Endorsing Clinton and McCain

My request for an absentee ballot went in the mail this morning.

Since I live in Virginia, I am able to choose which party's primary I desire to vote in. I am going to keep that secret. Unfortunately I am not allowed to vote in both. So my decision as to which primary I am going to vote in was based on attempting to decide now which primary my vote might have the largest impact in. I hope I do not end up regretting my decision.

I have a favorite running in both primaries. These two individuals were my favorites from early on in the campaign, and while I do not 100% agree with either of them on all the issues, and while both have made some mistakes in their campaigns, I am going to continue sticking with them. It would please me to no end if both of these candidates ended up representing their parties in the general election.

For the Democrats: Hillary Clinton. Why? Because I view her as being the most moderate, or centrist, of all those running. Sure, in order to be competitive in the Democratic Primary she seems to have tacked a little bit too far to the left to suit my tastes, however I feel that she is most qualified to get some type of bipartisan support together in Congress in order to get things done. Since she is only going to be filling the Office of President and will not be a Dictator, I am confident that moderate voices in Congress will end up pulling her proposals more to the center before anything ends up being enacted. It is my opinion that Hillary's demonstrated ability to be pragmatic will enable some of the changes that I might desire to see actually become a reality without risking that things will get out of hand. Hillary would still have to deal with obtaining a super majority of 60 votes in the Senate for anything she proposes. There is not much risk that even if the Democratic Party obtained such a super majority they would have done so by getting additional left wing extremists elected. If Democrats are going to be successful in continuing to get additional members of their party elected, it will only be by nominating moderates and conservatives for the seats. I also feel that Hillary is the most electable of the bunch. Sure she has the highest levels of negativity of all candidates from both parties, however that is only because she is the most well known of all the candidates. Everything negative that can be said about her has pretty much already been said. Since Hillary has already been through the Republican smear machine and an absolute majority does not already have a negative opinion of her, any further efforts to convince those left over without a negative opinion are unlikely to be influenced by the likes of Rush Limbaugh repeating everything all over again. None of the other Democratic candidates are as tested as Hillary has been.

For the Republicans: John McCain. While once again I do not support 100% of what John McCain stands for, I look at him as offering the best chance for wise leadership in the Oval Office if a Republican ends up sitting there. John McCain has a proven track record of being willing to work with representatives of both parties in order to get legislation passed in Congress. I love the maverick blood that courses through his veins. Sure, during his current campaign he has tacked somewhat to the right in an attempt to appeal to the right wing extremists in his party, however his efforts have not been successful in winning him right wing support. If he is nominated, it will be because he won the support of independents and the moderates within his own party. He will owe nothing to the New Republican extremists and he will be apt to return to the type of governance evidenced in his record in the Senate. I would be particularly pleased if Republican McCain sat in the Oval Office while he had to deal with Democratic majorities in both branches of Congress. My most significant concern about John McCain is his age. While some of our senior citizens remain mentally sharp well past his current number of years, this is not automatic. We have only to look at how Ronald Reagan deteriorated in his last years as evidence that electing an elder statesman to fill the Office of President does in fact involve some genuine risk. However it is my opinion that our nation would be better served, if a Republican is going to sit in the Oval Office, by taking on the risk with John McCain being that Republican individual than any of the other candidates seeking the nomination. I would point out that if McCain received the nod, it would be even more important then normal that he wisely pick a Vice-Presidential candidate to run with him on the ticket. Rather then selecting someone to "round out the ticket" he would need to choose someone younger with a developing John McCain type of record of governance who would be ready to seize the reigns if John's service in the office was cut short by age related issues.

By the way, I am still personally running for President myself. However my own campaign has not seemed to gather any traction. Last time I did any polling, I had managed to lock up only one vote, and that was my own. My own wife has said she would not vote for me - grin. So while I do believe I am the most moderate, centrist candidate of anyone running from either party (which would by itself probably keep me from winning in either primary) I am throwing my support behind those candidates other then myself who I feel stand a reasonable chance of getting elected and who would best serve in the office.

I still say with a great deal of pride that I am the only candidate from either party who won God's endorsement. It is my opinion that even the Reverend Huckabee can not lay claim to that one. But even with God's help, success is not guaranteed, and it would appear that success is not going to happen. For me to be elected it would take not just "a" miracle, but several miracles. Well I am not going to turn God into a circus act in order to get elected. God has already given me more help then I probably deserve. If the evidence of a "Divine Endorsement" already present was not enough to cause even a ripple then I am not going to go back to the well and ask for additional help.

Since it seems extremely unlikely (talk about an understatement) that my continuing run for the Office of President is not going to be successful, I am going to throw my support behind a couple of the candidates that do have some hope of success. My endorsements go to Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Fair Tax Revolt

Fair Tax Revolt, alternatively this could have been titled: Avoiding the Fair Tax.

If the Fair Tax crowd is successful in getting taxes raised on the middle class in order to give a big tax cut to the wealthy, what are we to do about it?

I say we protest. We protest by paying as little of the tax as possible. How could you avoid it?

Well, for me it would be fairly easy. I am self employed and I have already formed an S Corp due to the current tax advantages, so as my business interests are configured I already have the tools I need to avoid a large portion of the Fair Tax.

I only have to claim that as many of my purchases are a legitimate business expense as reasonably possible (and the definition of the words "legitimate" and "reasonably" will be for me to determine) since the costs of doing business are not subject to the tax. I will not have to worry about an audit or anything, because the Fair Taxers are promising to abolish the IRS, so I should be in the clear when it comes to avoiding the tax.

"But that would be unethical" some will scream. I'll be screaming back "But everybody else is doing it!"

Since a Fair Tax would lead to a huge underground economy, I am just going to have to make sure that I get my own fair share of avoiding the Fair Tax as everybody else gets.

I'm already in business for myself so I'm already set up for it. Now I just need to get to work trying to figure out how to justify a six pack of beer as being a business expense - just about everything else already qualifies - grin. Let's see... I purchased the six pack of beer to entertain one of my customers. Yeah, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. I bet I can even get my beer Fair Tax free.

We'll have a Fair Tax revolt!

Middle East Peace

Once again I am motivated to address a subject that seems to have fallen off the radar screen of many of our citizens. The subject is Middle East Peace.

I am going to address this subject from my developing opinion that the right wing within Israel (and my own nation, the United States) are as much an obstacle to a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as is Hamas.

I am not going to try and defend Hamas. Neither am I going to try and condemn the organization. As far as I am concerned, the Internet is awash with English language condemnations of Hamas. However, what our side still seems to lack is condemnation of our own actions. Voices that scream we need to stop being hypocrites. If there were enough voices speaking from this viewpoint, our actions would match the words of existing voices. Perhaps what the world needs is just one more voice, and one more vote, against hypocrisy.

What is the hypocrisy?

The Israeli right wing takes regular advantage of how the Hamas Charter calls for the destruction of Israel. The Hamas Charter is unreasonable. However what does the Israeli right wing stand for? Will the Israeli right wing be willing to accept "Two States for Two Peoples" or are they as much a part of the problem as is Hamas?

It is my opinion that every criticism of Hamas can also be laid directly at the feet of the Israeli right wing. What would I point to as evidence in my opinion? The record of unrelentless expansion of Israeli settlements even DURING peace processes.

Now I am not completely condemnatory of most Israelis. It is my opinion that most Israelis really are moderates who would be willing to trade land for peace. However these so called moderates keep allowing the right wingers to incite the desire for vengeance even from moderate Palestinians.

Even while the withdrawal from Gaza was conducted, the expansion within Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) continued. One Palestinian cheek was stroked while the other was slapped.

Just how unreasonable can the Israeli right wing be? Just how intolerantly tolerant can the Israeli moderates be? Let's look at the peace efforts of my own at least right of center President of my nation (George Dubyah Bush) and what the right wing promises to him in the wake of his opening gambit back at Annapolis.

