The Cool Blue Blog

Autonomous, diverse and decentralized

I hear people say that they don't like politics. Politics bores them or they are simply uninterested. But it seems to me that this can not be true no matter what they say.

I mean there's politics and there's politics. I can understand them not being interested in the one, but not the other.

What is politics really? Politics is that mechanism which allows us to all get along; it's how we negotiate our space as being separate from someone else's space and how we manage our shared spaces.

The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.

So to me, there is no doubt that people are interested in politics. And everyone has a sense of what is right and what is wrong and what should and should not be. Negotiating between everyone's definitions of these things is politics.

The body politic is the vast conference of minds and lives that come together to decide an issue. Research has shown that if that conference of minds is autonomous, diverse, and decentralized it is often smarter than any of the individuals involved.

When the U.S. submarine Scorpion disappeared in May 1968, a naval scientist named John Craven assembled a diverse group of submarine experts, mathematicians and salvage divers. Instead of putting them in a room to consult one another, he had each of them give a best guesstimate--based on the sub's last known speed and position (and nothing else)--of the cause of its demise and its rate and steepness of descent, among other variables. Craven then computed a group average employing Bayes's theorem, a statistical method wherein a probability is assigned to each component of a problem. The Scorpion's location on the ocean floor was only 220 yards from the averaged prediction.

Autonomous, diverse and decentralized is just what the body politic is under a democratic system.

Autonomous, diverse and decentralized is just what the markets are under a capitalistic system.

Stranger still was the stock market's reaction on January 28, 1986, the day the space shuttle Challenger exploded. Of the four major shuttle contractors--Lockheed, Rockwell International, Martin Marietta and Morton Thiokol--the last (the builder of the defective solid-rocket booster) was hit hardest, with a 12 percent loss, compared with only 3 percent for the others. A detailed study of the market (a sizable crowd, indeed!) by economists Michael T. Maloney of Clemson University and J. Harold Mulherin of Claremont McKenna College could find no evidence of insider trading or media focus on the rocket booster or on Morton Thiokol. Given four possibilities, the masses voted correctly.

Autonomous, diverse and decentralized is not what a lynch mob is. Autonomous, diverse and decentralized is not what a dictatorship is by definition.

The infighting between political parties for ascendancy in a democracy is likely what persuades some to dislike politics. Most people simply do not see this tension, bickering and lack of courtesy fun or enjoyable. Some of us, however, like to watch the machine work as it calculates the consensus position.

And this is precisely what is going on at the "higher" levels of politics.

It's a living breathing distributed processing network where the masses represent raw information that creates "agents" in the form of various political representatives, agencies and organizations. These agents then distill the information and structure it, presenting something to the masses to judge who then weigh the results and send it back for more processing or whatever.

A living feedback loop made of flesh, blood, body, mind and soul.

All of those who, when the result of this process is not to their liking, start calling for "their" way to be implemented over all others, whom they dub "stupid" or "indoctrinated" are not only showing a lack of appreciation for the complexity and wonder of the machine, but are also attempting to short circuit the computational power of "autonomous, diverse and decentralized".

And this, ultimately is an anti-democratic system which attempts to reduce the efficiency of the computation to what is truly the lowest operating performance.

But often these very same people who call elections they don't agree with as being the result of too many stupid people participating fail to realize that the alternative is the stupidest idea of them all.

Daily Dish

The Russians Are Coming OK, so I'm confused. What the hell was Putin's visit to the Middle East all about? I mean it is widely know that Russia is selling missiles to Syria and is providing Iran with nuclear fuel and technology, both of which directly threatens Israel. Despite this President Putin goes on a trip to visit none other than Israel. Up until now I had thought that OK, Russia is getting back into the Middle East chess game by supporting countries opposed to US-Israeli interests. But now it seems they want to play both sides of that fence.

Does that make any kind of sense?

Not to me. Consider this

Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed yesterday to set up a hot line from his Kremlin office to Ariel Sharon's in Jerusalem to share anti-terror information.

"We are partners," Putin repeatedly told the Israeli prime minister during a luncheon in his Jerusalem office.

Partners? Hot line? Putin is giving Israel's enemies weapons that could be used against Israel!

Putin's reassuring comments were aimed at allaying Israeli concerns about the Kremlin's planned sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and its continuing aid to Iran's nuclear program.

He said Russia and Israel have common concerns because Arab money is financing terrorist attacks on both countries, a source said.

OK, so Russia could be seeing Israel as a means of counter-balancing the "oil sheikdoms" financing terrorist activities in the Caucasus. So was the whole Syria-Iran Gambit a way of coercing Israel to help Russia

Putin also sought to allay Israeli fears over the Russian sale of SA-18 missiles to Syria by proposing a joint intelligence-sharing mechanism to allow Israel to warn Moscow of the misappropriation of weapons sold by Russia.

I'm sure that makes Israel feel mush better about the whole thing. Especially when Putin announces that he is also going to equip Palestinians.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday he would give equipment and training to Palestinian security forces and he offered to help rebuild the Palestinians' crumbling infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, from which Israel is withdrawing this summer.

