarian violence. If you can't even label the perps of the recent wave of arson for what they are, how can you get serious about addressing the problem? And what can you do anyway? Deport them? They're French now. A great many born and bred in France. Their parents legal immigrants who came to work in the factories that supported the lavish socialist lifestyle that the French have come to expect. And have derided the US is not following -- the evils of US style capitalism. Yup. But we don't need a 35 hour week to ensure some semblance of reasonable unemployment levels.

I reckon that things will gradually simmer down as Winter set in, then, in the great French tradition of urban unrest, the Spring will be showtime. By then the young radicals (Lenin's useful idiots, adapted to the needs of the Imams) will have achieved a greater sense of coordination and prupose. I will not be sorry to be elsewhere.

Before you take me as a bigot, I have lived in Paris (three years), learned Arabic, worked in the Middle East and count many Arabs as close and dear friends. I am very sympathetic to the plight of Arabs across the Sharq'il Awsat. But I am a foe of jihadis and their corrupt perversion of the culture. Terrorism and destruction is never the way.

I must have one more snigger about the effect that the socialist safety net may have had in creating this nightmare: you can't fire someone (you would then be a capitalist oppressor or an American), so just in case, you don't hire anybody in the first place and make your current employees do overtime. Then the government comes along and says that you must only work 35 hours per week, so you have to hire more people to meet production goals. Your choice as an employer? Only hire those that you are absolutely sure are the best educated, job-portable, hardworking (as possible at any rate after the vin rouge at lunch), and resemble you and your ethics. That pretty much cuts out the marginalized sector of society completely. Far from enforcing integration, socialism has spawned a massive, restive underclass which is easily identifiable and prone to insularism in the first place. After all, we are the infidel.

Tomorrow, let's talk about torture and detention.

Five day rant

Jeez, its been five days since my last rant. "Ok, son, say three 'hail fairies' and offend someone quickly or else...."

I just spent a weekend in rural PA. Near the junctions of two interstates, about 40 miles East of Pittsburgh, lies the sleepy town of "Podunk, Pa." (The name has been changed to protect the locals.) Now in this little hovel, I mean locale, there are about 20 filling stations, 15 fast foods "restaurants" and 15 "inns". One cannot find fresh food there. Nor anyone with all their teeth, a clear complexion, and an absence of body ink on anyone older than 12. I ate five fried meals there in a row. Why, you might ask, was I there? A wedding reception.

I knew that things were going downhill, when they passed the boot: you throw money into it to dance with either the bride or the groom. But it was clear that I was no longer in the People's Republic of Cambridge when the gentleman in the "beat-your-wife" tee shirt took the dance floor. Somehow it was all just a little painful. I cannot fathom how others felt. It was just sad. But you know, they were having fun. So who the [expletive] am I to judge.

Then I realized that the "guests" could vote for President. At that juncture I became slightly uneasy. These people were neither "red state" folks, nor "blue state" citizens. They were barely conscious of the outside world. Good thing too, 'cause they could never bring themselves to get up in the morning, if they had an inkling of the outside world that actually exists out there. Heck, I'd smoke cystal meth too if that is all that I had to look forward to in the world. But that is the point, there is LOTS to look forward to in the world, but you have to take yourself by the hand (yeah, I know that there is a physical problem there, but let me go on) and make that first move. Nobody moves there. They have McJobs, ride Harleys or drive jacked-up pick-ups, dip snuff and get tattoos. And the globe continues to spin, by and by.

Iraq? Huh? That is someplace you go to get on the modern equivalent of the GI bill to get enough education to get the hell out of Podunk. Hmm, let me see ... become a sniper and shoot [insurgents, innocent people, not-so-innocent people, just about any target] or mow lawns in Podunk. Not so difficult a choice. I'd pull your fingernails out if it only meant that I would not have to go back and live there: "Yes, sir, extract the info, sir. No problem, sir." Back here in my study in a blue state all that seems pretty remote. Those are crimes, either in fact, or in a greater humanistic sense. But I am afraid, it is simply not that easy. The military is a viable and honorable option in Podunk -- no matter what your political leanings, or other beliefs.

I'd like to rant about the f@@@n Sumner Tunnel and the crap that falls from the roof onto people's cars and stuff like that (my return from PA), but that will have to wait until I come back from burning some fossil fuels picking up my kids from their elitist private school in the People's Republic. Ever noticed how some of the most expensive schools in the nation are located in the furthest left (politically) enclaves? Is that just a guilt trip? Or is it a smoke screen (don't look behind the curtain at the reality of just how much it costs to send your sons and daughters to these elitist establishments)? You know, the products of these schools will have to do some serious backpedalling if they are going to raise the coin to send their sons and daughters to the same schools. And their grades had be pretty darn good too. Oh, wait, I forgot the legacy system. Not very egalitarian, but heck, I mean well and that is the point.

Is it. Try a weekend in Podunk.

Just an Iranian thought

Just a note before I turn in for the night. You know, one of those cheery good-night thougths. So the Iranians are recalling about 40 ambassadors from various countries. They are also ramping up the first stage of the atomic fuel cycle near Isfahan. They have also recently called for the removal of Israel from the face of the Earth.

Does anyone else get this?

This leads to a rant about Islamic fanatics and their difference with the rest of the world: they'd rather die in the great jihad than live. We'd rather live and let live (by "we" I mean almost every living being on Earth). The solution is not education. It is not mediation. It is obliteration. Of those that would obliterate us, but let's do it first, before they do it to us. There is no talking to Jihadist. He (mostly hes in this case) want you dead. Gone to meet your maker. He does not want to talk to you, or anything to do with you except possibly eviscerate you. By you, I mean ANY Westerner. Don't think because you are a pacifist that they don't want to kill you. If anything, it proves that you are morally corrupt and in more need of killing. Sort of a twist on the Texas defense: "he needed killin', your honor."

