Discriminating Traveler

Sitting in the Starbucks at O'Hare out on a business trip for the first time since my '01 trip to Germany. It seems amazing to consider, I used to travel a ton for a few years, and probably prior to '01 averaged 3 to 4 trips a year. Most of it is "corporate austerity"-in the age of management of all the numbers on a quarter by quarter basis for stock price, every dollar counts. I've been convinced a number of times that it also leads to the phenomenon of "penny wise and pound foolish". We often struggle along with e-mail and telecons when a face to face could really speed things up, but of course that leads to the other reason for less travel. The fact that we CAN travel less. We have the technology. It may not be the best choice, but it can be done. Technology always requires us to be more intentional in what we do-it allows us to do more things, but where and how we make use of it is up to us!

O'Hare hasn't really changed a lot in the 30 years that I've been passing through here from time to time on personal or business travel. The laptops, iPods and high quality coffee are new. The other thing that is new getting into the system of course, the security. Sometimes our system of government really does create the "worst of all worlds". We end up with a government employed, unionized, slow-motion, minimum service TSA cadre of people and EVERYONE has to "go through the system".

It is pretty amazing to see them taking the shoes from a very elderly lady in a wheelchair. The odds against a plane crash are high, but they are pretty much a "dead certainty" compared to the odds that she is a terrorist! Does constant exposure to that level of stupidity corrupt the mind so that the MSM and the "general view" make the common public sheep unable to think critically? It may; it also increases the chances falling into the relativism that would equate something relatively innocuous like "sex sells", or "3.99 seems less than $4.00 more so than it really is", with a complete perversion of logic AND human nature that says "profiling is bad".

From the materialist point of view, the ability to discriminate on predictive patterns is very close to a complete and optimal definition of intelligence! To assert that "discrimination" (profiling) is "wrong" is to subvert everything that we have determined about intelligence in the service of postmodern nihilism. Sadly, most of the sheep can't tell the difference between what IS required (better airport security), and what is NOT required (taking granny's shoes)! The discussion about what is in between can be long and contentious, but at least it would be a RATIONAL discussion, and those are a significant part of what it is to advance as opposed to decline as a civilization.

Since I broached the subject, our world is loaded with countless little idiosyncrasies that we may or may not notice because they are in general "human oriented". No matter how much any of us may believe that we are somehow more observant or more cognizant, or deeper analysts than our fellow man, we remain fully human with all the characteristics that entails. For example, humans are wired to notice sex, and human males are especially adept at picking out a female form from virtually any background. A man was on a news show while I was up fishing had his sight restored after 40 years of being blind. When someone asked him something that he would like to see in another interview, he had blurted out "a topless beach" - which Dianne Sawyer brought up much to the chagrin of his wife.

He was honest about something that our socialization trains us to not be honest about-and this is one origin of the error of Rousseau's and many liberals thinking. We ARE, certainly human, BUT, happiness doesn't result from deciding that all human whims are to be honored. Being blind through adolescence the blind guy no doubt missed out on a ton of socialization training related to bare breasts and thus fell prey to making an inappropriate public comment. Pretty easy to understand and forgive (although it didn't appear that it was quite so easy for his wife).

The socialization works, but the wiring is still there, so marketers take advantage of this.

Similarly, we are "bad with numbers"-- we relate to numeric "milestones" in irrational ways. We don't have as large a celebration for 49th or 51st birthdays than we do for 50, even though given the passage of a half century of time, a year of age is much less significant. We PERCEIVE 49 to be "40's" and because of it, think far differently of 49 vs 50 than we should from a purely numeric view. Likewise, we see "less than $4" as a boundary, even though $3.99 is a lot more trouble than just rounding it up to $4.

The "error" is taking something that "doesn't make logical sense" -- preferring a female form to frog, or seeing $3.99 as more significantly less than $4.00 than it is, and seeing that as "the same" as saying "no profiling". Recognition that we are human and have human thought and emotion patterns is VERY rational at a secondary level.

It is in fact TRUE, we ARE human. Once we know that we are "being taken advantage of" because of our nature, we can decide to be more wary, but in MANY contexts, we will still see "human oriented" as VERY good. It will make products easy to use, because they are "natural". When we think a product is well-designed, it is ALWAYS from the human perspective (the only one most of us have --although those that work with computers also have a pretty decent handle as to what makes sense to a computer, eg. powers of 2).

