Random Thoughts of A Proud Centrist

Farewell Betty and Al

2006-02-04T20:29:00.000-05:00

Today, two well known figures passed into the great beyond.

First, let us recall the life of the less famous of the two, Al Lewis, alias Grandpa Munster. He was famous both for his appearance on the TV Show, the Munsters, as Grandpa Munster, a Vampire in a bad Dracula costume. He also was a basketball recruiter and a political candidate. In the 1998 Gubernatorial Elections in New York, Lewis managed to capture at least 25.000 votes.

Secondly, a great heroine for women in America, we all mourn the loss of Betty Friedan. She was an avowed and activist feminist, who did her best to help mainstream the Feminist movement, by opposing more radical elements in the movement.

We recall with great emotion the passing of these two Americans, who had significant impacts on their fellow men and women.

BOEHNER WINS!!!!!!!!!!

2006-02-02T14:29:00.000-05:00

John Boehner of Ohio just won the Majority Leader Contest in the US House of Representatives. In a vote of 122-109, Boehner beat Blunt and Shadegg.

I am really glad that Boehner won over Blunt. There are three reasons I am glad of this.

1) Boehner is a fiscal conservative. After DeLay's moronic comment last year about how all the fat had been cut out of the federal budget, the Republicans needed a leader who would not back down on fiscal issues. It's time to cut earmarks, all spending, streamlining contracts, and lots more that can be done.

2) Boehner is not Blunt, nor significantly socially conservative. He is not going to be pushing for bans on gay marriage, overturning Roe v. Wade, yadda yadda yadda, as significantly as Blunt or DeLay did.

3) Boehner was less tied to Abramoff. Frankly, Roy Blunt was far too tied to both DeLay and Abramoff. Boehner will help take that corruption away.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

2006-01-31T15:08:00.000-05:00

It is official. The Senate has confirmed Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. to be an associate Justice of the United states Supreme Court. It is clear that he was not only qualified, but a good choice for the Court. Despite his obvious personal leanings, as well as his staunchly conservative personal views, what he is, according to those who have worked with and for him, is a careful jurist with a willingness to look at all sides of an issue, a jurist who does not prejudge a case, and who will not side with any specific side of a case, nor allows his own biases to interfere with the law. Frankly, I tend to trust the colleagues and former clerks of a judge rather than his or her record, and the interpretation by detractors and friends, as well as Senators.

It is clear that neither Ted Kennedy nor Lindsay Graham was the one who should speak about Samuel Alito's positions, nor should have people like Laurence Tribe or Robert Bork. No, the testimony of colleagues and former clerks, who cover the entire political spectrum, is the one we needed to listen to.

Welcome to the most important job of your life, Justice Alito.

Requiescat in Pacem

2006-01-31T15:04:00.000-05:00

Another long-standing Civil Rights icon has died, Coretta Scott King passed away today at age 78. All those of good will mourn her loss. Requiescat in Pacem, Amicus Populorum.

2005, The Year in Review: A Summary

2005-12-31T17:26:00.000-05:00

To sum up this year, it has been disappointing. We were to start it off on a good note, with a Presidential inauguration, with good cheer, coming off of a year of ups and downs, we ought to have been on the upswing.

Now to mention a few bright points: The appointment of Dr. Benjamin Bernanke, an eminently qualified, and effectively non-partisan person to be Fed Chair. A wise choice. American Charitable giving is up this year. That also is a bright spot. Elections in Iraq and Afghanistan...we actually have come a long way. Finally, the President taking responsibility for a failure.

Overshadowing this, however, is the stink of corruption, in the states and in Washington. It's time to rid ourselves of corruption, from partisan redistricting (Let's all follow Illinois' lead and say that we're going to be good about fairly redistricting), to indictments, money laundering scandals, to bribery, this has been a bad year overall.

Here, then, is to a good 2006. Let us raise our glasses and hope for a better New Year. May we all enjoy peace, prosperity and joy in the coming year.