And as to Israel ... well I cannot believe that they are just going to sit back and let the Iranians build a few bombs, not after the latest "message" to them. Which means that more than a few people will be "inconvenienced" in the next little while. To those of you who know that I believe that a "hard landing" is in the cards for the world economy, this would be a perfect trigger. And the UN is currently tuning their fiddles over at the East River.

Red Sox and more

So now we know that Lucchino does not read my blog. I mean, merde dude, I TOLD you to pay Theo. Did you listen to me? Huh? Asshole.

You know what really burns my heine? They pay some morons that can't pitch in the bullpen multiples of what would have made Theo happy but since he is "young" he can't be worth it. And those pitchers ... they are "old and seasoned and worth it?" Of course, it is probably a lot more difficult than that. It must have something to do with power too. Either way, it was a serious misplay. It is the start of another bad patch. I hope Theo goes to the Dodgers. There are some hot babes in LA and with his tickets ....

So on to Alito. As predicted yesterday, some of the more moderate Senators from the Dem side are weighing in for Alito. The conservative had better shut their traps and pass on comment. No matter what they say, it will only hurt the best candidate that they have any right to hope for. Let the moderates do all the talking.

For my part, I am liking Alito more and more. I am a staunch believer in the "softly, softly" branch of judicial progress. If it isn't there, don't find a "penumbra" to stick it under. Make a clear message to the Legislature that change will be welcome and let it go at that. I am reminded of an opinion handed down by the esteemed members of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ... the wag doing the writing added "notwithstanding the creative interpretation [on this matter] espoused by our brethren on the 9th Circuit, we hold otherwise...." Damn if that aint the judicial body-slam of all time. My privates shrink at the mere thought. Anyway, it is precisely that sort of creative interpretations of the law that I would like to see consigned to the poop-hole of history. But stare decisis is what it is. Just lets move on from here in a sensible fashion. No chipping away at your pet peeves. You want unlimited anonymous abortion -- lets pass a Constitutional amendment making that clear. Or lets leave it to the States -- sure that means a patchwork of laws profoundly affecting women everywhere, but so does the current state of affairs. It just depends on how you look at things. Who's right? I dunno. But I don't think that any single one of us does (not me, not you). If you live in a State that you regard as enlightened (either pro or con), great. If you don't dig it, change it or move. If you have the requisite majority of the country on yourt side, change the Constitution. You just can't say -- but I am right on this topic. Someone else thinks that they are right too. And their vote is as good as yours. Or are you not really so democratic (that is a small "d", not a party representation) after all?

So now what?

I was talking with some friends -- liberals -- who were upset with the Boosh choice of Meirs. I said "don't be stupid, take her!" Now they have Alito. And he is the real deal. Worse for the liberals, Kennedy, Kerry and others all fawned over his AppCt. appointment, stating that he was deserving and a good judge, yada, yada, yada. Of course the conservatives have the libs over the barrel if they dissent and try to impunge him -- were you lying then, or are you lying now? This guy is a stealth Scalia. Ouch. And worse, he is a very conservative, moderate, anti-activist judge. Well spoken, concise and considered. A vote against him is a purely policital vote. As Hillary voted against Roberts: he is qualified, but I don't like his politics. At least the "Great Unindicted" was honest in her reasons not to vote for Roberts.

I am thinking that there will be more than a few Dem Senators who will cross the lines to vote for him: the meaning of advice and consent is NOT a license to third degree or "Bork" someone. That was NOT the meaning ascribed to this role until very recently. The perversion of more than 200 years of precedent and history is an exclusively Democrat fetish. I mean, did the Republicans Bork Ginsburg? And what about her "qualifications:" chief legal officer (or some such) of the ACLU. And what might her political leanings be? But conservatives took more of the meaning of the advice and consent to heart. I am dreading the circus that is bound to show up here for Alito. In Bork's case, newspapers (yes, they are liberal) sent reporters to dig through his garbage to examine his credit card bills. Did he take porn out from Blockbuster?

If we don't get back to the original track here, we will have no really qualified applicants: who in hell would want to undergo that treatment? Makes me sick.

AND THIS POINT IS IMPORTANT: if we do not like the decisions that are handed down interpreting the law, let's change the law. But if the MAJORITY of the United States, as represented by their legislators, does not want to change the law, why should a minority force such change? Even through judicial legislation? That, my friends, is undemocratic. What if political correctness is merely a figment of the imagination and desires of a small minority of shrill voters, who are mystified that the great unwashed disagrees with them? Does that mean we live in a country controlled by the great trailer park in the Red States? Yes, it does. For it is in that miraculous fact that our country continues to exist and thrive: one person, one vote. That is the ESSENCE of democracy. If that is not to your tastes, move. Join Barbra and Alec. Split. Vanish. Piss off.

Or educate them. You can do that too, in a democracy. But where you cannot express your views because of the threat of political censure, the risk exists that the same censure can be used against the right to teach. Witness the insanity of "creationism." If you set the precedent that it is OK to muzzle free speech, however hateful it may be, you set up the paradigm whereby the great unwashed can decide to believe in fiction as literal fact -- and force YOUR kids to "learn" it.

That Constitution has been a pretty wonderful concept and document. Following it and changing it only gradually has stood us in good stead over two centuries. And the mechanism for change exists. Let's not mess it up.