This discussion quickly moves back to the discussion of transcendence. If human nature is to be "the highest good", then our answers to life are going to be radically different than if we arrive at the view that reason, and potentially spiritual insights can be an IMPROVEMENT on human nature. The line between "rational transcendence" and "social truth" is however a key cleavage to be aware of. Deciding to not profile says that "society" can and should make judgements that are both "anti-human" (they short circuit one of our basic abilities, the ability to "improve our odds" through discerning and applying predictive patterns) and "anti-rational" in that they are simply illogical and ineffective.

Pricing something at $3.99 vs $4.00 is certainly not rational in a scientific or ease of use sense -- but it is very much oriented to how humans see numbers from a marketing view.

Taking the shoes off an old lady in a wheel chair is fundamentally against any human orientation as in "respect for elders", "treating those less fortunate with added deference", and simply that everyone watching at a fundamental human level knows this is foolish! It of course makes no rational sense either; it is ineffective, it wastes the time of all concerned. The only "value" is to the left-leaning elements of society that are able to impose their will in a way that is fundamentally nihilistic in nature. It signals us all that we are under their power and it teaches us to COMPLY.

"We prohibit you from doing what is rational and human in the name of our abhorrence of a natural human characteristic (like prefers like), that we have decided to negate. In the same breath, we choose to honor as supreme many other characteristics simply because they are human".

This is an answer that in the final analysis leads to a decision that "there is no objective truth; all truth is a social construct". This is the cutting edge in post-modernist relativistic thought. Rousseau was one of the seminal thinkers in this foolishness. They believe reality is a state constructed by the mind, not perceived by it, so everyone's "truth" has merit.

There have always been two kinds of thinkers; one sees disorder and tries to create order, one sees order and seeks to create disorder. The nice thing is that the last 300 years especially have shown us that in the end "order always wins", BUT, since we are still human, the "order" has to be put into a "good story" (narrative, "myth"), or we won't be able to really understand it as humans. We are also prone to see order where it isn't and to falsely correlate things that are similar but different, and of course we are very capable of just being wrong.

All that comes with the limitations of our nature, BUT, when we expose ourselves in explicit mass to irrationality, I suspect that the overall effect on the population is quite corrosive.

Stunning Democrat Change

I have to agree with Chris Dodd that I'm stunned that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards would all not commit to having the troops out of Iraq by 2013. This is an excerpt from that CNN article:

STORM LAKE, Iowa (CNN) – At a campaign stop in rural Iowa Saturday Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, said he was stunned by the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, would not commit to having all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by 2013.

Since I'm convinced that we are likely to have Hillary and Obama as President and VP, such rationality would be a wonderful thing if true. I'm an optimist, so I like to be hopeful, it COULD be that they have far more in statesmanship than it has appeared so far, and they have come to realize from the progress that there is no reason that Iraq has to be a costly defeat for America.

I'm also a realist however, they are politicians and I remember Bush Sr's "No new taxes" pledge. Even worse, they are Democrats that know that they will not be held to what they say ... their statements happened the middle of last week, and other than this little item in the CNN political ticker, it has been hard to find that they even said it. The MSM and most Democrats still realize that there is no way that terrorists could defeat a united America-they also know that a defeat in Iraq is better for their political power. I'm afraid that in the final analysis, that is what will win, BUT, I would love to see it be true. That is the weakness of the right, even though we know the odds are against it, we believe in redemption, and hope that even a Hillary Clinton can come to see the wisdom of persistence and strength.

The Myth of the Rational Voter

clipped from www.townhall.com Stupid, Ignorant or Biased? President Franklin D. Roosevelt's closest adviser and architect of the New Deal, Harry Hopkins, advised, "Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference." Professor Bryan Caplan, my colleague at George Mason University, sheds some light on Hopkins' observation in his new book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies." Caplan is far more generous than Hopkins. Instead, he says people harbor economic biases, several of which he discusses.

FDR perfected the idea of buying votes, but never paid the cost because he was smart enough to use devices like Social Security that wouldn't explode until decades after his death, and he was lucky enough to have WWII to end the depression. The full article here is WELL worth reading so I'll copy it in, and it looks like the book will be as well.