Israel protests and Putin equivocates, at least while he is in Israel.

Putin did not comment directly on the sale during Thursday’s news conference with Israeli President Moshe Katzav, but there were increasing signs that same day that Moscow was willing to back down in the face of Israeli opposition to the sale of 50 armored troop carriers and two helicopters to the PA.

And in fact, when visiting Palestine, Putin did not specifically mention the armored troop carriers. But the helicopters were mentioned.

Putin, who met today with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at his office in the West Bank city of Ramallah, said Russia will help strengthen the Palestinian security forces and teach them to fight terrorism.

``Russia will continue to provide aid to the Palestinian Authority to implement reforms and build a state,'' Putin, 52, said at a news conference with Abbas. ``We are now examining several options for Russia's participation in the rebuilding of the Palestinian economy.'

...Russia will supply Abbas with two helicopters for traveling between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Putin said, replacing aircraft that were destroyed by Israel when Yasser Arafat was head of the Palestinian Authority

And while in Israel, Putin did make the point that Syria's missiles couldn't reach Israel.

Mr Putin strongly defended his decision to sell SA-18 missiles to Syria, and disclosed for the first time in talks with the Israeli President, Moshe Katsav, that he had vetoed a contract also to sell longer range ­ 185-mile ­ missiles to Damascus on the grounds that Israel would not be able to intercept them...

Mr Putin said that, to come within range of the anti-aircraft missiles, Israel would "have to attack Syria. Do you want to do that?" He said the missiles could not be shoulder-fired and would not work if uncoupled from the Jeeps on which they were mounted.

So is all of this really just a way for Russia to reintroduce itself as a player in MidEast politics?

Perhaps, but what does Russia stand for? What do they support and what do they oppose? Like it or not, you know where the US stands in the Middle East: who we support and who we oppose.

Who's side is Russia really on? And what is the play here?

The Fall Today is the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. RJ Rummel notes:

In spite of the continued public support (as polls at the time showed) for our staying the course in Vietnam, and even though the war had been in effect won militarily, the alliance between the left, communists, Democrats, and major media forced an American military withdrawal from Vietnam, and a sharp decrease in aid to the South. Without sufficient American aid and support, the South collapsed under a conventional North Vietnam military offensive, and the North occupied and absorbed what had once been a sovereign country (no, it was not a civil war, but an invasion—the North and South had never been one country). Millions were killed and murdered before the United States turned tail to run off, and after the North’s victory, the killing did not stop. Hundreds of thousands were murdered -- executed outright, or dying in “re-education camps,” and in the “new economic zones.” And never forget the over a million Vietnamese that risked an awful death on the ocean to escape the communists enslavement (the Boat People), of which perhaps 500,000 never made land again.

And Scott Johnson of Powerline remembers

For me, the horrible sights of April 29 and 30, 1975 bitterly highlighted the necessity of unlearning the many lies and myths of the American antiwar movement that I had merrily bought. The much-derided doctrine of containment that had more or less led us to resist the Communist takeover of South Vietnam was vindicated within remarkably few years -- crowned with success by the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the liberation of its conquered provinces and former satellites.

One didn't need to wait that long for reason to rethink the narrative that American newspapers and networks had imposed on the war. By 1977 former Washington Post Saigon bureau chief Peter Braestrup had meticulously documented the pitiful performance of the American press covering the war in Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington.  (Click here for a good account of the book and here for a 1995 oral history interview with Braestrup.)  Is there a retrospective on that subject today?  Not that I can find.

And make no mistake, there are many who are hoping for a repeat in Iraq.

Daily Dish

Counter-Terrorists Win! The Justice Department recently was able to successfully conclude the matter of al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui: he pleaded guilty to all counts. But you probably knew that. It is, however less likely that you knew about a few other counter-terrorism successes that the Justice Department has had in convicting people in open court.

Yesterday, a British citizen Hemant Lakhani was found guilty on five counts of trading in illegal weapons, provideing material support to terrorists, money laundering, and other charges. He tried to sell 50 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to government agents who told him they wanted to shoot down commercial aircraft in commemoration of the attack on Sept, 11th 2001

Lakhani, 69, was arrested in 2003 at a hotel room near Newark Airport after getting caught in a sting operation in which undercover operatives posed as terrorists and arms dealers.

A few days ago, an American Islamic scholar, Ali al-Timimi, was convicted on 10 counts of encouraging

followers in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops.

And the whole free speech defense didn't do him any good at all.

The three followers who testified against al-Timimi have all struck plea bargains, and the defense contended they were lying in the hopes that prosecutors will reduce their sentences.

Al-Timimi's lawyers also disputed the notion that the men were his followers and contended that he merely suggested migration to a Muslim nation because it might be difficult to practice Islam in the U.S. after Sept. 11.

Finally, the defense contended the prosecution of al-Timimi was an assault on his religious and free-speech rights.