From israelnationalnews (Arutz Sheva) comes (this piece) by Ezra HaLevi that promises defiance of President George Dubyah Bush's efforts for a peaceful settlement.

As Arutz Sheva reports:

On Tuesday, January 8 – the day before the projected date of Bush’s Jerusalem visit – a massive building campaign in Judea and Samaria will be kicked off in Jerusalem’s southeastern Har Homa (Homat Shmuel) neighborhood. There, leaders and activists will declare Israel’s right to build in Jerusalem and in the entire Land of Israel.

From there, activists will leave, with vehicles loaded with building materials, for points throughout Judea and Samaria.

The leaders of the umbrella organization of several extra-parliamentary groups that have taken part in various grassroots activism since the 2005 Disengagement, say they intend to thwart plans to establish a Palestinian Authority state by creating new Jewish communities.

Now I think it is important to point out that the activities of settlers have incited violence. While they have quietly been teaching their kids how to deal with "them damn Arabs" their ever lasting expansion has served as proof of how evil "them damn Jews" are to Palestinian right wingers who are also raising their kids.

I will note the organizations that are seeking to provide the manpower and funding for their defiance. Arutz Sheva reports:

Participants include the Land of Israel Faithful, Youth for Eretz Israel, Women in Green, Homesh First, The Committee to Save the People and the Land, Komemiyut, Maginei Eretz, Mattot Arim, Land of Israel Forum, VeYirashtem Otah, local Action Committees and the Committee for the Expansion of Homat Shmuel (Har Homa).

Perhaps these organizations should be added to terrorist lists, and deservedly so, just like Hamas?

Quoting again from Arutz Sheva as it urged on supporters of the defiant:

Supporters the world over are being given the opportunity to purchase cinder blocks, cement, generators, tools, sand, gravel, pipes, chemical toilets, doors, windows, tin roofs, cement mixers and other building materials.

I guess we are supposed to believe that a relentless supply of an invasive quantity of bricks and mortar are less inciteful to violence somehow. "We're only building homes" they scream. Yeah, but, just who's property are you building on?

The above rant is going to do little to resolve the problem. The problem is that we have two groups of people that believe they have a God given right to the land. We have two groups of people that are willing to visit inhuman levels of suffering on the humans that oppose them in achieving their "God given rights".

I would only ask that my side be willing to wear some of the paint that splashes back at them while they attempt to color their opponents with a broad brush.

In Gibbs We Trust

In Gibbs We Trust.

I am going to delve into a little bit of what I find entertaining. I am going to explore the prospects of "my team" (that would be the Washington Redskins) of achieving a playoff berth this year.

Shortly after Joe Gibbs agreed to once again attempt to lead my team as coach, I saw a bumper sticker locally that had this simple statement "In Gibbs We Trust". I found myself saying "Amen brother, Amen." While I might not look to Joe Gibbs on how to run a Nascar race team, when it comes to football, Joe Gibbs represents my style of football.

What is my style of football? A smash mouth running game that opens up the passing game for big plays. Success with the run enables the big plays that can be made with limited reliance on the passing game.

Perhaps my version of football is too old school. Perhaps the new kids on the block will leave my thinking of how to play football back in the dust while they win the Superbowl and my thinking on how to do it relegates me to, from now on, being an also ran.

I would rather support Joe Gibbs in an endless pursuit of doing it the Redskins way without benefit of achieving the brass ring, then in endlessly trying to adopt new leadership that attempts to remold the team toward every last new way of achieving a Super Bowl victory.

It is my belief that Joe Gibbs represents the eternally wise way to come up with a contending team. Shove the football down their throats with the run game. When they attempt to stop the run game, go long and go deep for the big play.

I think the Washington Redskins are going to be over matched in their next game with the Dallas Cowboys. However Joe Gibbs has kept our team from embarrassing us. I am willing to stick with Joe Gibbs next year. Even if my team loses against Dallas, I am going to look forward to what Joe Gibbs can achieve next year.

You see, I agree with Joe Gibbs' style of play. I believe that if Joe Gibbs is provided with the talent pool necessary, his style of play will achieve victory. You can not blame Joe Gibbs for failure.

Win or lose against Dallas, I say we keep our wagon hitched to Joe Gibbs. Joe Gibbs represents the long time honored tradition of deeply physical, Redskin style, football.

When it comes to football, "In Gibbs We Trust". I say Amen, and I thank Joe Gibbs and the entire roster of Redskins players and coaches for an entertaining season. Icing on the cake would be victory against Dallas. But even with a humiliating loss, I am going to continue to argue for the leadership Joe Gibbs provides to my team. With Joe Gibbs providing the leadership, I can rest assured that the problem is that we did not provide him with the tools necessary to get the job done. Give Joe Gibbs the tools necessary to get the job done and victory will be assured, just like the old years.

No Child Left Behind

(See here) where the NY Times, in a piece written by Sam Dillon, reports that the major Democratic candidates for President have been bashing the No Child Left Behind act.

The article states that the three leading candidates all support maintaining accountability; but it would be interesting to explore just how the candidates would go about maintaining it. The only official campaign website belonging to the candidates that helps to shed any light on the subject is John Edwards' site which revealed that he would propose replacing the objective, standardized tests with a more subjective regimen of testing.

The standardized tests have been a focal point of much teacher criticism of the act. Teachers object that they must "teach the test" in order to get their students to pass. Oh the horror. Teachers are forced to teach their students what somebody else, like the students' parents, think the students should be taught. We can not have that now can we? (Sarcasm intended.)

If teachers are being forced to "teach the test" make sure the tests measure those areas that we want the student to be taught in.

However some justifiable criticism can be brought forth about the unfunded mandates contained within the act. So how would I go about reforming No Child Left Behind?

I guess I would pretty much start over. I would seek to only require that all high school diplomas be required to include certification as to whether or not the student receiving the diploma met a minimum skill level standard as measured by standardized testing. No other mandates. Just certification as to whether or not the diploma deserves to be hung on a wall or whether its value amounts to it being so worthless it might as well be used as toilet paper and flushed down the commode.

Perhaps additional tests could be made available for intervening school years, without use of the tests being required, for our educators to use as a tool in assessment of the performance of teachers and schools at each grade level.

There would be no mandates on how to go about teaching the students, that would be left up to the states to determine. The only thing that would be mandated is that the end result would be measured. Did the student receiving the diploma reach a certain, minimum level of proficiency? That is what the testing should measure.

If this results in teachers having to "teach the test" so be it. We will be testing students for the skills and knowledge we want them to learn, and if that requires totally dedicating the entire school year to mastering these skills, so be it. There is nothing to prevent the teacher from branching out into other areas of learning once confidence is reached that the students have mastered the basic skills.

I argue for maintaining the standardized testing. I strongly oppose expensive proposals (like John Edwards is in favor of) without continuing strict, objective, standardized testing to ensure accountability is maintained.

A Moderates View of Global Warming

A Moderates View of Global Warming.

An alternative title might have been: "Global Warming - Alternative Theories".

Before I go any further, let me identify myself as being somewhat of an AGW (anthropogenic global warming) skeptic (but not a denier). I try to not be a green house gas bigot who insists the issue has been decided and I try to maintain a healthy level of open mindedness to arguments that present an alternative explanation for why the Earth is experiencing warming. I do believe that the evidence is overwhelming that warming is occurring. However the debate is still open as to what is the cause of the warming. (See here) where Newsmax reports on the results of one study that was published in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which offers:

...observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

Now this is not just an isolated opinion. (See here) a US Senate report, published by the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works which seeks to publicize the opinions of an impressive lineup of distinguished and learned fellows who hold opinions that global warming could be explained by something other than anthropogenic causes. For any high school or college student who is given the unenviable assignment to defend "the other side" of the Global Warming debate, this webpage will provide a wealth of quotable opinions from distinguished individuals. I will show a sampling of these opinions.

Quoting Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki:

The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases.