2005, The Year in Review: President Bush

2005-12-31T16:50:00.000-05:00

A Look at the Administration of George W. Bush:

This has not been a good year for George W. Bush. From Katrina to Harriet Miers to his slipping poll numbers, George Bush is in rough shape.

I will start off by clarifying what ought to be already clear, that I can not abide this Presidency, and I keep hoping and praying for it to be over as expeditiously and inauspiciously as possible.

Let's take a look at some of the highlights from Hurricane Katrina. Everybody from Ray Nagin to Michael Brown, Kathleen Blanco to George W. Bush. Every single leader involved dropped the ball from time to time. Let's put blame where blame is due, and dispel some myths. First off, Global Warming, while I do believe strong evidence exists for Global Warming, Global Warming was not the cause of Hurricane Katrina nor was it likely even remotely involved in the intensity of the storm. The National Weather Service, and other organisations devoted to good, well founded science, and not the hysteria of the far left, point to a trend of twenty or thirty years with large numbers of devastating storms, followed by a similar period with very few devastating storms. Secondly, in handling the issue of the evacuations, race was not an issue, nor was economic status taken into account, at least that is what I find the evidence clearly saying. There are many things I dislike about George W. Bush, but he is no racist, and certainly less of a classist than most of the people in this world. He did not do anything to hurt non-white people intentionally. Yes, he dropped the ball, and cut funding for the levees, but hindsight is 20/20, and it was done to fund a war, not because George Bush hates black people. Where George Bush dropped the ball most gravely was in appointing a college buddy to be his FEMA Chief, despite a lack of experience. In short, did the President handle Hurricane Katrina well, perhaps not. Was he biased or somehow racist in his dealings, absolutely, and unquestionably no.

Now for a recap of the Supreme Court. While I am disappointed that President Bush did not appoint a woman, a Hispanic or an openly gay person, qualifications withstanding, to the Supreme Court, I do respect his choices. Fundamentally, Chief Justice Roberts was, in my opinion, unquestionably the best choice for the job. The new Chief Justice does not have the firebrand temperament that has plagued the court since Justice Frankfurter was appointed. So far, he seems fair, wise, and well spoken. His show for the Senate Judiciary Committee certainly impressed many people, the Far Lefties and Far Righties notwithstanding. Not since Justice Souter was appointed has the Judiciary Committee had such an eloquent testimony before it. In that vein, I expect that Chief Justice Roberts will find a niche in the mingling of his two Judicial mentors, Chief Justice Rehnquist, a great man, and Judge Henry Friendly, as well as his grand master, Justice Jackson.

Then along came Harriet Miers. This was certainly dropping the ball in the public's eyes. We had been given a spectacular nominee with a wise, respectful and intelligent mind, and a tongue not suited to partisanship. To fill the other seat, we were given Justice Fortas in a dress, almost literally. This was a purely political appointment, without any concern for the Court, or its needs. It was wise in the end for her to withdraw her nomination, and left her to another smaller court, where she would be better suited.

Finally, there is Judge Samuel Alito. Now here is a man believed to have firebrand tendencies, because of his long history of being a Conservative legal scholar and opinion writer. What I see, and what many of the more liberal end of the legal establishment who are intellectually honest see, is a thoughtful man, committed to precedent above all else. He is a wise judge who makes relatively complex decisions, and does so well and within the framework set down.

Then there was the War in Iraq. I commend the President for stepping up to defend the war, and also to defend and explain his actions as Commander in Chief. Perhaps it will keep us from making the same huge mistakes nw that we have been making since the start of this war. The President, for the first time in his life, it would seem, stood up and took responsibility for a poorly managed decision he made. While I understand the need to topple Saddam, however, we ought to have gone after nuclear arms salesmen like Kim Jong-Il.

Finally, a word on corruption within the Bush Administration, and his approval ratings. As I've hopefully made clear, I am one of a majority of Americans who disapproves of the current Administration. I believe overall that the Bush Administration has been a corrupt administration, with no outside air to improve the quality of the Administration. There have been very few replacements, and none of the ones needed have been replaced. On the other hand, he does not beat Congress anywhere near.