The group Free Muslims Against Terrorism applauded the conviction. While

many of the Muslim "leaders" in Washington, D.C., have come to the defense of Tamimi by arguing that his conviction was nothing more than a witch hunt and that he was merely a "Muslim scholar" exercising his rights to free speech.

The Free Muslims Against Terrorism do not share these beliefs. Ali Al-Tamimi is a well known extremist and he represents everything that has gone wrong with the Muslim world. His evil words have cast a dark cloud over the rest of the Muslim community and we are glad that justice was served.

The Free Muslims Against Terrorism have argued time and time again that the Muslim community must not tolerate people like Ali Al-Tamimi. We strongly urge American Muslim organizations to read the poison that Al-Tamimi has spread in the Muslim community and not assume that he was unjustly accused. He is an evil man and Muslims must not wait on federal authorities to remove evil doers like Tamimi from our community. Moderate Moslems must take the initiative and discredit people like Tamimi.

Tru dat

Dissention in the ranks Publius Pundit reports on dissenters in Syria and Belarus, the New York Times reports on unrest in Egypt. Can you guess what the common theme is?

That's right, Democracy.

Daily Dish

Syrius Interruptus Syria has pulled out of Lebanon, even from the Bekaa Valley. And those who live there are very happy to get their grazing land back.

to Bekaa villagers, strategy and high diplomacy can wait; right now they're savoring such simple pleasures as grazing their sheep by Syrian military installations that were long off-limits to them.

"Freedom is beautiful," said Salim Rabah, 58, a retired merchant who lives 500 yards from an abandoned Syrian checkpoint.

The UN has yet to confirm the move, but it seems clear that Syria has been forced to retreat without the US having fired a shot. And while many will discount the US' role in forcing Syria to leave, Lebanon's Daily Star does not.

According to some senior Syrian officials, Damascus is concerned that it might be the target of a design by Washington to topple the Syrian regime. This fear of Washington's "ill-intentions" was the main drive behind the decision to pullout from Lebanon in line with UN Resolution 1559, in order to avoid being accused of defying the international will and subsequently coming under sanctions or even a possible U.S.-led offensive like the one carried out against Iraq in 1991.

Syria is still worried about how a free Lebanon will affect their security interests. They are worried Lebanon may cut a separate peace with Israel. And they are worried Lebanon may become a staging area for clandestine activities by the US to undermine the Syrian government.

Since Syria still has intelligence networks in place in Lebanon, the Star notes a number of objectives that Syria would like to accomplish through these networks. One of which is to postpone or even cancel elections.

Meanwhile, political life in Lebanon moves on. The new Cabinet gets a vote of confidence which clears the way for elections in May, making it that much more difficult for Syria to control the situation there.

Would you Delay no Longer? House Speaker Dennis Hastert says that Republicans are willing to reverse the ethics rules changes if Democrats will agree to convene the ethics committee an get the Tom DeLay issue settled once and for all.

Democrats have prevented the ethics committee from getting down to business for the year. They have demanded that Republicans agree to reverse the ethics rules — seen as devised to thwart a committee investigation of DeLay — or else appoint a bipartisan panel to draft new rules.

But do the Democrats really want to settle the issue?

We'll see.

No deal, buster In the Senate, Republican threats to end the (mis)use of filibusters in the Judiciary Committee were met with frantic crys by Democrats to cut a deal. Majority Leader Frist is having none of it. He

rejected compromise offers that would allow minority Democrats to continue to block judicial nominees, saying all of President Bush's past and future court choices deserve confirmation votes from the GOP-controlled Senate.

Democrats could still use the filibuster when the full Senate convened on other issues. The Democrats, of course, have threatened to shut down the Senate if the rules are changed. But that was before it looked like the Republicans could do it. Now, not only does it look like they can do it, but it even looks like they will do it.

The Democrats bluff has been called and it appears they do not want to ante up.

Daily Dish

Progressive Insurance When Sen Jim Jeffords, the man who last ran as a Republican then became an "independent", announced that he would not run again in 2006, Vermont became an important state to all types of political groups and interests.

The Republicans are certainly interested in this race and the chance to pick up another Republican seat in the Senate. So much so the Whitehouse has made a number of passes at Vermont's Republican Governor Jim Douglas and the PoliticsVT blog says that Governor Douglas will announce if he will be running again for the Vermont chief executives seat by Labor Day.

Vermont's lone representative Bernie Sanders, who stopped calling himself a Socialist before running for the Federal office, has all but announced he will run for Jeffords' Seat in the Senate. He being an Independent and all, it just might be that state Democrats might want to put forth a candidate as well, though the only Democrat openly saying he might be interested is President Pro Tem of the Vermont Senate. Peter Shumlin. But its early.

But not too early for Moveon.org to pick a horse and support it, it seems because Moveon has announced it will support Bernie Sanders for the Senate seat.

“Together, we'll make sure that Vermont sends a real progressive to the Senate in 2006,” the note concluded.