We live in a country where the advantages of market vs government control and greater individual responsibility and choice are very evident. We don't need to take our own experience, we can look at England, Ireland, China, India, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and others and see the same rules play out. No small set of people in a centralized government can be as smart as the votes of millions and billions of people acting in a market. One wouldn't think that actually required as much thought as it seems to, but apparently it does. Since most of the basic biases discussed here are simply liberal biases and the MSM tends to agree with that point of view, the general public hears them stated as "fact" day in and day out.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's closest adviser and architect of the New Deal, Harry Hopkins, advised, "Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference." Professor Bryan Caplan, my colleague at George Mason University, sheds some light on Hopkins' observation in his new book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies."  Caplan is far more generous than Hopkins. Instead, he says people harbor economic biases, several of which he discusses. There's the anti-market bias, the failure to believe that market forces determine prices. Many believe that prices are a function of a CEO's intentions and conspiracies. If a CEO wakes up feeling greedy, he'll raise prices. They also believe that profits are undeserving gifts. They fail to see that, at least in open markets, profits are incentives for firms to satisfy customers, find least-cost production methods and move resources from low-valued to high-valued uses.  A trader works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, September 18, 2007. The U.S. Federal Reserve on Tuesday slashed benchmark U.S. interest rates by a half-percentage point in a bold bid to buffer the economy from a housing slump and related financial market turbulence. The unanimous decision by the central bank's Federal Open Market Committee took the overnight federal funds rate down to 4.75 percent, its lowest level since May of last year. The Fed also lowered the discount rate it charges for direct loans to banks by a half-point to 5.25 percent. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid (UNITED STATES) Related Media: VIDEO: Economy And Fed In Spotlight VIDEO: FOX 5 News | Rasmussen Report: Iraq vs. Economy Then there's the make-work bias, where many believe that labor is better to use than conserve. Thus, the destruction of jobs is seen as a danger. Technology, as well as outsourcing, throws some people out of work. Caplan reminds us that in 1800 it took nearly 95 of every 100 Americans, working on farms, to feed the nation. In 1900, it took 40. Today, it takes three. Workers no longer needed to farm became available to produce homes, cars, pharmaceuticals, computers and thousands of other goods. Caplan doesn't make the equation, but outsourcing, just as technological innovation, frees up labor to produce other things as well. Next is the anti-foreign bias. Caplan explains that there are two methods for Americans to have cars. One is to get a bunch of workers into Detroit factories. Another is to grow a lot of wheat in Iowa. You harvest the wheat, load it on ships sailing westward on the Pacific Ocean, and a few months later the ships reappear loaded down with Toyotas. We have cars as if we produced them. In other words, exchange is an alternative method of production. Added to the anti-foreign bias is the balance-of-trade fallacy. Caplan says that nobody loses sleep over whether there's a trade balance between California and Nevada, or between him and iTunes. Trade balance fears arise only when another country is involved. The fallacy is not treating all purchases as a cost but only foreign purchases as a cost. There might be another bias as well. Caplan reports that, according to an opinion survey, 28 percent of Americans admitted they dislike Japan but only 8 percent dislike England and a scant 3 percent dislike Canada. People have a pessimistic bias where they believe economic conditions are not as good as they really are and things are going from bad to worse. This is the message of doomsayers, but the reality is quite different. By any measure of well-being, Americans at the start of this century are far better off than Americans at the beginning of the last century. Perennial doom-and-gloom predictions about resource depletion, overpopulation and environmental quality are exaggerated and often the opposite of the truth. Preaching doom and gloom has been beneficial to the political class. They use it to gain more power and control.  Caplan is one of George Mason University Economics Department's up-and-coming young scholars. In fact, I'm proud to say, he was hired during my department chairmanship. "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies" is a highly readable and interesting political-economic discussion of why we choose bad policies. Those policies are harmful to the general public but beneficial to particular interest groups who gain from restrictions on peaceable, voluntary exchange. Maybe that's why our founders loathed a democracy and gave us a republic -- which we've lost.

All In the Family: NYT and MoveOn.org

Those Republicans, can't they just shut up and sit down? Yes, Giuliani is talking, but what is important is the the MSM makes sure it is clear that HE is talking, other than lebeling him as an "R" (which means "don't tust him"), they have nothing to say on the likes of MoveOn calling a current military commander a liar and a betrayer of the country he is sworn to serve. It is pretty doubful if any of the left even understands the concept of honor and being willing to die for principles.