Quoting One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India:

We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.

Quoting Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers:

Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.

Now it is not my agenda to argue that until the science is hashed out we should do nothing. However what if these skeptics are correct? What if green house gasses are not the cause - or not the complete cause - of global warming? If they are correct, does that mean we should do nothing? That any attempt to limit green house gasses is wasted effort?

Well, my argument to these skeptics is that even if mankind can not do anything about global warming, efforts to cut back on greenhouse gasses are not wasted time, effort and money. Even if green house gasses are one day proven to not contribute what-so-ever to global warming, some of our efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions are actually killing two birds with one stone. Some efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions will also aid us in "breaking our addiction to oil" and these steps are going to one day (and my opinion that "one day" is TODAY) going to have to be made anyway due to the reality that we are also going to have to deal with the issue of "peak oil".

All efforts to reduce our dependence on crude oil and natural gas as energy sources will be a wise investment for our society and for our entire species even if it turns out greenhouse gas emissions have zero impact on global warming. Since our society is not going to be successful in reducing all emissions overnight, it is my opinion that if there is going to be limited funding available for research and implementation of alternative energy sources, we should concentrate our efforts on first breaking our addiction to crude oil and natural gas which will simultaneously yield greenhouse gas emission reductions. Even if it turns out our efforts do not yield reduced warming due to human causes, the money and effort involved will still have been wisely invested. While we concentrate on breaking our addiction to oil and natural gas, we can continue to study and argue as to whether additional steps really are required. By the way, I also do not see any problem with also insisting that if we are going to continue to rely on the still plentiful supply of coal as an energy source, it will not be wasted effort to insist that this reliance be through developing "clean coal" technology with capture and sequestering of greenhouse gasses. While capture and sequestering might be an unnecessary expense, the rest of the use of the technology might not be a waste because it will still yield results which our society should view as being desirable.

While I do try to maintain a healthy level of skepticism, and I appreciate the efforts of those who courageously seek to explore alternative explanations for why our earth is warming, I will continue to argue that limiting greenhouse gasses does not automatically have to qualify as a wasted investment even if the skeptics are correct. We're going to have to start somewhere. I suggest we first concentrate our efforts on reducing greenhouse gasses by simultaneously breaking our addiction to crude oil and natural gas. Here the return on investment is guaranteed and even the AGW deniers will be forced to agree.

One need not be a tree hugger to realize that the development of alternative energy sources is a sound investment. And who knows, the skeptics might be wrong, and it might even help us to save our planet. That would turn out to be a wise investment indeed.

I believe that on the above expressed opinion, mankind should be able to form a consensus. It is my viewpoint that THIS opinion of what we should do is eminently reasonable, and that any remaining dissenters are just "gosh darned" (alternatively insert God damned) unreasonable. Now let's get to work on solving the problem, the clock is ticking.

Fair Tax Double Taxation

Fair Tax double taxation.

Let's throw a curve ball at "Fair Tax" advocates.

What happens to all the people who have money have tied up in Roth IRA's?

You know the people I am talking about. The one's that where motivated to convert some or all of their traditional IRA into a Roth IRA by paying the taxes (yielding a surge of government tax revenue) on the amount of money in the traditional IRA as they converted it into the Roth IRA. Promise was they would be able to redeem the Roth IRA principal and income later without paying any income taxes at all (there were other additional benefits promised with the Roth).

But what happens if we switch over to a "Fair Tax"? Isn't the principal that was switched over to the Roth IRA then going to be subject to double taxation? Instead of tax free future earnings, aren't all of the earnings, when they are spent, going to be subject to the 30% Fair Tax on expenditures also? (You can argue 23% if you want, but I'm ready for you.) Heck, a Roth IRA is going to be worthless. You might as well have your money in a traditional savings account.

Suckers! Well, if the government offered you something that was too good to be true (Roth IRA) you should have known they would find a way to change the rules on you to dip their hands back into your pockets.

Thelma Drake's Voting Record

Thelma Drake's voting record. You can not get anything fresher then yesterday's vote!

Thelma is my representative in Congress and I am particularly interested in how she represents me in the House of Representatives.

(See here) where the Washington Post reports Congress is sending an Energy Bill to the White House.

As reported by the Post:

Lawmakers said the energy bill will reduce America's heavy reliance on imported oil and take a modest step toward slowing climate change by cutting about a quarter of the greenhouse-gas emissions that most scientists say the United States must eliminate by 2030 to do its share to avert the most dire effects of global warming.

(See here) the roll call of the votes for and against the bill. Please note that all votes in favor were from Democrats, all votes against were from Republicans.

Once again (as her historical voting record will prove she is apt to do) Thelma followed the party line. She voted with the Republican Party leadership.

Now I wonder what excuse Thelma will raise for why she voted against the bill. Sure, probably anyone could nit-pick it apart and find something they do not like. However when the Republicans ruled, they did not raise overall vehicle fuel economy standards. (In fairness, they did raise standards for small trucks.) I would find it pretty difficult to believe that Democrats stopped them from doing so.

This vote provides evidence to support my reasoning for wanting to run Thelma Drake out of office. I want to vote for a leader, not a follower. I strongly support the increase in fuel efficiency standards and Thelma did not help get it done when the Republicans were in power, and now that the Democrats are at the helm, she votes against it.

As I said, perhaps she can provide some "reasonable" explanation for why she voted against it. But the proof is that the Republicans failed to take this step, which encourages conservation, while they held the reigns. If the Republicans had done so, perhaps they would still be the majority in the House.

The only way to reduce fuel prices is to lessen demand. Even George Dubyah Bush has said the American economy needs to break its addiction to oil. Increasing fuel economy standards will help break the addiction. Thelma wants to keep the needle in our veins.

David Huckabee for President?

David Huckabee is running for President? Sure seems to me like we are considering Mike Huckabee for President, not his adult son David.

Is there evidence that Mike Huckabee might have exerted political influence when his son was accused of hanging a dog during Boy Scout camp? Yeah. However by measure, Mike Huckabee never transgressed "power of politics" like one of his predecessors (that would be William Jefferon Clinton) did. The only thing the "hanging the dog" thing exposes is that Mike was motivated that his own son should not unjustly be subjected to unfair treatment only because he was the son of the Governor.

Let us examine the "unfair" attempts of Governor Huckabee and his "abuses of power" in the light of previous people who held the office. If you are willing to forgive Bill Clinton for abuses of power then you must also forgive Mike Huckabee. Do not try to defend the indiscretions of Bill Clinton while holding Mike Huckabee to a different standard.

Personally, I do not judge Mike Huckabees defense of his son (he only asked that his son be held to the same standards as the average citizen's son) within the same standards as my judgement of the indiscretions of Bill Clinton. I was willing to forgive Bill. Certainly I can forgive Mike.

Let's get past the past and get to the present. David Huckabee is guilty of having a gun in his carry on luggage. How would any other citizen be judged if they were also found to be just as guilty? David Huckabee had a permit to own and carry the gun which he was found to have attempted to transport in his carry on luggage. I am just as willing to forgive David Huckabee as I am willing to forgive my own Democratic Senator (Jim Webb) for the "weapon carried into Congress" episode Jim Webb's entourage was involved in.

Now, I have my own reasons for opposing a Mike Huckabee candidacy for President. If anyone seeks to thwart his run for Presidency I would advise them to take him on with the issues. He has some real problems with the issues. Seeking to judge him on the basis of his kid while avoiding the issues is not the way to go.

Mike Huckabee might not be successful in his run for the Presidency, however the record of his kid is not going to be what is going to stop him. His stance on the issues is his Achilles Heal.

Pennsylvania Act 44

Included in Pennsylvania's Act 44 is an attempt to make Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania a toll road.

It is my opinion that, in effect, this amounts to an unconstitutional attempt to impose a tax on interstate commerce.