Such an announcement will certainly put a crimp in the Democrats ability to field a candidate but it seems that the Democrats are willing to roll over on this one,

For their part, state Democrats are expected to stay out of what is likely to be the most high-profile race in Vermont politics in years.

Although they deny any agreements to pave an easier path for Sanders — who, after all, has criticized the Democratic Party for years — few observers foresee the emergence of a credible Democratic candidate.

not that there is much difference between Democrats, Socialists and Progressives in Vermont anyway.

What is raising eyebrows, however, is the large financial commitment the group's members are willing to make so early in a campaign with no declared candidates.

MoveOn.org has already raised $135,000 from Vermont members (which is real money in Vermont politics, BTW) to support Sanders bid and has pledged to begin raising money nationally.

A Progressive like Sanders, who represents everything MoveOn likes in a candidate I guess is just too tempting.

"Rep. Sanders has been a hero on many of MoveOn's issues … If he becomes the consensus candidate quickly and is able to raise enough money, he could make Republican contenders think twice before jumping into the race."

And it's not like they were ever going to support Jim Douglas. On the other hand, MoveOn is (wet) dreaming if they think Republicans won't run a candidate.

And don't forget, Jeffords won every campaign as a Republican back when he was one...

Daily Dish

Grasping at straws So Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations committee gave a big "Woah thar" when they received a report that John Bolton may have harassed someone 20 years ago.

Democrats in Congress released a letter from a woman saying she was verbally abused by Bolton more than 20 years ago.

Additionally, there are reports that Mr Bolton fired people who disagreed with him.

Charges that Bolton yelled at subordinates and tried to fire those who disagreed with him have put the nomination into jeopardy and delayed a Senate committee vote until May 12.

But corroborative evidence seems to be hard to find.

Lynne Finney, a former legal adviser to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Finney wrote that Bolton "screamed that I was fired" when she refused to lobby for a weakening of restrictions on the sale of infant formula in the developing world. State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said "no one at USAID at the time has any recollection" of such an incident. Ereli denied that the Reagan administration tried to weaken a 1981 U.N.

But evidence that Mr Bolton did not try to fire people who disagreed with him comes from a fellow blogger. Victor Comras of the CounterTerrorism Blog recalls his encounter with Bolton

My encounter with John Bolton was at the 1992 London Conference on the Former Yugoslavia. Both John Bolton and I were there as members of Secretary Eagleburger's delegation. Bolton was then Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, and I was an underling in a different bureau. A key objective for Eagleburger at the London Conference was "putting some teeth" into the international sanctions on Serbia, and Eagleburger called one of his "rough elbow" delegation meetings to develop some ideas on how to handle this.

UN Sanctions normally fell within John Bolton's balliwick. and he made an eloquent presentation on the need for us to adopt a more activist approach in the Security Council to hold all countries accountable. Frankly, I did not agree with this approach. It ran counter to my own experience in dealing with various other UN sanctions programs. Eagleburger had invited dissenting views, and I gave mine.

I put forth a plan that would leave sanctions policy in the hands of the Security Council, but place sanctions enforcement in the hands of a separate independent regional mechanism. I suggested treating sanctions violations as border smuggling (that is customs issues) rather than political issues. My ideas ran directly counter to Bolton's presentation.

To my surprise Eagleburger agreed with me. And to my chagrin, he took the sanctions portfolio out of Bolton's hand and put me in charge of negotiating what I had described.

I remember very vividly John Bolton walking up to me after that meeting, extending his hand and telling me he wanted to help me anyway he could. He also directed his staff to provide me any needed assistance. His help and support during the London Conference, and afterward, were critical elements to my success. I will always remain grateful for his extended hand and his support.

I wonder if this will make it to the Senate committee.

That there are many within the State Department that do not like John Bolton should come as no surprise. Many in the State Department don't like Bush. And the fact that Powell couldn't clean house there and get everyone in line with Bush's Foreign Policy objectives is the main reason he's gone and Ms Rice is in.

So to tout 20 year old allegations, and weak allegations at that, from obvious political partisans is simply ridiculous. As Bill Kristol notes in the Weekly Standard

The notion that bureaucratic infighting and occasional abruptness of manner should disqualify one from high office is laughable. Unable to defeat Bolton in a debate on the merits of the foreign policies he has advocated or implemented, the Democrats, the media, and some in the foreign policy establishment have resorted to a childish form of character assassination. Bolton disagreed with--he even disliked!--a couple of bureaucrats. He challenged them. But no one has really accused Bolton of doing anything fundamentally inappropriate. In fact, so far as anyone can tell, there seem to have been almost no formal management complaints filed against him--and very few informal ones--in his 16 years in government, which is fairly amazing.

But Democrats who think the UN is the path to a better future can not be amazed.

Because if they can dismiss the Oil for Food scandal even though it is way larger than the Enron debacle, and they can dismiss the UN Sex scandal as just a matter of oversight, then I am not surprised that they can not be amazed that a man can exist at high levels of government with no real complaints against him.

Hell, not even John Kerry can claim that....