That leaves his poll numbers. Bush no longer reverberates with the American Psyche like he used to. He never has been the Harry Truman, FDR, or Ronald Reagan that he wanted to be. No, he's never been that bright, but now we are only starting to see through it. That's why his poll numbers are slipping.

2005, the Year in Review: Elections

2005-12-31T16:11:00.000-05:00

This has been a year that shocked and severely wounded the United States. Maybe it is the pessimist in me, but I have not heard or seen much that makes this year, on any playing field, a good year.

Let's start with some of the recent issues circulating.

The 2005 Elections Cycle:

This was not a good year for Republicans electorally, and they know it. They did not regain either of the Governorships up for grabs this year, and they should have had a better shot at regaining Virginia.

Congressional races did not fare as well as was hoped for the Republicans either. In the California John Campbell did very well, winning a significant portion of the vote, but let us not forget that Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, took almost as many votes as the Democrat. That can not bode well for the Republicans. As for the Ohio race, Jean Schmidt eked out a victory. What this bodes I can not say, however, as I believe the significant force that made the Schmidt campaign falter was the sheer flakiness of Schmidt, and her lack of wisdom. This race was not a win for the Democrats, but rather a loss for the Republicans.

This may seem to be ill news for Republicans, and it very well may be. The circumstances are not that far off from 1993, when in the next year they took the Majority from a similarly dispirited country in a landslide election. On the other hand, this could be a 1980, if the Republicans can turn themselves around and show themselves in the light of being the party of reform. In 2001 however, the same sort of incident, with Democrats taking away the Governorships from the Republicans, happened, and in 2002,we saw a Republican Sweep of the open seats. Will this be a 1993 or a 2001? We have yet to see. What the future holds I can not predict, but I do expect that 2006 may be good for the Democrats.

Finally, a last note on campaigning. It is beginning earlier and earlier. I'm really getting to be nostalgic for days I was not alive to see, days when campaigning really was campaigning, not mudslinging from the trenches and not long, exhaustive, expensive campaigns. I strongly move, therefore, that we as a country adopt the Baker Carter Commission on Eletoral Reform's suggestions in the whole, if nothing else to shorten the Campaign Cycle, and to rest the choice of the nominees not on small, relatively rural states like Iowa, New Hampshire and the Dakotas, because this takes the choice away from the majority of the people and vests it in small numbers of people, where a small town in New Hampshire can determine a whole Presidential election.

An Apology

2005-12-31T16:09:00.000-05:00

To my few, but loyal readers, let me apologise for not blogging for almost two months. I wanted to see how the Virginia AG race came down, and then I got caught up in the Holiday Season, yes, part of that was the Christmas Season, no I got caught up in more than just that.

Intelligent Design is NOT Scientific

2005-11-05T22:56:00.000-05:00

I am of the belief that if you teach something as science it must pass muster under the Scientific Method. It is clear that Intelligent Design does not meet this criteria. As such Dover Area School District should stop teaching it.

What the clincher is for me is that the topic has two goals, to promote a Deist ideal of a Universal Creator, which is an endorsement of Deist practices. While I have naught against Deism, and in fact find a lot of Deism to be true, it is not the place of the Government to endorse any religion in any form. Teaching Darwinism however does not impinge on the free exercise of religion, while teaching Intelligent Design does not impinge on anybody's free exercise right, it does rely on the demeaning its opponents, which is not good Science. As such, the Dover Area School District, and every other school district, ought to avoid the subject of Intelligent Design until and unless the hypotheses set forth rely solely on the Scientific Method, and not antagonism towards its opponents.

And Yet MORE in Favour of Alito

2005-11-03T22:38:00.000-05:00

Things are looking up for Samuel Alito. The concept of a Judicial Conservative, read someone who is not a Judicial Activist, is exemplified in him. He has his own opinions, and what they are, we do not know, and nor should we.

Ann Althouse explains.