First, let us examine the Constitution. Part of Section 10 of the Constitution, Powers Prohibited of States, states:

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Now this would seem to indicate that Pennsylvania could in fact tax interstate commerce if such a tax was authorized by Congress. But can Congress authorize such a tax? Let us examine part of Section 9, Limits on Congress, which states:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

So it would seem that Congress is not allowed to authorize Pennsylvania to impose a tax on interstate commerce.

How could a toll on Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania be a tax on interstate commerce? Let's say a farmer in Iowa grows some sweet corn that the citizens of New Jersey would like to purchase. To get the corn to New Jersey, the product must transit through Pennsylvania. Should the state of Pennsylvania be allowed to charge more then it costs to build and maintain the roads in Pennsylvania for the goods going through the state? The Constitution says it can not!

Pennsylvania's tax on diesel fuel already stands at 38.1 cents per gallon which is the highest tax on diesel in the nation. Now, in fairness, Pennsylvania does not charge a ton mile tax which some states with lower fuel tax rates also charge in addition (or in the case of Oregon, instead of) to fund highway maintenance. However Pennsylvania also has large sections of interstate highways where, in addition collecting the fuel tax for miles traveled, a toll is collected. Even without collecting tolls for traveling on Intestate 80, Pennsylvania probably ranks as high as # 3 in the nation, (certainly at least in the top 5) for revenue collected for miles traveled through the state.

There is no way all the money collected goes towards highway construction and maintenance. Any money collected that goes towards anything other then highway construction and maintenance amounts to an unconstitutional tax on interstate commerce.

So what do we do about it?

If Pennsylvania receives authorization to make I80 a toll road, we wait until the toll has been in effect long enough to collect several million dollars in tolls. Then we find a young, sharp, hungry lawyer who wants to become rich and famous and we file a class action lawsuit seeking the return of the revenue collected illegally. The lawyer can subpoena Pennsylvania's highway construction and maintenance tax receipt and expenditure records so he can prove that more money is collected then is spent on maintaining the highway infrastructure. The lawyer would receive his compensation from a portion of the millions in tolls that had been collected.

Pennsylvania has no justification for making I80 a toll road. It is impossible for the state to be wisely spending all the revenue already collected on highway construction and maintenance. The highways in Pennsylvania are not that good. Money has to be being siphoned off for other purposes somehow, and such siphoning is unconstitutional. It amounts to an illegal tax on interstate commerce. Citizens of New Jersey should not have to pay for services provided to the citizens of Pennsylvania only because goods they need and desire are transported through the state of Pennsylvania.

Now it is my understanding that a large portion of the revenue collected goes to fund mass transit. A sliver of the revenue collected going to mass transit probably could be justified because mass transit relieves congestion in metropolitan areas. Vessels (trucks) transporting goods through these areas benefit through reduction in congestion. However it should not be too hard for a sharp lawyer to crunch the numbers and prove the portion of revenue provided for mass transit exceeds the benefit gained.

Certainly imposing a tax on interstate commerce that transits the I80 corridor can not be justified because any benefits from funding mass transit will not be realized on this corridor.

If the state of Pennsylvania wants to ignore the Constitution, we'll take them to court!

Gasp, Romney is a Mormon

Gasp, Romney is a Mormon. Well that automatically eliminates him from consideration for my vote! (That last sentence was sarcastic - in case the sarcasm was not obvious.)

I do not think Mitt Romney is going to get my vote for President. Why? Because I disagree with him on too many areas that I consider important. If it ever looks like he would win the nomination I would go into detail about what I find objectionable about him. Chief amongst my objections would be how he flip flopped on so many issues and I disagree with some of the flops he made. In my opinion he did not find the light, he often lost it.

However the fact that he is a Mormon is NOT one of the things that causes me to tend to not want to vote for him. The fact that he is a Mormon actually might endear him to me at least slightly. Why is that?

Let me explain. While I would agree that Mormons have some strange beliefs (and many would say the same about me) I examine what is the end result. Are Mormons in their practice of faith a positive or negative influence for society? I look at them as being a positive influence, generally speaking.

Now much of what I know about the Mormon faith comes from during my time in service in the United States Navy. During a particularly troubling time of my service I had the good fortune of serving under a Leading Petty Officer (LPO) who was a Mormon. This man was a convert to the faith and he served as an Elder in his congregation. The man was not a pushover, however he seemed to possess endless patience as I first started to clean up my act. I credit my good fortune of serving under him as being part of the explanation for how I was successful in turning my life around.

Anyway, Jack (I won't give his last name) had an extremely friendly personality. While he did not initiate efforts to proselytize, he enjoyed sharing his faith and answering the questions of the curious (like me) who would engage him in conversation on the subject. Jack himself had experienced some blemishes during his youth, and from the Mormon faith he found purpose and direction.

One of the things that I learned about Mormons is that they are encouraged to lay in a store of food in their households so that if ever there is a societal breakdown, they will have provisions to rely on. He explained that in his basement he had a area dedicated for storage of things like dried beans that should last him at least a year if a meltdown ever happened. I have since learned that in Salt Lake City the Mormons even have a few large silos dedicated to storage of grain for their congregation if such a food source is ever required (they periodically cycle the grain in storage by giving away the stored grain to the needy to make room for fresh grain). Perhaps such a practice is a little strange, but it could also be described as wise. Such storage might come in handy if a societal breakdown did occur, or during natural disasters or if ever there should be a nuclear war.

Mormons strongly encourage (perhaps insist on?) their children serving as missionaries early in their adult years. While much of this missionary work is devoted to proselytizing, certainly their efforts result in "some good" being the fruits of their labor. I would point to my LPO, Jack, as being evidence of good results.

Yes Mormons have some strange beliefs, I would never myself become a Mormon because I would find it impossible to make the statement "I too believe...." to all the things they evidently believe in. However I do feel that nothing about their beliefs is going to prevent them from getting into heaven. I also believe that through the practice of their religion, society does benefit.

So Mitt Romney gets points for being a Mormon from me during his run for the Presidency. My problem with Romney is that the fact that he is a Mormon is the only thing I find appealing about him.

By the way, I later ran into a mutual aquaintance who knew something of "What ever happened to ole Jack?" after I left the command we had all served at. He informed me that Jack had, later in life, pretty much lost the faith. I was heart broken.

Wall Street Boos Bernanke

Wall Street Boos Bernanke. (See here) where a msn money piece reports the stock market took a dip after the Fed cut its federal funds rate from 4.5% to 4.25%.

Personally, I would not have been upset if the Fed had held the line and kept interest rates where they were. It is my opinion that Wall Street investors just want to the Fed to step in and provide easy money to bail out the market.

What does lowering the Fed rate do? It injects liquidity into the supply of money available right? Well there is plenty of liquidity out there. The value of the dollar has been dropping in the international money market because ALREADY there is not enough demand for the existing supply of dollars. Continuing to cut the Fed rate is like adding fuel to the fire, further dampening demand for the dollar and motivates a further drop in the dollar's value.

Now I am not concerned about the current decrease in the value of the dollar. All in all, it is my opinion that some type of correction of the dollar's value was required due to the trade imbalance. Costs of imports to the American economy should go up, costs of exports should go down yielding an improved balance of trade. Given a little time, American consumers might even start seeing "made in USA" on more of the goods they purchase at Walmart.

However the dollar going into free fall is not a good thing. If foreign citizens (and particularly foreign investors) start to see the dollar as a worthless piece of paper (and there have been rumblings that this is already starting) we are going to regret having allowed things to get that far out of whack.

Now I understand that Mr Bernanke and his group are trying to walk a fine line. The economy slipping into recession would in and of itself also decrease demand for dollars. I get that. However foolishly sounding the charge and rushing to the rescue of those threatened by the sub prime mortgage mess also would invite disaster.

There is plenty of money out there. The plunge of the dollar stands as evidence. Domestic investors just need to figure out a way to sop up some of the excess supply that is available out there in the international market. The Fed stepping in to provide a low cost alternative is not going help rebalance the supply and demand of dollars.