Who cares about Nukes? World Net Daily is reporting that there is evidence that Iran is developing an EMP weapon that could be delivered by a ballistic missile.

Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world's lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts.

The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight.

Scientists, including President Reagan's top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of Electromagnetic Pulse weapons – even one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years.

Back to the 19th Century? Yikes! No Internet? No cell phone? No Star Wars?

Thankfully, it's not as far back as the 12th Centuray where al Qaeda would like the world to revert.

Nor is it as far back as the Earth Firsters would like us to go, which, as far as I can tell, is somewhere south of the Jurrasic Age.

Daily Dish

The Last Dictatorship When Secretary Rice visited Russia earlier this week, she reaffirmed the strategic alliance she hopes to strengthen.

"Russia is our strategic partner in such issues as the non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons and the peace process in the Balkans and the Middle East," Rice pointed out.

She also pointed out however that an acceleration in Democratic reforms there is important to a continued relationship.

But Russia is suspicious of US motives.

In Moscow earlier in the week, Ms. Rice heard complaints from officials and radio show callers that Russians fear that the United States is trying to surround Russia with allies and in some cases military forces on its flanks. She told reporters that Russians seemed to be mired in a "19th century" view of the world.

It is interesting that the Kremlin views countries whose populations have demanded Democratic reforms from their government as being US allies. Countries like the Ukraine which demanded a clean election after a Russian supported candidate tried to steal the election. In similar fashion, the people of Belarus tried to emulate that success: tried and failed.

And it probably didn't ease their fears when on her trip, Secretary Rice referred to Belarus as the last dictatorship in Central Europe

During her visit to Lithuania on 20 April, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the former Soviet republic of Belarus as "the last remaining true dictatorship in the heart of Europe", and said that it was commendable for people to "throw off the yoke of tyranny".

Belarus protesteth a bit too loudly.

Belarus Foreign Minister Sergei Martyn said that the future of the country would be "determined by the nation's people" and not Rice. On 19 April, Belarus President Aleksandr Lysenko said in his state of the nation speech that he would take firm action against those who seek to undermine him.

Um, I'm guessing he didn't mean Secretary Rice. I'm guessing he meant all the "little people" who reside within his borders whom he can bully and intimidate. He can't bully and intimidate the US Secretary of State.

Given her impunity to the threats of the bellicose president of Belarus, the Secretary went on over and had a visit with those who would see the government work for the people and not against them.

On Thursday, Rice met with members of the opposition on the sideline of a NATO foreign minister's meeting in Vilnius.

"We think the road to democracy in Belarus, while it may seem difficult and, at times, even far away, there will be a road to democracy in Belarus," she told the group.

President Lysenko responded in a way that belied his Foreign Minister's earlier comment that the future of Belarus would be determined by the nation's people.

"We categorically oppose scenarios for a democratic change of political elites that are displeasing to the West," the Belorussian president said in the National Assembly point-blank.

But when some colored revolutionaries get support from the US, what's a dictator to do? Well we know that this dictator went running to Moscow.

Belarus President Alexander Lysenko has thanked his Russian counterpart for his support during a meeting in Moscow.

His public show of gratitude follows remarks by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice describing Belarus as the last true dictatorship in Europe....

"I want to thank you... for the huge support you are giving us at a difficult time for us in our history as a sovereign and independent nation," the Belarussian leader told Mr Putin.

When asked about Ms Rice's remarks, he said he "didn't care for Rice or her statements".

I'm pretty sure that Secretary Rice was not looking for the dictator's approval. And I'm pretty sure that his condescending remarks regarding Condoleezza

"But it is heartening that she is aware this country, Belarus, does exist and that she knows its location," he said. "When she flew over it she must have seen there are no terrorists in Belarus," he added.

won't be getting him invited to any parties in Washington either. And I'm sure he knows where Washington is.

So why is it that Russia feels threatened by being surrounded by Democracies?

More precisely, why does Putin?

The Impossible Dream I wonder if Venezuela is worried that it is becomming some kind of parody. Recently, the mindless ruler there who seems to have a knack for pissing people off, declared that Don Quixote is a "must read" for Venezuelans and has used taxpayer money to print and distribute one million copies of the book.

"Don't be left without your Quixote!" Chavez said earlier this week. "We are all going read Quixote to feed our spirit with this fighter who came out to get rid of injustice and fix the world."

"To some degree, we are followers of Quixote," he added.

Whatever happened to the separation of fiction and state?

His foes, many of whom call him "El Loco," or "The Madman," said it was fitting the government was distributing the book about a hallucinating knight wandering through Spain with his faithful companion Sancho Panza.

Speaking of the separation of state and whatever, if you wanted to change the pledge's offensive (to some) "under God" declaration, how would you do it? Simply leave it out or replace it with something more generic? Well a school principle at Everitt Middle School in Wheat Ridge, Co tried her hand at it and managed to stun the 7th graders into complete silence.