The Score is now Tied

2005-11-03T22:25:00.000-05:00

In a recent show of Dirty Politicking, Rep. Tom DeLay asked for a new judge to field his corruption case. The judge stepped aside. To replace him, the Presiding Judge was supposed to appoint a replacement. Ronnie Earle, the Prosecutor, then applied to pull the Presiding Judge off that job, because the Presiding Judge had given to Republican Campaigns. Today that judge recused himself!

Now tell me, does an innocent man request a new judge in a corruption case based on the political contributions of the judge? I think not myself.

Anywho, bad news day for DeLay.

For Once, I Agree With Robert Byrd

2005-11-02T22:24:00.000-05:00

Yes, that's right, for once, I actually agree with Robert Byrd. This is a rare and hopefully one-time occurrence.

Today, on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Byrd introduced an Amendment to cut the budget, and it was a good idea.

Now, how did Sen. Byrd propose to cut the budget? He sponsored an amendment to cut out an expanded VISA Program into the United States for Skilled and Unskilled guest workers. The program would have given out an extra 350.000 VISAs to people who wanted to immigrate her to work.

Immigration costs us money we do not have, and taking jobs away from Americans is always a bad thing, especially skilled jobs and technological jobs. It is time to cut our legal immigration.

Schadenfreude in Washington

2005-11-02T15:39:00.000-05:00

I have to wonder how Harry Reid's political manoeuver yesterday will play out in the public. So far, it seems to me, the people will be quite appreciative of the fact that Reid has forced the investigation to get going. Public approval of the war is down very low, and people are starting to believe that Bush and the Republicans are dragging their feet in the way the war is being run. It is good Schadenfreude for this former war supporter.

Harry Reid invoked Rule 21 of the Senate Rules closing the Senate to the public to confront the Republicans about their investigation into the intelligence errors that gave way to the War in Iraq.

I do think that this will play out well in the public if and only if the Democrats spin this correctly. It seems that they are doing that right so far. It is time now to see where this investigation leads.

Samuel Alito...Another Wise Move by Bush

2005-11-02T15:09:00.000-05:00

I have to say, the most significant part of the reason I have not yet commented on the Alito Nomination so far is that I wanted to make a more thorough research effort into the nomination before I made any calls on Alito. As such, I am still waiting to see how he acts in the Judiciary Committee, but from what I am hearing, Alito will be a good choice for the Supreme Court.

His former clerks, associates, friends and enemies all speak highly of his judicial ability, and praise comes from both the far left and the far right on Alito. His clerks are saying that he is a careful thinker who likes to discuss and debate issues before deciding. His clerks are mostly more liberal than he is, and they all hold him in the highest regard, and that is because he is a wise, impartial judge who is not a guaranteed vote for either side.

In fact, the opinions of Judge Alito, as well as what people are saying about him, is very much reminiscent of what was said about Judge Anthony Kennedy before he became an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. At the most conservative, I believe that Judge Alito will be about as conservative as William Rehnquist. At the most liberal, Judge Alito could become another Justice Souter. I think, however, that Bush may have made a serious political error in appointing Alito, and a year down the road, when a hot-button issue comes before the court, and Justice Alito is the swing vote and votes liberal, Bush is going to be in serious trouble.

Indictments and Investigations

2005-10-28T15:01:00.000-04:00

Today I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted for five counts of lying. While I believe that lying to a grand jury is serious, I think that there's much worse for the Bush Administration to come.

The fact that Libby was indicted on basically the same pretenses as Martha Stewart, obfuscation of the judicial processes, leads me to believe that he was protecting someone else. It can either be Rove or Cheney. Those seem the two likely people to be protecting. I certainly hope that neither is a source, but frankly, as Shakespeare once said, something is rotten in Denmark.

Initially, I am unsure how to react. I make it well known that I openly and avowedly oppose George W. Bush, and would be glad to have any pretense to remove the most corrupt President since Richard Nixon. Schadenfreude suits me well. On the other hand, I do not want to see innocent people ruined for no good reason. I do hope that all people who have obfuscated this investigation or committed a crime take a serious fall, as that is what they deserve under the law, but I do hope for no innocents other than Valerie Plame, since she was first in the crossfire, gets caught in the crossfire.