Isn't it from Wall Street where we normally hear the wise old sages lecturing us about allowing market forces solve all of our problems? Well the sages are starting to sound more like heroin addicts screaming "Give me my fix"; only the fix they need is cheap, easy money and I guess they could care less whether the economy goes down the tubes as long as their addiction is fed.

Anti-Gay = Gay?

Some people seem to have a problem with my opinions. Visit Science Avenger: Rabid Anti-Gayness = Gayness?
for one such example.

I respectfully disagree with Science Avenger's opinion on my own expression of opinion.

But I do have some facts to back up my opinions, whereas Science Avenger seems willing to point to opinion as being evidence of fact. I will point to, as evidence, his willingness to link to Wikipedia and a point of view (not a fact) to back up one of his statements.

First off, my own overuse of quotes. I agree that I probably do tend to overuse them. My intention is to highlight common uses of words when the common usage does not match the dictionary definition of the term. It is not my intention to use scare quotes. However if I am truthful, I guess my usage does not always match my intent.

Second, without quoting, I will remark upon Science Avenger's bringing up the argument that all "homophobes" (I disagree that being against homosexuality is a disorder) are closet homosexuals or something. I will admit that I consider myself a bisexual who chose (or was taught) to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle. I do not fear that I am strictly homosexual, however it is my understanding of my own human existence that at least some us (most of us could be argued) have a choice. I look back at my own adolescent years as I first started experimenting with human sexuality to base my opinions on "truth" ("scare quotes" intentional) when the subject of homosexuality is brought into the arena.

I will note that some homosexual extremists are entirely too dismissive of this point when some attempt to bring this point into consideration is made (the point that some have choice). I have even heard some claim that there are no such thing as bisexuals. They have claimed there are only heterosexuals and homosexuals - the rest are liars.

I will accept that some homosexuals can not in any manner become aroused by the thought of sex with a member of the opposite sex. However I heard one male homosexual explain that the reason he successfully engaged in sex with a woman (lesbian) in order to give birth to a child was because he "looked at pictures of naked men" during the intercourse. Yeah right. Personal experience teaches me that some heterosexual men choose to be heterosexuals. While I do not have personal experience to point out examples of where bisexuals might choose to adopt a homosexual lifestyle, I suspect this is also true.

Now it is my opinion that the heterosexual lifestyle is best for humanity. It is my belief that much of the morality taught in the Bible is in fact true, that a monogamous heterosexual relationship is best for the species. This comes from one who DOES NOT claim that the Bible is infallible.

However just because something is taught in the Bible does not mean that it immediately must be false. That last sentence may or may not be amongst the things that influences the Science Avenger's thought processes, however I sometimes suspect it is true.

Let us examine one "statement of truth" by the Science Avenger:

STDs are not a threat to wipe out humanity, and given that 99% of their spread can be controlled by individual decisions (ie wearing a condom, being celibate,
or being monogamous), that is not likely to change.

First I could take issue with the opening phrase. Perhaps STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) are not a threat to society because we can still hope that the lessons taught in the Bible about how to deal with human sexuality might take root. STDs however are a threat to the general well being of our species. Willingness to tolerate other than a monogamous heterosexual lifestyle has led to increasing transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. This occurrence could be tolerated by our species as long as a shot in the butt will cure the STD. However evidence is that STDs are increasingly developing resistance to all known treatments. Mankind has shown itself to not be as resilient in developing new treatments as the bugs have been resilient in developing resistance to existing medications. These are the facts (no scare quotes) and the refusal of Science Avenger to take such facts into consideration proves how he puts the blinders on when it comes to science and human sexuality.

Second, I note how that the answers Science Avenger comes up with to deal with the problem, "wearing a condom, being celibate, or being monogamous" are all values that are taught in the Bible with how to deal with human sexuality. The Bible also teaches us how we should instruct our children to deal with it.(In editing I am going to add that "religion" does not encourage the use of condoms. However the Bible does not argue against such use.)

It is my opinion that Science Avenger exhibits evidence that the real agenda of the Science Avenger is not to teach that science is right, his agenda is to prove that the Bible is wrong.

It is my opinion, that in order to deal with the looming health crisis brought about by sexual freedom, society might need to retreat back to the Scarlet Letter A, although I would subject "studs" to the treatment just like I would subject "sluts" (in the interest of sexual equality). Perhaps we will have to return to blood tests before a marriage license is issued. New treatments from medical science are becoming harder and more expensive to come by. Just how much expense should society have to pay in order to enable promiscuous sexual behaviour whether it be heterosexual or homosexual?

I also take issue with Science Avenger's appraisal of the "purpose" of evolution. I thought I heard something about evolution involving survival of the fittest! It is my opinion that the powers of human reason have been part of the explantion for why our species rose to the levels it did. I do not see anything wrong with our species continuing to exploit this power in order to help the chances of our species continuing to exist.

Perhaps I was taught wrong. I was taught that "human instinct" (quotes because I am unsure instinct is the explanation) comes in a pyramid. Personal survival stands at the top of the pyramid. At the bottom I was taught it is natural for a human being to worry about the survival of the species.

I will close with this point that Science Avenger attempts to make:

Consider worker bees and ants.

Oh yeah? What about these examples from nature? Let's see. None reproductive elements of insect societies exist as slaves to guarantee the existence of reproductive elements of their society. OK, homosexuals should be slaves to heterosexuals then? I think we can use our powers of human reason to decide this would not be a good outcome. Perhaps Science Avenger only used a poor example. However the poor example serves to prove the point of how poor his consideration of "science" is.

I would encourage anyone who has read the above to read everything that Science Avenger had to say on the subject by visiting the link to his article I provided at the beginning of this post. I am going to hear something about "quoting out of context" (which the Science Avenger himself is guilty of) and want to limit the damage caused by such a claim. Go read it all for yourself.

Waterboarding is Torture

Waterboarding is torture. That is my opinion.

However I was witness to an interesting discussion on Bill O Reilly's No Spin Factor which brought an interesting aspect of the debate on waterboarding into account.

I recall that actually this point was initially brought up by a female listener of his program. Her point? She defines the limits of what should be allowed in interrogations as being that which she would subject the interrogatee to in order to save her own kids. This point was broadened by Bill to his contention that each Presidential candidate should be asked how they would conduct interrogations if their own children's lives were at stake.

Sorry Bill. Interesting point, however I think that if we adopted the woman's definition of what is allowed we would slip way past what most of us define as torture.

To save the lives of my children?

OK, let's say we have two accomplices that I am 99% certain have information that if they would surrender it, would save my kids from otherwise certain death. What would I do?

I would tie up one of them in a chair so that he was forced to witness what was happening as I questioned the first one to be subjected to active interrogation. I would start off the active interrogation mildly. Polite questions with a humane period allowing for voluntary surrender of the information I needed. But if the information was not surrendered while being "nice"?

Stage two: mean and nasty rapidly graduating to cruel and inhuman. Perhaps I would start out with some of the measures that have been identified as already being utilized by our government. However some of these measures take time to wear the interrogatee down. If time was critical I imagine it would not take me very long to graduate to more effective measures of inflicting pain. Ripping out fingernails? Yup. Pulling teeth without novacaine? Yup. Using a hammer to smash his fingers and toes? Yup. You get the idea. After I was done and all that was left of the interrogatee was a quivering, trembling mass of flesh that no longer resembles anything human, I might execute him by putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger.

Then I would turn to the second interrogatee and give him a choice. "You saw what happened to your buddy, which method would you like to endure first?"

Now that is what I would do. I would not be deterred by threats of prison. I am fairly certain that I would be willing to lay down my own life for the life of one of my children. I do not think I would be deterred only by my interrogation methods being illegal.