Hillary came close to calling Petraeus a "liar". The idea that Hillary has any concept of anything related to "truth or honor" is ridiculous. Hillary always was and always will be about "power for Hillary". It makes no difference what cost it takes for her to get that.

When the Swift Boat guys were out, we heard a lot of complaints about "how bad those orgs are". Of course MoveOn? Not a problem; "All in the Family" for the NYT.

clipped from politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com Giuliani blasts NY Times for MoveOn ad (CNN) — MoveOn.org's New York Times ad calling into question Gen. David Petraeus' testimony before Congress drew more Republican ire Thursday — this time over the price the non-profit political advocacy group paid for the full-page ad. The New York Post, citing MoveOn.org, reported Thursday that the organization paid $65,000 for the ad, calling it a $116,000 discount from the Times' usual $167,000 price. That prompted a pair of GOP presidential candidates to complain. MoveOn.org's ad appeared in the Times on Tuesday, the first day of Petraeus' testimony. Under the headline "General Petraeus or General Betray Us," the ad said that the top military commander in Iraq "will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war." It also suggested that Petraeus' testimony was influenced by the White House.

Seeing What We Want to See

This is a perfect case of how bias affects the interpretation of results. Is the ability to stick to a position good or bad? Like a lot of things, "it depends". If you love your wife and she is leaving because she has a hard time sticking to things, then you might like her to be more "conservative". If you want to move and she wants to stay where you are, then you might like her to be more liberal.

The old adage that optimist finds the glass half full, the pessimist half empty, and the engineer finds the glass twice as big as it needs to be, comes to mind. All are "right", but I'd argue that the engineer is much close to "science". Science is NOT about values. It is about data, information, models, etc. When there is an attempt to make science into a religion (as atheists often do, because they realize that "something is missing"), there is a big problem. Science truly is "the God that doesn't care"; by definition.

clipped from scienceblogs.com The claim: Politically liberal brains are better at handling change A recent report in Nature Neuroscience has gotten a lot of press. The headlines proclaim that "left-wing" brains are different from "right wing" brains. Are our brains literally hard-wired to be conservative or liberal? The article in the L.A. Times sure seems to suggest it: Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict. In other words, liberals are more likely than conservatives to have a strong response in the area of the brain used to inhibit responses at the time when they are supposed to inhibit response. So is this why Bush invaded Iraq and Kerry flip-flopped?

Swift Boating?

Note, "Swift Boating" can only be done from the right. Here we have MoveOn.org attacking an ACTIVE decorated US General; but where is the "outrage"? Remember when poor John Kerry, the guy that compared US Soldiers to Genghis Khan and threw his (well, on further review, actually "someone else's" medals over the WH fence back in the '70's? He was VICOUSLY attacked by "political dirty tricks", so nasty they raised a whole new evil REPUBLICAN category of "Swift Boating'.

Want to bet if there will be any big MSM rundowns of MoveOn donor lists for possible connections to Democrat surrender strategy? Don't hold your breath.

clipped from www.cnn.com GOP calls on top Senate Dem to condemn anti-Petraeus ad WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republicans have seized on a liberal advocacy group's print ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus and have called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to denounce it. In the ad, running in Monday's edition of The New York Times, bold letters under a picture of Petraeus spell out "General Petraeus or General Betray us?" "Every major independent study and many major news organizations cast serious doubt on Petraeus' claims," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action Committee.

Deer Stand Construction

The past couple of weekends a number of hours have been spent in construction of a deer stand that will be occupied by me the weekend of Nov 3. The "indoor part" is an alleged "3 man" fully enclosed unit called "The Stump", manufactured in Cannon Falls MN. Of course, one doesn't want to be hoping for bad weather, so we decided that a 6x6 deck and a nice stairway would make the stand a bit more comfy. Here are some pictures of construction so far for those interested.

Osama bin Chomsky

Power Line has a great little summary of a sentiment that always occurs to me when bin Ladin or other terrorists come out with statements; How much in line with standard old Democrats much of their rhetoric is, while certain pieces of it (that apparently the left ignores) are at what one would at least think would be complete odds with the leftist Democrat views.