Ben Bernanke, Fed Chairman

2005-10-25T23:46:00.000-04:00

I really do hope that Dr. Benjamin Bernanke is confirmed to be the Federal Reserve Chairman. For once, Bush actually made a good choice for a position.

Let's look at this man's qualifications.
PhD: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prior Experience on the Fed: Yes, he has been on the Fed before
Academic Specialisation: Macroeconomics, both generalist and monetary policy
Level of respect from Peers: VERY high
Level of respect from Wall Street: VERY high

This man is not only qualified, but overqualified for the position. Now, let's examine his philosophy. In general, he sounds pretty much like Alan Greenspan with one exception. Bernanke believes in targeting inflation rates. While the Federal Reserve Board does not set interest rates, it can effect monetary policies to change the inflation rate, if the economy works as it should. To set the targets requires a special and sophisticated knowledge of Monetary Economics. It seems to be Bernanke does have that ability.

In all an overqualified, and GOOD choice.

The Loss of a Great American Hero

2005-10-25T15:15:00.000-04:00

The late Rosa Parks can count herself among an elite class of people. She truly was a Great American Hero.

Ms. Parks' action of refusing to stand when a white person wished her seat was that which set in motion the Civil Rights Movement. She energised a base of activists, and impelled an already sympathetic Supreme Court to understand the definition of full equality under the law. Her action, while small, was an inspiration to end all segregation.

She deserves all the lauds and praises she deserves. May she rest in peace, knowing she has done all of humanity a great service.

Bill Frist's Trouble

2005-10-14T00:59:00.000-04:00

I feel bad for Bill Frist. He has been under investigation by the SEC for a while, and that is difficult for anybody. Now, you may ask what he is under investigation for. He is under investigation for insider trading, because he sold off the stock of his company as he claims to avoid a conflict of interest. The stock was in a blind trust, meaning that Frist could not know exactly what was in the trust, and had no control over it, except in cases like this.

I personally buy Frist's story. Yes, he was on the board of the company, and yes, his family founded the company. Therefore it would make sense that he would own stock in the company. However, with his position as Majority leader, he had to forfeit certain stocks as a conflict of interest. That is a fair thing. That the circumstances were so fortuous that he sold the stock before the price took a dive is certainly suspect, but I doubt he committed insider trading.

First off, it's not that far off from what Martha Stewart did, and that is not wrong. Her conviction was for Perjury. Secondly, it was done to avoid a conflict of interest, not to profit from the sale of the stock.

I may not always agree with Bill Frist, but I think he is basically honest, and a good man. Frankly, I do not think him capable of distorting the truth just for his own political purposes. It's time that the honest members of each party to back Frist, and remind us that he's not a liar or evil. It is time for us to unite to defend a good man from a spurious attack.

Jodi Rell For President

2005-10-12T00:13:00.000-04:00

M. Jodi Rell, the Governor of Connecticut, should, in my mind, consider making a run for the Presidency in 2008, or 2012. Granted, governing Connecticut is not that hard, but it's not that simple either. She is a DC Outsider, and knows a thing or two about dealing with corrupt predecessors, as well as intelligent, ethical, and an experienced leader.

Rell took over from the corrupt Rowland administration in Connecticut, where John Rowland, the Republican Governor, was convicted of embezzlement, and sentenced to a year in prison. Since then, the flagging Nutmegger Republican Party has been basically resurrected under the administration of M. Jodi Rell.

In the period since Rowland stepped down in 2003, Rell has managed to basically restore faith in the Nutmegger Republicans.

Now, onto why I support M. Jodi Rell. Governor Rell has managed to reduce the size of government and cut taxes in the Nutmeg State. She has managed to do this with Democratic Control of both houses of the General Assembly. She has set forth the highest ethical standards that Connecticut has ever seen. She has been a leader on Homeland Security, more than any other Governor in the United States. She has been critical of the Republican party without being disrespectful.