I do not think the proposed measurement of what should be allowed is a good yardstick to use. If that is the measurement, then I guess we would certainly have to cross the line into making it legal to interrogate using the most cruel and painful interrogation techniques possible. Techniques that EVERYONE understands is certainly torture.

I do not think it should be legal to utilize "all the above" methods of interrogation. Nice try Bill O Reilly, but no cigar. Anyone who uses such methods should be subject to a trial by jury. Perhaps the jury will forgive him. If the jury finds him guilty? Well, there would remain the hope for a Presidential pardon.

Waterboarding is torture. Torture should be illegal. But that is just my opinion.

Rush Limbaugh is a Clown

Rush Limbaugh is a clown.

Recently I spent some time traveling in my pickup truck. My pickup's FM portion of the radio is broken, so I was forced to listen to the offerings available on the AM band.

One of the programs available was the Rush Limbaugh show. It didn't take me very long to be reminded just why I so rarely listen to Rush anymore. While I am in my "big truck" (tractor trailer rig) I have so many other choices to choose from due to the availability of Sirius satellite radio, so why should I listen to what I find so irritating?

I am grateful that other right wing voices still are available on radio. I still enjoy listening into and taking into consideration "reasonable" right wing voices so that I do not have to listen to clowns like Rush Limbaugh.

One of the other programs available was Rill O Reilly's No Spin Factor. Bill had broached an interesting subject and I settled in to listen to the discussion. In fact, I believe Bill provided me with the fodder for my next blog entry.

But Rush Limbaugh is still a clown. Some might "reasonably" call him a good entertainer, but my opinion is that the subset of "entertainers" he belongs to is "clowns".

Iraq Will Dictate American Withdrawal?

(See here) an Associated Press piece that appears at the Jerusalem Post website that reports the Iraqi government is wanting to spread its wings and assert its authority over the issue of a continuing presence of American forces in Iraq.

I am open for the "will of the Iraqi people" to be represented at the table during any discussion of how long American forces will remain in Iraq. However I am mindful of the fact that the minority Sunni portion of the population is under represented in the current Iraqi government.

If the Iraqi government wants to be understood as being the "last and final" representative of the will of the Iraqi people, they need to engineer and hold new elections whereby the Sunni portion of their population is once again offered the chance to seize adequate representation within the government. Absent such efforts to provide proper inclusion of the Sunni perspective will be weighed against the concerns of that segment of the population when negotiating with the existing government.

I am intrigued by one gauntlet thrown down by the Iraqi foreign minister. One aspect that he would include in negotiations. The aspect is that, as long as the presence of US troops is endured, he would insist:

There will be negotiations about the conduct of these (US) troops and their rights, privileges and also questions of command and control...

I would be willing to only slightly compromise on this issue. While in Iraq, US forces would remain under the command and control of American leaders. Perhaps I would be willing to agree to the US only establishing "safe havens" within Iraq (commonly called bases) whereby they have infinite rights of self defense. Perhaps the Iraqi government would be consulted to agree on broad areas of operation outside these safe havens. However even outside these areas, at least for the time being, US forces would remain under American command and control, with broad protections from the infant Iraqi judicial system. American forces are only effective and can only continue to offer positive outcomes through remaining under American command and control.

I am starting to become at least slightly more positive in my outlook for the prospects of Iraq to not descend into chaos based upon a willingness of the current Iraqi government to express confidence in their own developing military and police forces.

Encouraging Anti-Semitism

(See here) where Israeli settlers are thinking about proclaiming a new state of Judea if Israel reaches a peace agreement with Palestine!

What would be the advantages to the settler (or Yesha) community in establishing such a state?

Being a profoundly religious Jewish state offers advantages in confrontation with Arabs which secular Israeli nation does not possess. Judea would be free to clear out Arab indigenous inhabitants. Following Hebrew biblical guidelines, Judea could use military measures otherwise unacceptable in the modern world...

Did you get that? Being "profoundly religious Jewish" means you can "clear cut Arab indigenous inhabitants." And some people became offended when Jimmy Carter used the word Apartheid to describe what was going on in the occupied territories. This is evidence that Jimmy Carter got it right. That at least some of the settlers really do not possess "purity of motivation" in their attempts to settle the occupied territories.

The above quote came from Obadiah Shoher. Obadiah Shoher is the pseudonym of a mysterious author, originally from the former Soviet Union, who has created the popular Samson Blinded blog and publication of a book by the same name.

While some might claim that Obadhiah is just an "extremist" and is in no way representative of the Yesha community, I will claim that his viewpoint is not that far from representing the Yesha community. It is just that the Yesha community tries to soothe with words while their actions support Obadiah in his proclamations.

Now I am not anti-Semitic. My own inclination is to greet anyone who identifies themselves as a Jew in my nation with a smile. You see, in my nation, evidence is that the Jewish influence has been a good thing. If I am guilty of "pre-judging" someone only because they are Jewish, well, actually I might be guilty of the opposite of anti-Semitism. Jews in America have stood so long for that which is good that I just can not help myself.

But I draw the line at support for the settlers. If you support the settlers, you oppose me. I support Israel (thus far) however I do not support the settlers. Evidence is that the settlers continue, through word and action, to oppose a reasonable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Let me close with this. Obadhiah thinks:

Judea can forget the notion of civil rights and obey Jewish religious law.

Is Jewish religious law that much opposed to civil rights? Are Jews, through their support of such voices and such actions from the settler community not inviting anti-Semitism?

Preventing the Need for Abortions

(See here) where a NY Times piece by Celia W Dugger reports that both sides of the abortion issue seemed to have joined together in a reasonable, rational attempt to prevent the need for abortions.

Congress has passed a foreign aid spending bill that they believe would reduce abortions in poor countries through allowing the federal government to donate contraceptives to foreign groups that provide family planning services abroad, including those that offer abortions.

However the move is opposed by pro-life extremists and the entire bill might be vetoed by Dubyah Bush due to the inclusion of this aspect.

What motivated pro-life Democrats to support the bill?

Five of the anti abortion Democrats in the House, including Representatives Jim Langevin of Rhode Island and Henry Cuellar of Texas, wrote to leaders of the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday advocating that the committee keep the provision in the bill on the grounds that “it will help reduce the need for abortion, the number of unintended pregnancies, and the spread of H.I.V./AIDS.”

Let's give them a round of applause. They are motivated to prevent abortions and here common sense tells them by providing contraceptives, they might reduce the need for abortions. They are willing to work with pro-choice members of Congress when these members also signal that they desire to limit the need for abortions.

But what is the justification given for opposing the provision?

But in the impassioned debate in Congress earlier this year, Republicans said that giving contraceptives to such groups was the same as giving them money and would free up resources that could be used for abortions.

What is the hang up with "such groups"? If the pro-choice crowd is willing to help us decrease the need for abortions, aren't we a step ahead? Wouldn't the contraceptives be made available to pro-life groups and "free up resources" for them to pursue their agenda?

I think I know what part of the problem is. While some pro-life groups insist that "life begins at conception" they even oppose the use of condoms that would prevent conception. These extremists in Congress want us to sign on to their extremist viewpoint that it is wrong for even a married couple to use a condom for birth control (like the Pope thinks).

Well I say these extremists should not stand in the way of when opposing sides on the argument of abortion can find common ground. I describe myself as "pro-restricted choice" and I want to see the numbers of abortions decrease. Increased availability of birth control is a common sense method of decreasing the number of such abortions. I strongly stand against anyone who while claiming to oppose abortion opposes actions that could actually result in a decrease in the numbers of abortions performed.

Must we bow to the pro-life extremists (like the Pope) that feel recreational sex, even by a married couple, is a sin? That married couples must abstain from sex unless they want to have a baby?

What is the lesson here? The lesson is that if you really are pro-life and you really want to reduce the number of abortions you are better off voting for a pro-life Democrat then you are casting your vote for the pro-life Republican. If you cast your vote for the Democrat you might be rewarded with some progress. Pro-life Republicans have signed on with the Pope and seem to think it is sin to even prevent conception in the first place. By signing on with the pro-life Republican you might be signing on to his/her extremist ideology.