On the surface, "Convert to Islam" ... with the obvious effects of stoning gays, putting women under burkas and following sharia law would seem to be pretty abhorrent to lefties. However, less abhorrent than Christianity? They see Bush as their greatest enemy, so as long as Osama opposes Bush (much like Saddam in the past), they really don't see him as such a bad guy.

Direct declarations of "Iraq is the front line in the war on terror" from what most would consider our enemy while at the same time being happy with the Democrat take-over in Congress would seem to be "slightly embarrassing", but apparently not to the left. One constantly gets the feeling that Saddam, Osama, economic collapse or virtually anything else would be better at some apparently spiritual level than George Bush.

I sometimes think that the "highest good" of the left is avoidance of personal responsibility, so even a completely blood thirsty Islamic state that is totally totalitarian is better than an "opportunity society" that says you get to make up your own mind and are responsible for your own success and failure. The left must have someone else to blame for lack of success--if the state is totalitarian and your fate is not in your own hands, their form of "victory" has been achieved. The entire (short) little Power Line post is WELL worth the read.

clipped from www.powerlineblog.com Osama bin Chomsky The transcript of Osama bin Laden's newest video, in which he speaks directly to American listeners, is available here. It is intensely interesting, for a number of reasons. First, the subject matter is Iraq, almost exclusively. Bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders have said that Iraq is the main front in their global war against us. Second, the affinity between Muslim extremism and Western leftism has never been so clearly displayed. Bin Laden sounds for all the world like a Marxist. He praises Noam Chomsky as one of the "most capable" of American war opponents. Over and over, he attributes American foreign policy to "the owners of the major corporations." In bin Laden's view, "[t]hose with real power and influence are those with the most capital," and "the essence of man-made positive laws is that they serve the interests of those with capital and thus make the rich richer and the poor poorer."

Persistence of Myths

The Washington Post had an interesting little article on "The Persistence of Myths". It seems that since some people see a connection between 9-11 and fighting terrorists in Iraq (which is clearly a "myth" to the Post), so they feel it is time for some "research". One of the many good quotes out of the article:

Many easily remembered things, in fact, such as one's birthday or a pet's name, are indeed true. But someone trying to manipulate public opinion can take advantage of this aspect of brain functioning. In politics and elsewhere, this means that whoever makes the first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who denies it later.

Wow, The Washington Post has realized that humans have a "first heard / often heard" bias, and we are prone to remember "stories" as opposed to "sets of facts". I guess Journalists aren't exactly "scientists", so this recent discovery may not be too surprising. I wonder how many years it will be before they realize that such things apply equally as well to the left as to the right, in fact they even apply a bit BETTER to the left? 

Of course, it is only the evil right that would EVER try to manipulate public opinion! We can relax completely that folks from the left would NEVER stoop to such a thing, they just deal in "pure truth". If one takes a study on how well one does in the more facts based parts of learning -- math and science for example, vs the more "right brained" things like art, music, journalism, etc, I wonder where the political leanings would be?

Uh, that has been studied a couple of times. Artists, writers, creative people, journalists are usually right brained, Democrat, and liberal (you might notice that Hollywood isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism) So, there are more folks of a right orientation over in the math/science group since they tend to be forced to live with some level of "meritocracy". Blaming others is always going to be a tempting way to deal with problems, and the left has raised that to an art form. 

Why would the left be more story oriented  and less factually oriented? Because the right brain is exactly what their "recent research" points out. It sees the "whole" (the story) as opposed to "the parts" (the lists of "facts"). The folks that "write the stories" have a bias for a certain way of thinking, and they ALWAYS repeat their "facts" over and over ... ". There is no way to win in Iraq", "Humans are raising the temperature of the globe", "The economy is bad". Their "facts" are a lot more like "stories", and although they may claim there is some hard data someplace, they (or most of us) find hard data to be less compelling than a "good story"--and "good" is usually "popular", gives us an "easy way out". 

The story seems to indicate  that "somebody else" is responsible for our problems--big business, the system, George Bush, our parents etc. One person's "fact" is often another person's "myth". People that have an exposure to science and maybe especially those that have an exposure to computers realize that there ARE many things that are either true or false and the difference is known and ACTUALLY factual. (We don't call on Journalists, Actors or Artists to figure those out though). 