The students in Vincent Pulciani's seventh-grade class were reciting the Pledge of Allegiance this week when they heard the voice over the intercom say something they'd never heard before, at least not during the Pledge.

Instead of "one nation, under God," the voice said, "one nation, under your belief system."

The bewildered students at Everitt Middle School in Wheat Ridge never even got to "indivisible," according to Vincent's mother, Christina Pulciani-Johnson.

One nation under your belief system? What a catchy phrase!

I can't wait until they restrike all coins with "In your belief system we trust".

Or we rewrite the song to say "Your belief system bless America, Land that we love"

I for one do not welcome our new moronic overlords.

Daily Dish

They call this reform? The state of Vermont is considering going to a socialized health care system within the state and yesterday a majority coalition of Democrats and Progressives in the House passed their version.

By a vote of 86-58 Thursday that fell along party lines, the House sent the Senate a bill that prescribes the steps that would lead to a state-financed health insurance program beginning in mid-2007.

This is what they are proposing to make the law in Vermont:

a tax-supported program guaranteeing preventive, primary and hospital coverage for every Vermonter beginning in 2007.

But critical decisions have been left for the future.

The bill acknowledges many decisions remain, such as what taxes would support the program, what benefits would be offered and what the economic impact might be.

So they, like, passed a bill mandating a state-financed health insurance plan (essentially a single payer government run health care system), which is the feel-good happy position to take, but left all the hard choices for the future. And then go away satisfied that they are responsible legislators.

What are you kidding me?

Just exactly how are we as voters supposed to debate among ourselves the usefulness of this proposal?  How are we supposed to evaluate if the single-payer system being proposed is the best way to go if we don't know things like how much medical care is covered and how much it will cost us in taxes? Forget for a moment the philosophical question as to whether or not the State can do this more efficiently than the open market, just tell me when it is they will stop paying for medical care because it costs too much.

And there are subtleties that are hinted at but not fully acknowledged in the press coverage of this issue.

Rep. Tom Depoy, R-Rutland, wanted to replace the bill with Gov. Jim Douglas' health package and a handful of economic development measures. Depoy argued the business friendly package would attract new businesses and that would ease the health insurance crisis.

Business friendly. What this means is that businesses will no longer have to foot the bill for medical insurance. What this means is that businesses will no longer be allowed to provide medical insurance for their employees. And while this may be a boon for some smaller companies and businesses, larger ones like my employer or the state's largest private employer, IBM, may have some difficulty with this. Because a) it is not clear that larger businesses like IBM would actually see any benefit since as a corporation they have to provide health care benefits for everyone who doesn't live in Vermont anyway and b) they would have to pay more in taxes to operate in Vermont to cover health-care benefits the state will be responsible for.

And its not just large corporations that worry

Many in the business community shudder at the idea of higher taxes to pay for the new program and predict that Vermont would become a less competitive place to do business.

"I do worry about businesses leaving Vermont if they are forced to pay more," Beck said.

Fuller agreed. "I think you will see an exodus of business." He argued the private sector -- insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and businesses -- stand a better chance of finding ways to drive down health costs than government. "I just don't think we want this experiment in Vermont."

And if there is an exodus of businesses because the cost of doing business in Vermont is just too high (as we have seen with health care providers under the Dean Administration) who will pay for the legislatively mandated health care system then?

According to statistics given by the Burlington Free Press

58 percent of Vermonters have private health insurance;

31.5 percent have government-sponsored health coverage through Medicaid or Medicare;

10.2 percent have no health insurance.

So let's be clear, what they are saying is that the State of Vermont wants to completely restructure the way the health care system works here, without deciding how much coverage they can provide, without deciding how much they can spend, and clear in conscience that they can decide life-and-death issues all without any precedent to rely on (except maybe the failed health care systems of Canada, Britain and France) from the Ivory Tower in Montpelier all for 10.2 percent of the population?

Why don't they just focus on the solving the problem that the 10.2% have?

The Bill does call for

A legislative panel [that] would solicit public views on the proposed, state-financed health care system open to all Vermonters. Based on public reaction and other research, lawmakers would fine-tune the health reform plan.

and

The bill calls for several studies, including the plan's potential economic impact and an analysis of the financing options.

But the if people don't like the idea and the study shows the economic impact to be disastrously detrimental, it doesn't matter because

The bill proposes the state would provide primary and preventive care by July 1, 2007, and hospital care by Oct. 1, 2007. Additional "essential" services would be added by July 1, 2009.

And if passed by the Senate and signed by the Governor (or overridden), Vermont would have to do this regardless.

And people wonder why it is I say that the State of Vermont is to the Left of California?

It's precisely because we are.

Only soft-headed individuals who are more interested in advancing feel-good agendas than sitting down and dealing with the hard questions and realities and then doing what's best based on the data could possibly come up with this hair-brained scheme.

Daily Dish

Energy Source The President wants his energy legislation and he wants it now. While the Senate has yet to take up the measure, the House is putting the finishing touches on a bill that contains most of what the President wants.

But not everything.