Now, I want to start searching for a little "truth" in the stance of these pro-life extremists who represent us in Congress. Just how many of them have families approaching a dozen or even more? My own father was a devout Catholic and he ended up with 11 children because he practiced what he preached. If our members of Congress who have an extremist pro-life voting record do not also have large families I smell a rat.

By the way... just how many children did Dubyah and Laura have?

No Illegal Israeli Settlements?

There are no illegal Israeli Settlements?

(See here) a NY Times piece by Isabel Kershner reports this may not be the case.

At least in this case, private ownership by a Palestinian citizen can be proven.

Note the justification given for the continuing expansion given by one of the settlers, who is identified as being Yedidya Slonim, 16, who although still is at a tender age still offers evidence of Israeli settlers raising their children to incite violence. Yedidya gives justification for his actions as being:

“God gave this to us,” he said. “Now that we’re here, I don’t think we’re going to move.”

Now some settlement expansion is not as clear cut. Some expansion involves confiscation of communally shared tracts without clear ownership being able to be proven. However in almost every such case it ends up with the Israeli government taking over this public land and then providing private ownership to Israeli citizens due to "rights of conquest". According to the Geneva Conventions there is no "rights of conquest". At other times (you do not have to search long) such confiscation is also justified with "God gave this to us...".

I do not condone the terrorist for blowing up innocent civilians. However I ask you to put yourselves in the shoes of the Palestinians who suffer from such injustice. If YOU suffered from such injustice, what would YOU do? Personally, I might not react in exemplary fashion.

ALL construction in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) should be halted. We can not trust ourselves to be allowed to be drawn into the debate of what such construction "should be allowed" and that which is prohibited. Until the completion of negotiations on just where the final borders will be drawn, we can not trust ourselves. ZERO, ABSOLUTELY ZERO, continuing construction in the West Bank by Israel should be allowed in the occupied territories because "our side" has proven it can not be trusted when we attempt to thread the needle.

Can Israel be trusted to halt expansion if such a promise is made? Will the settlers yield to the authority of their elected government? Will the majority of Israelis expect their own military to hold the militant minority accountable if they flaunt the law?

The above expectations are what Israelis expect of the Palestinians. I think it is only reasonable that Israel meets that which they expect of their opponents.

Huckabee Continues Surge In Iowa

(See here) where Newsweek reports that Mike Huckabee has continued his surge in Iowa and now holds a two-to-one lead over Romney.

As I have stated previously, I would find it extremely difficult to vote for Huckabee because he is in favor of the "Fair Tax". The "Fair Tax" would increase taxes on a "average American family" (married with two kids, $43,000 in income) by over $2,000 even if this average family only takes the standard deduction and does not itemize (which they might be doing if they were purchasing a home instead of renting). The Fair Tax is supposed to be revenue neutral, and it would use the increased tax receipts to fund a tax cut for the wealthiest citizens of our nation. (Disclosure: My own taxes would go up even substantially more because I do itemize and because I am self employed with much of my income shielded from payroll taxes through formation of an S-Corp.)

However what many of his opponents point to in opposing him is his record for raising taxes while serving as Governor of Arkansas. One of the taxes raised was fuel taxes for highway maintenance. Now I am a truck driver who regularly has traveled the highways of Arkansas so I believe I can shed some light on this issue. I am self-employed and I have to pay the increased fuel tax.

Prior to Huckabee (and the Arkansas legislature) raising the fuel tax, Arkansas was was gaining a little notoriety as having the worst highways in the nation. This was not just my own personal opinion, this was the majority viewpoint of truck drivers who have the experience to compare road conditions in the various states. Arkansas had not always worn this dubious honor, however other states that might have given them competition in the past had improved maintenance to where Arkansas was by then the hands down winner of the distinction. Things had gotten so bad on Arkansas Interstates that it had become almost a torture to travel through Arkansas on the crumbling highways.

So what was the result of the tax increase? Well, in Mr Huckabee's opinion, his state:

...went from having the worst to the best roads.

Now that is a little bit of a stretch. Ask truckers which state has the best highways in the nation and it is going to be extremely unusual for you to find one who claims Arkansas leads the nation. However things have improved considerably. Some work is still left to be done, however things are improved and improving.

Another point of consideration is whether the level to which Arkansas increased fuel taxes is justified. Here we find a mixed bag of results when Arkansas is compared to neighboring states, with Arkansas probably falling into the bottom half of "bang for the buck". When the comparison is broadened to nationally, the increased level is not totally unreasonable, even when things like the topography of the states and the need for snow removal are factored in. Arkansas might even squeak into the top half of the pack.

Arkansas really needed to do something about the condition of her highways. One method of increasing highway maintenance revenue which was considered was to make Interstate 40 a toll road. It is my opinion that tollways are not the way to go, with an increase in fuel taxes being the fairest way to raise additional revenue.

I will note that it has been reported that, in a referendum, 80% of Arkansas voters approved of the fuel tax increase. It is my opinion that Arkansa's citizens, like the majority truck drivers, realized something needed to be done.

So those of you who want to scream about Mr Huckabee raising fuel taxes and who do not live in the state need to shut the heck up. Arkansas's citizens wanted the tax increase and even the majority of out-of-state truck drivers are willing to pay the increased tax level to fund the improvements that ARE being made.

But back to the "Fair Tax" issue. Mike Huckabee still will not get my vote due to his support of the proposal.

Middle East Peace - Alternative View

Since I have at least a small pro-Israeli bias in my viewpoint (I hope my home does not end up being bombed by an Israeli right winger for saying that) I have sought to explore the alternative viewpoint.

(Here) is an Aljazeera piece written by Jim Miles that does justice in providing a reasonable alternative viewpoint from the "Palestinian perspective".

Now I will not attempt to claim that Jim Miles' article is "balanced". I will only claim that from this voice which argues for consideration of Palestinian goals, some headway could be reached.

I do not have the inclination to dissect all the points Mr Miles makes. Let's start off with the openers. In the second paragraph of the article we can read:

In the past, the Israelis have quite willingly agreed to negotiations, going even further at times as with the Gaza “withdrawal” as another smokescreen to continue with their settlement policy of both expanding existing settlements, allowing more illegal outposts, declaring more and more of Palestinian lands as military areas, and continuing with their house demolitions, roadblocks and detention of the Palestinian people. Nothing has changed, still going nowhere.

Mr Miles makes little of the Gaza withdrawal. It is part of the "smoke screen" he claims. Well if there is a smoke screen the smoke is coming from the exhaust of Qassam rockets fired into Israel out of Gaza. But he does have a point. While the withdrawal from Gaza did happen, the continuing expansion of Israeli settlements within the West Bank did occur. So what happens if the expansions are called to a halt, at least pending the outcome of negotiations? If expansion stops will hostilities from the Palestinian side be halted as well?

If there are no further hostilities from Palestinians, there will no longer be justification for "house demolitions, roadblocks and detention of the Palestinian people". I realize that there is some justification for hostilities from the Palestinians. However when "two states for two peoples" is within the realm of possibility are they willing to throttle back on resistance to the occupation? Or is there something more that motivates them then ending the occupation of the West Bank? The Israelis already withdrew from Gaza and what springs forth from Gaza in the aftermath does little to promote future withdrawals from other occupied lands.

Do not point the "finger of blame" unless you are willing to acknowledge that the rest of the fingers in your hand point back at you (discounting the thumb - grin).

If Israelis cease expansion of settlements in the West Bank could Mr Miles promise that resistance to the occupation would, at least temporarily, halt pending the outcome of negotiations?

I am wanting a "cease fire". I realize that expansion is one of the weapons that Israelis use. Such expansion should not continue during the cease fire. But what if the Israelis really do stop the expansion for the duration?