 The MAJORITY of things have supporting points and non supporting points, and a negative assertion is NEVER possible to PROVE as a fact. For example; "Saddam Hussein is dead" can be shown to be true or false based on existing discoverable knowledge. The statement "Saddam Hussein had no part in 9-11" is impossible to prove. It may indeed be true, but any one piece of evidence would disprove it. "All swans are white" or "no swans are black" are of the same ilk, but removed from having a political overtone that will lead folks to get excited. 

One black swan anywhere makes the case. Did OJ kill his wife? I don't much care, but a court of law found him innocent. OJ is innocent in the same way that Saddam had no WMD--nobody got him dead to rights enough for there to be "positive proof". There was a lot of "evidence" in both cases, but it didn't get "proven". In OJ's case, 90% of white people think he is guilty and 90% of black people think is innocent.Race DOES matter -- and the fact it matters is not "racist", just human -- we tend to default like those like us in any way. Fans of same team, same religion, family, same interests, same political party, etc. Only Christ inhumanly ways "love your enemies" -- he is God, he can do it even when his fully human nature probably has a cat. 

 Most people are just afraid to say anything that could be construed as positive about George Bush, so you probably can't even get a straight answer on that one. I always find it kind of fun, you can usually have a lefty ready to take a swing at you in about 5 min by simply just a tiny kind word about Bush, one thing they are usually good at is anger. For a lefty, not getting caught and being innocent are the same thing for themselves, criminals and dictators. For Christians, businesspeople and Republicans, the same lefty is ready to convict for all manner of crimes without any evidence at all. It turns out that liberals actually are pretty consistent, it is just that they are consistent in an inconsistent kind of way!

Woman Arrested for Playing Footsie and Waving in Bar

First, let me say that I have no sympathy for Craig. Exactly how does a REPUBLICAN Senator think that he can plead guilty to a misdemeanor and NOT have it become public? I don't care what anyone thinks about Gays, a married Senator pleading guilty to looking for ANY kind of sex in a public bathroom isn't going to be survivable unless you are a Democrat.

Today I hear NPR rambling on about how he apparently isn't going to resign at all, and how evil it was that he was apparently "parsing words" by saying that he INTENDED to resign. Gee, I thought the MSM thought that "parsing words" was GREAT and a sign of "brilliance". Did they already forget "the definition of is - is "? Wow, they have a very selective memory.

The point of this post though is one of my major enjoyments in life; the observation of how smoothly the left avoids any semblance of consistency. Can you imagine if say the Salt Lake City Police had picked up a DEMOCRAT in EXACTLY the same way? The ACLU would be involved and we would be hearing about entrapment, homophobia, invasion of privacy, "only about sex", "looking into the bedroom window" and no doubt things like "extreme bigoted religious views forced on a secular society", "a chilling restriction of rights", etc.

I've heard that there are at times heterosexual guys and girls "on the make" at bars, dances, malls, EVEN church and school. (I know this is hard to believe) Some of the "signals" don't seem all that much less overt than foot tapping and hand waving. If one has no problem with gayness, then why is it a crime for a gay guy to be looking for sex in a bathroom? I'm one of those "Homophobic religious nuts", so **I** don't want gay guys looking for and having sex in public restrooms, BUT if one doesn't have any objections to gay sex, then why is it OK for society to infringe on these gay guys, when guys and gals have been winking, nodding, playing footsie, touching, etc in public for a quite awhile?

Yes, yes, I know, this is just to get a Republican Senator, so all the pro-gay forces have suspended all their usual thinking and rhetoric while the deed goes down. I understand that; it just always amazes me how much the general MSM sheep apparently don't.

The Scandal Test for Republican / Democrat Difference

The following quote from an article in the Pittsburg Post Gazette does a pretty good job of laying out the difference in the Senator Larry Craig phenomenon and the experience of guys like Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, John Murtha, William Jefferson, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and the list could just go on and on. For those of you not up on the details of these few:

Billy C - If the lips were a flappin, you knew Billy was a lying cuz that is all the man ever knew how to do. In the specific case of looking for sexual favors with every woman within reach while signing sexual harassment laws that could get anyone else fired for "ogling" for over 3 seconds. Perjury was no longer a crime for Billy -- but of course it has come back for Scooter Libby.

Teddy "The Whale" - In between drunken stupors back while the rest of the country was watching Americans land on the Moon, Teddy was watching the last bubbles escape from the secretary he had recently been using for a sex toy. "It was an accident" ... that he didn't get around to reporting until the next day.