And, it includes things that the President doesn't want, like $8 billion dollars of incentives for energy companies to explore new sources of oil.

"With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need taxpayers'-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas."

He said to the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Conference in Washinton DC. And he wants more mone for tax incentives for energy saving cars.

we've got $2.5 billion in tax credits for the purchase of hybrid vehicles

While the House bill allots only a half billion in such incentives.

It seems to me that as gas prices inch higher the public will find it harder to understand why Congress can not get something done with regards to a national energy policy. What's more, with no alternative plan forthcoming from the Democrats on the issue, they appear, yet again, as simply being obstructionist. And I predict that moniker will not be good for them when '06 rolls around.

Doing it right The state of Connecticut is the first state to legally recognize gay unions the right way: through the state legislature instead of the Courts. And, of course, it was a Republican who got it done, the right way.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, signed the bill about an hour after it was approved 26-8 by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The law, which takes effect Oct. 1, includes an amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Civil unions are reserved only for same-sex couples.

No circumventing the laws as written, no bogus "equal protection" challenges just good old fashioned politics.

And if the people of the state don't like it, they can vote people out and undo it.

But my guess is, the legislature passed a law that was expressing the will of the majority of the people of the Connecticut.

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy Senator (Jumpin') James Jeffords has announced his retirement.

Jeffords, who quit the Republican Party to become an independent, made the surprise announcement Wednesday, immediately triggering a scramble for his seat, one of several that will be up for grabs in next year's midterm elections.

Roomah 'roun' heah is that Congressman Bernie Sanders (Socialist - VT) will run for his seat.

The sole independent in the U-S House released a statement praising Jeffords after the senator announced he would not seek re-election.

Sanders has previously said he would run for the Senate if Jeffords did not.

Sanders only said today that he has been clear about his intentions and they have not changed. But he also says today is not the time to talk about the 2006 elections.

I have serious doubts about Sanders being able to win the Senate seat now occupied by Jeffords. Call it wishful thinking, but the potential exists for Vermont to have 2 new members of its Washington delegation after all the votes are counted in 2006.

And it is very possible that none of them will be a Socialist.

PoliticsVT has the details on the political fallout here in Vermont and who the President is calling to run for the Senate seat.

Democracts Delay Just when it looked like we were finally going to get some resolution to the alleged ethics violations of House Majority Whip Tom Delay, Democrats in the house refuse to open an investigation.

The chairman of the House ethics panel pledged Wednesday to begin an investigation into the conduct of Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas if Democrats dropped their opposition to new ethics rules.

"We are all prepared to vote at the earliest opportunity to impanel an investigation subcommittee to review various allegations concerning travel and other actions by Mr. DeLay," said Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), accompanied by three of the four other Republicans on the panel.

Democrats quickly rejected the overture

It seems continued accusations against a person who is arguably (and probably unquestionably) the most effective Whip the House has ever seen suites the Democrats more than an actual investigation.

Deftly shifting the focus they so carefully honed away from Delay's allegded impropriaties, Democrats complained about rules changes to the ethics committee as the reason for the rejection.

"It is a calculated attempt to divert attention from the fact that the Republican majority has neutered the ethics committee in the House by imposing partisan rules that hamstring any meaningful inquiry," said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House.

What rule is that? A rule that says that the evenly split ethics committee must have a majority to move forward on an investigation.

Under the new rules, ethics complaints could be automatically dismissed if the evenly divided committee did not agree on how to proceed after 45 days. In response to Democratic concerns of potential stonewalling of complaints, Hastings offered Wednesday to guarantee that any investigation extend at least three months and that no complaint would be dismissed without a vote. (emphasis mine)

So instead of proceeding and complaining if there was actual stonewalling, they choose not to proceed at all. And, of course, by doing this they imply that Republicans will not prosecute ethics violations of one of their own.

Of course, the other thing that could be driving Democrats may be that if the ethics committe were to actually convene, the problems of other House members might come under scrutiny. Members like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is under fire for an adviser’s nine-day, $4,475 junket to Spain and Germany last April, a trip primarily paid for by a nonprofit transportation-research organization Pelosi had helped to secure Federal Transit Administration monies, according to a report in the Washington Times....

...the Pelosi camp has issued a statement maintaining that the disputed trip was within House rules...

Of course. And so does Tom Delay....

Or maybe Rep Bernie Sanders would be investigated. The lone (avowed) Socialist in Congress who makes a point of wearing his indignation on his sleeve has a Delay thing going for him

Bernie Sanders — the Vermont congressman who has made a career of railing against the injustices of a brutally capitalist system greased by powerful interests — has probably learned this lesson in recent days, as news broke of his showering some $95,000 on his wife and stepdaughter for campaign work they performed over the years.

And, of course, none of this is illegal either.

The Joke BTW, yesterday's report of a Civil War reenactment involving Trekkers was an April Fools joke. I admit I was taken in by it for a while, then after thinking about it and taking a second look discovered the clever deception. Then I decided to wait around and see if anyone else caught it. No one did, except the ever so observent Bill Parker who, if the universe were perfect, would have his own blog.