Impossible you say? You can not get all the powers behind you? It is just as "impossible" for the Israelis to stop the expansion. If Olmert manages to pull a rabbit out of his hat, I am going to be watching with eager anticipation when Abbas takes his turn on the stage.

Is Jesus A Myth?

Is Jesus a myth?

I have encountered totally unreasonable arguments from atheists who attempt to argue that Jesus never existed. They do not attempt to argue that he was not God, but that no such person ever walked on the face of the earth. Jesus is a myth they claim.

Evidence is to any reasonable person that once upon our world trod a "man" by the name of Jesus. To argue against this is like arguing that never existed upon this earth a man called Alexander the Great.

From ancient times we may have imperfect accounts of leaders who's existence shook the world. Some of what we think we know about Alexander the Great, for example, might not be wholly correct. However we can take what written history there is about his reign and compare it to the evidence that we can uncover and come to the "reasonable" conclusion that, yes, Alexander the Great once breathed air on this planet we call Earth.

So what about Jesus? Did he ever exist? It confounds me that anyone could even attempt to make such an argument. Attempting to make such an argument almost seems to be an attempt to clamor for attention and nothing more. We have the accounts from the Bible! Perhaps the accounts are inflated or something however what is the evidence provided from the inflated accounts?

The Bible is uncorroborated evidence? Well from Jesus we have the new religion Christianity springing. Who opposed this new religion? The Jews? The Romans?

From the Jews, the opposition, we hear that instead of an "Immaculate Conception" that Jesus was a bastard and Mary was a whore. Their historical account does not attempt to prove that he never existed, only that he was not what Christians believed him to be.

From the Romans we hear accounts of the newfangled religion that was starting to infect the farthest reaches of their empire early on. If the "myth" of Jesus was only a product of human imagination, then the seeds sown of this imagination quickly took root from the time it first touched the fertile earth.

Earth shaking. World changing. Jesus might not have been God, but he existed, and his existence changed history as your existence with your feeble arguments will not.

Perhaps Jesus was only a bastard, son of a whore. But he existed. If he was only a bastard, son of a whore, my admiration for what he was able to accomplish only increases.

What Is Wrong With Huckabee

What Is Wrong With Huckabee

Alternatively I could have titled this post "I'd Vote For A Flaming Faggot Before I Would Vote For Huckabee" except the title would have been too lengthy.

(See here) where Newsmax reports Governor Huckabee is surging in the polls.

I myself was intrigued by the Huckabee campaign. What eliminated him from contention for my vote can be best shown by visiting his own campaign website. (See here) where his website explains his position on taxes and the economy. Governor Huckabee does not even try to hide what I find most objectionable (he at least gains a point for honesty) when the very first point made is:

I support the Fair Tax.

To me this tells me that Governor Huckabee, the Southern Baptist Minister, is willing to "Sell his soul to the devil" in order to be elected President of the United States. He represents that which I find most objectionable in the recent history of how the Republican Party, with Evangelical support, has been leading our country.

Mr Huckabee would like to increase taxes on the middle class in order to give ANOTHER TAXCUT to the wealthy. I find it hard to understand how this "minister" can find the personal justification for so negatively impacting the plight of the majority of his fellow ministers who still have to worry about paying their own mortgage while attempting to help others in need.

While Governor Huckabee might actually balance the budget, his proposal would do so in REVERSE Robin Hood style. He will steal from the Middle Class to deliver ANOTHER TAXCUT to the wealthy.

Governor Huckabee might counter with the argument that his proposal will actually yield more tax money coming from the Upper Class or something. I would counter this argument with two points.

First: If the so called "Fair Tax" is actually "revenue neutral" as proponents of the proposal claim, it achieves this result on the backs of an increased tax burden on the Middle Class. If it is "revenue neutral" and increases taxes on the middle class somebody is going to benefit from this middle class tax increase. I wonder who these fortunate individuals might be? Well Governor Huckabee either is not aware or does not give a hoot.

Second: The "Fair Tax" would neuter the ability of government to motivate the wealthy to do good things for society. As an example? Society should help the poor to obtain housing. (If you do not agree with this societal objective, please go away!) Government proved long ago that "big government" is inept in managing public housing projects. What is part of the solution? Provide funding and tax breaks to business to do that which government seems to be incapable of doing on its own. We can motivate the entrepreneur (small or large) to provide safe adequate housing for the poor with funding and tax breaks. To the motivated individual we PROVE that we value his efforts to meet our objectives of providing housing for the poor through funding and tax breaks. The Fair Tax would eliminate this ability to motivate those who have the motivation or inclination to help us, as a society, meet our objectives by eliminating the ability to reward those who do good things for society.

And Governor Huckabee is a "Southern Baptist Minister" who crows about his support for the Fair Tax. To me he represents that which I most strongly dislike about all of the "New Republicans" that have been responsible for so much of what is wrong with our nation today. Instead of attempting to get the wealthy into heaven whether they like it or not, he wants to grease the skids for their path into hell.

As far as I am concerned, Governor Huckabee has sold his soul to the devil in his attempt to reach the office of President. With my vote, I am going to attempt to prove to him that he made a bad investment decision. Place your bets on God. If you place your bets on the devil? Well the Bible teaches us that "good" is going to win in the end. We might have to wait for the Second Coming to achieve victory, but if it comes anytime real soon, Governor Huckabee is going to be amongst those "left behind"!

Funding SCHIP

Earlier I posted (see here) the text of my Emails to my Senators in the federal government where I voiced my opposition to funding expansion of SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) through an outrageous increase in tobacco taxes.

Here is the text of the reply I received from Senator Jim Webb:

Dear Mr. Obermark:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP, H.R.976) and your views on the importance of providing health insurance coverage to Virginia's low-income and uninsured children.

I strongly believe that we need to strengthen access to quality health care in the United States. Medicaid and CHIP have made progress in improving children's health insurance. However, nine million children are still without health care. It is crucial for Congress to maintain strong financial support for CHIP for low-income children and expectant mothers, as well as other health safety-net programs.

Last year, 167,000 low-income children in Virginia received health insurance coverage through CHIP, and there are another 100,000 uninsured children eligible for coverage. The CHIP program in Virginia, called the Family Access to Medical Insurance Security plan, has been successful in educating and enrolling low-income children and families.

Although the bill's funding source, an increase in the tobacco tax, unfairly singles out tobacco use and the tobacco industry, the merits of CHIP outweigh those concerns. Thus, I voted in support of CHIP's reauthorization. On September 27, 2007, Congress passed this bill so that approximately 3.2 million additional low-income, uninsured children receive health coverage over the next five years. However, the President vetoed this bill on October 3, 2007. As Congress deliberates the next steps to take on the CHIP bill, your views are helpful to me and my staff.

My staff and I appreciate your correspondence on this important issue. I would also invite you to visit my website at http://www.webb.senate.gov/ for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation. Please do not hesitate to contact us in the future.

Sincerely,

Jim Webb
United States Senator

Since my own concern was that the method being considered to fund the increase, that being 100% of the funding coming from an increase in the tobacco tax, would unfairly penalize his own state's economy by decreasing demand for tobacco products, I think I was just told that Mr Webb does not care about Virginia tobacco farmers or those citizens in Virginia employed in the tobacco industry. I am not a single issue voter and in many ways I have been happy with how my newest Senator has been representing me. However this is one area where he is going to receive a "less then satisfactory" mark from me. I feel my Senators should have a strong concern for the welfare of their own state's economy and I do not feel Senator Webb has a strong enough understanding of how important tobacco is to the economy of Virginia. I am one of the citizens who helped Senator Webb get his new job and who voted to run Senator George Allen out of office, and Senator Webb is letting me down on this issue. I am going to be receptive to anyone who runs against him that has a better understanding of the importance of tobacco to my state. Senator Webb might still win my continuing support, but with his stance on tobacco taxes it is going to make it easier for me to consider anyone who might run against him.