John Murtha - Back in the days of Abscam, John made it clear on tape that he wasn't going to take $50K "right now" ... but it wasn't very clear that he wasn't going to take it or a lot more later.

William Jefferson - $90K of cash in the freezer. Still in office, finally been indicted apparently, one has to really be a news sleuth to keep up with that case.

Gerry Studds - Sex with a 17 year old Congressional Page in '73 ... censured, but served until '97.

Barney Frank - Well, of course he is Gay ... but his "roomie" was a Gay prostitute that was running a business out of Barney's appartment.

But media bias is not the main reason why Republicans suffer more from scandals. Democratic voters expect Democrats to steal on their behalf. Lawmakers are judged on the basis of how many goodies from the federal treasury they can shower on their constituents. The typical Democratic voter doesn't mind terribly if their senator or congressman takes something for himself along the way. (Time Magazine's story on Rep. Mollohan's re-election was headlined, "Pork Trumps Scandal.")
The typical Republican voter wants his senator or congressman to keep his taxes low, his government honest. He is furious when GOP lawmakers stick their fingers in the cookie jar, or give lip service to values they do not practice.
Republicans must be squeaky clean to win elections because their voters will crucify them for behavior Democratic voters wink at so long as the pork keeps flowing. This is why his GOP colleagues already have stripped Sen. Craig of his committee assignments, and many have called for his resignation, while Democratic senators are comfortable having among them a man who left to drown in his automobile a young woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

I'm sure that many Democrats do focus on "just the money(pork)", but it seems to me that many of them take a good deal of joy in "their guys getting away with it". Once you decide to be amoral, there is has to be a certain thrill in seeing "your folks" do whatever they want with impunity. What the core of the Democrat party has trouble with are guys with morals and character like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman -- those get the same kind of treatment as Republicans give Larry Craig.

Take note; 90+% of the time when someone says "there isn't any difference between the parties", they have just told you that they are a Democrat. Only a situational ethicist with no idea of consistency could actually believe that.

Osama is Next

Good Castro got his endorsement in early, he may not make 2008. Osama, Kim-Jung, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran), along with the MSM and Hollywood are in full agreement.

clipped from www.cnn.com Castro: Clinton-Obama ticket 'invincible' WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Add another name to the list of political observers who think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be unbeatable: Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Hypocrisy: A sin the left almost recognizes.

It appears that we have a Republican Senator not practicing what he preaches. No doubt his constituency will turn him out of office if he isn't forced to resign beforehand. Most likely another seat for the Democrats in '08--starting to look like Hillary and a filibuster proof Senate in '08. Some of us Christian Conservative Bloggers may be headed to Guantanamo as subversives before we know it. Somehow I doubt the NYT would have that on the front page 40 times.

This is a great opportunity to understand the difference between right and left. Bill Clinton SIGNED a sexual harassment law that said that sexual harassment is determined by how the person harassed FEELS (in other words if Monica "felt harassed" just because he invited her up to his room, SHE WAS, even if he didn't drop trou and provide specific genital directions as alleged). The left had no problem with him defending himself beyond any shred of reason to save his skin and save raw political power. He is a Democrat with no standards, so hypocrisy is a simple impossibility. All liberal ethics are situational-they apply to others, not to you. Billy C can't be guilty of one of the only sins that Democrats almost recognize.

Billy C certainly knew he was a harasser when he signed that law, which means he was every bit as big a hypocrite as Craig voting against Gay rights in the "abstract theoretical universe". However, in the real universe where Democrats care only about political power, not about morals, truth, or anything else, there wasn't even an issue.

Will Conservatives act the same? Nope, they won't give the political power a second thought, no matter what the cost. Principles are more important than power, because if you lose your principles that provide meaning beyond mere existence, then you have lost meaning. A life without meaning isn't even worth examining, let alone living. Your principles and spirit are about eternity or they are about nothing. Political power is for just as season at the very most. So, for those that claim "there isn't any difference between Democrats and Republicans", just watch.