Daily Dish

We want to work on nuclear bombs just a little Iran is threatening to discontinue negotiations with what has been dubbed the EU3 if the Europeans don't accept the compromise Iran has put forward. What "compromise" is Iran offering?

according to diplomats, Tehran wants to run a small plant for enriching uranium and keep the door open to fitting it with tens of thousands of centrifuges to produce enriched-uranium fuel on an industrial scale.

Um, How do you have a small plant with tens of thousands of centrifuges? What are they nano-centrifuges? And what does it mean to enrich uranium on an "industrial scale"? Nothing good.

For its part, Russia is at least trying to appear to care about something more than the economic deal it has with Iran to supply nuclear technology.

Moscow was pressing Tehran to "develop a feeling of trust" with the rest of the world concerning its nuclear ambitions and that the Islamic state planned to follow suit.

Follow suit by just keeping a tiny, teensy-weensy nuclear reactor (you'll hardly notice it's even there) to produce enriched-uranium on an industrial scale (with tens of thousands of centrifuges).

The EU3 are struggling with the new "compromise".

According to The Financial Times, Britain, France and Germany will be struggling the coming days to find a way to keep the talks going, without compromising on uranium enrichment.

The paper cited Western diplomats as saying that concessions to Tehran would undermine the U.S. support for the negotiations.

What negotiations? There's no negotiating going on here. Iran wants to make nuclear weapons and the EU3 (and the US) don't want them to for reasons that are abundantly obvious. Let's just cut to the chase, shall we, and get the sanctions going.

On the border Certainly one of the biggest failures of the Bush Administration has been, and continues to be, border security. So much so that a group calling themselves the Minuteman Project have been taking up positions on the Mexican border to attempt to discourage illegal immigration.

Since April 1, the MMP has placed hundreds of volunteers from all over the country along a 20-mile stretch of the desolate Arizona-Mexico border plagued by thousands of illicit crossings. The volunteers' assignment: to observe the entry of illegal immigrants into the U.S. and to report it to the U.S. Border Patrol.

Now, Governor Schwarzenegger is talking tough about sealing California's porus border.

“Close the borders in California and all across Mexico and in the United States,” Schwarzenegger said Tuesday at the annual meeting of the Newspaper Association of America. “Because I think it is just unfair to have all those people coming across, have the borders open the way it is, and have this kind of lax situation.”

Arnold has a great incentive to close California to illegal immigration since by California law, the state must provide education and health benefits to illegal immigrants. All of which costs large amounts of money to the financially strapped state. Since there seems to be no political will among Californians to change this, the next best thing is to keep them from getting to the state in the first place.

But he is not a recent convert

During the recall election, Schwarzenegger was repeatedly asked to explain why he had voted for Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot measure to deny many basic services to illegal immigrants. And shortly after entering office, he derailed a law passed and signed by former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis that would have allowed illegal immigrants to apply for drivers licenses.

In February, Schwarzenegger endorsed Congressional legislation authorizing the construction of a fence along California’s border with Mexico. The proposal has sparked opposition from the state’s Coastal Commission, as well as many environmentalists and Democrats.

Perhaps he'll benefit from the Minuteman Project too

OTB Alternate History is not restricted to the realm of genre fiction. Though to serious practitioners like the esteemed Steven Barnes, re-enacting an alternate history might consist of different plot elements than was recently found in Columbus, Georgia.

When the "Out of the Boxers", unconventional thinkers who believe "there are no stupid ideas," proposed to incorporate an alternate history scenario into a Civil War re-enactment of the Battle of Columbus that included Trekkers, the stage was set for a cultural disaster.

First the Confederates said they wouldn't associate with "Trekkies," and the Star Trek fans said they preferred "Trekkers." The Confederates all laughed, and "that right there got things off on the wrong foot," Lessjo says.

Uh oh.

"One of the Trekkers said Starfleet's prime directive wouldn't let the crew introduce superior technology to a primitive culture," Lessjo says. "Then a rebel yelled, 'Don't call us primitive, geek!' And the Trekker said Starfleet wouldn't defend a society based on slavery, either."

That riled the Confederates, provoking one to shout: "Y'all just go fight for the Yankees then! You're all living in a fantasy world anyway!"

"Yeah, like you're not!" a Trekker retorted

And this point, things got real ugly

Both sides abruptly drew their weapons, and Lessjo ducked under a table as the firing commenced, he says. He did not crawl back out until the smoke cleared, and by then the Trekkers had withdrawn from the field

Unfortunately, this then became an object lesson in Action Philosophy; don't bring a flashlight to a gunfight.

"It turns out replica Civil War guns use real gunpowder, whereas 'Star Trek' phasers have only a battery-powered bulb that lights up," says Lessjo. "You don't go up against a guy with a firearm if all you've got is a flashlight.

I think it would be best if the "Out of the Boxers" rethought the "there are no stupid ideas" thing.