Are conservatives any "better"? No; only in the very limited sense that they better understand the reality of our condition. For those with standards, hypocrisy is a way of life, "the homage that vice pays to virtue". To be human and have standards is to always fall short. Sure, some fall more than others, but at least for the Christian, with the understanding that none of us make the grade.

clipped from www.cnn.com updated 2 minutes ago Police report: Senator signaled desire for 'lewd conduct Story Highlights NEW: Group files ethics complaint against Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho Craig charged with disorderly conduct at Minnesota airport in June Airport police officer reports senator peered into stall, gave signals Senator denies any inappropriate conduct Next Article in Politics » (CNN) -- Sen. Larry Craig peered through a crack in a restroom stall door for two minutes and made gestures suggesting he wanted to engage in "lewd conduct," according to the police officer who arrested him.

Reason, Emotion and Iraq

We all like to think that others think as we do, and conservatives are no exception as I see Charles Krauthammer doing that a bit here in "Finally, a Reasoned Debate"

I very much agree with his sentiments, and yes, he points out that Harry Reid and "the far left" won't enter into the "reasoned debate", but I'm afraid that the voices of reason will be much more limited than that.

George Will touches on some of the same issues in his column "What September Won't Settle".
I find that George moves from "even handed" to "the ivory tower" in staying above the fray in this one. He validly points out some of the things said and done by Democrats lately that show just how badly they want defeat in Iraq as rapidly as possible.

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, House majority whip, recently said it would be "a real big problem for us" -- Democrats -- if Petraeus reports substantial progress. Rep. Nancy Boyda, a Kansas Democrat, recently found reports of progress unendurable. She left a hearing of the Armed Services Committee because retired Gen. Jack Keane was saying things Boyda thinks might "further divide this country," such as that Iraq's "schools are open. The markets are teeming with people." Boyda explained: "There is only so much you can take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while ... after so much frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

He then indicates that it is just as bad to be happy with reports like I referenced in "NYT Error". While I certainly agree with George that progress doesn't equal victory, I find it hard to believe that those who care about the US, defeat of terror, the progress of freedom in the world, and avoidance of a civil war that would almost certainly entail the loss of millions of lives should be compared to the likes of Clyburn, Boyda, Reid, or most of the MSM or left. Is cheering for at least the dissemination of a TINY bit of good news to be equated with finding progress as "a real problem" or "divisive"? Just because there are two sides (or more) doesn't mean that all of them are of equal merit.

I generally like what both George and Charles have to say--they are far smarter and well read than I, but I could guess they also have a bit more "academic distance" from dealing with the "man in the street" than I have. This is close to the 3 year anniversary of Katrina, and I see that as the event in which the Democrats and the MSM found a winning strategy with the masses. The core of that strategy is a constant drumbeat of "it is all bad, and it is all Bushes fault". Since their primary good is "political power" and they aren't concerned about the cost of that power, it seems unlikely that they will allow a rational discussion of Iraq that could save millions of lives in Iraq and likely 10s or 100s of thousands here by preventing future terrorist attacks to dissuade them from grabbing for raw power no matter the cost.

Yes, a reasoned debate is almost always a good idea, and the improvements in Iraq while welcome to those that care about more than "defeat of the right" are only "one more step" on what was always known to likely be a long road to success for Iraq. The election of '06 indicates that nationally the forces that think of "reason" and "perserverence in difficulty" are in decline to the forces of "emotion" and "everything should be easy". Since the latter is "natural human nature", it usually takes something pretty significant to turn that tide back.

Hillary on Obsession

When Hillary "vast right wing conspiracy" speaks on obsession, one ought to listen well. It seems that at least she has succeeded in making sure that her husband isn't obsessed with her, so maybe she will be able to have some success with Rove as well. It always seems clear that at least for Hillary it is indeed always all about Hillary.

Interesting how given the NYT, Washington Post, NPR, CBS, CNN, MSNBC ... and a cast of 100's, poor Hillary laments the "attack machine". Oh, that is right, to agree with Hillary is to be "factual", to disagree with her is to be part of "conspiracy" and "attack machines". Just the kind of level headed rational view of the world that many will find as a big improvement in leadership.

clipped from politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com When Clinton was asked about remarks from Rove, she attempted to cast her negative ratings in a positive light. "But I find it interesting he's so obsessed with me. And I think the reason is because we know how to win," she said. "The idea that you're going to escape the Republican attack machine and not have high negatives by the time they're through with you, I think, is just missing what's been going on in American politics for the last 20 years," Clinton added.