Ultimately, Governor Rell is a centrist. She believes in a small, but efficient government that provindes the necessary, but cuts the unecessary out. She has been a leader on defending our country without overspending. She has adhered to a high standard of ethics, and requires such from her staff. She is a temperate Christian, not a rabid fundamentalist. She is a social moderate, which ultimately appeals to the centre of the United States. She is willing to forge compromises where both parties are at each other's throats.

She is consummately a good Governor for Connecticut, and she will make a phenominal President. It is time to start a Draft Rell movement.

Sexism?

2005-10-11T21:45:00.000-04:00

OK, I used to have some respect for Laura Bush, but her comments regarding sexism and the Miers nomination definitely worry me. So now the criticism regarding Harriet Miers is sexist?

Please! Give me a break! Red State has a good piece looking at Harriet Miers' qualifications.

It is not that she never went to an elite law school. It is not that she is barely mentioned in the Westlaw Case Files. It is not that she has never been a Judge. It is not that she never clerked for a prestigious judge. It is not that she has never published or even said anything significant with regard to the Constitution. It is not even that she was only a litigator. There have been Justices that have never had any of the major qualifications that I listed above, but none have been great, or even good Justices. I look at Harriet Miers and I see people like Justice Fortas and Chief Justice Vinson, as well as G. Harold Carswell. She just does not seem like someone who belongs on the court.

She brings dignity. Wonderful, dignity is what is needed in Washington. Does that qualify her to sit on the Supreme Court? Not really.

No, Madam First Lady, it is not sexism, nor even elitism. What is causing the kerfuffle about Harriet Miers is that President, against all good Common Sense, nominated someone not that qualified for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court calls for a broad knowledge of Constitutional Law and Constitutional issues, not just experience as a litigator.

The Virginia Race

2005-10-11T15:46:00.000-04:00

Now personally, I am rooting for Russ Potts, but I know Potts has almost no (I refuse to say he has no chance of winning, because then I will be proven wrong) chance of winning. On the other hand, it looks very likely that the vote will come down between Kilgore and Kaine. Of course that's logical to assume. What is interesting is looking at the battlefields between the two of them.

Fairfax: In any race in the Commonwealth, Fairfax county is a bellweather county in Virginia, but, like all of Northern Virginia, it is turning more and more a blue area. Kilgore will not do as well here as he hopes, but I think he will do better than expected in Fairfax county. He's popular, and has a good name. Granted, he is no John Warner nor even Mark Warner, but he is well liked and well respected. Kaine, on the other hand, is lackluster, and running on the coat tails of Mark Warner. The key here is the GOTV campaign for both Kaine and Kilgore.

Southwestern Virginia: The race here would likely go to Kaine, at least one would think. The Southwest of Virginia is a solidly Blue, Dixiecratic area. Let's not forget that one of the three Democrats Virginia sends to the US House of Representatives is from the Panhandle. However, it's Kilgore's race to lose here, because he IS a Southwestern Virginian. Kilgore's GOTV effort is the big factor in how the Southwest affects the election.

My prediction, it will be close, but Kilgore will win Fairfax barely, and Kilgore will pull out the Southwest in large numbers. I predict Kilgore takes this Governor's seat.

Farm Policy

2005-10-11T14:51:00.000-04:00

Now, most people do not realise this, but one of the largest single agricultural producers in the United States is the state of New York. Now, I myself am not a farmer, but I have had family members who were. Whatever the case, the United States is a strong agricultural producer, but we also need to be rational about the way we set our agricultural policy.

Farm policy should not be to encourage more subsidies because of the fact that subsidies negatively influence the market, and cause the market to be inefficient and thus consumers buy lower quality and higher priced goods. Neither of these are a god thing.

Against this backdrop, now, Sen. Saxby Chambliss(R-GA) has called for Secretary Mike Johanns to be careful in his negotiations for a new International Farming Policy. I can not say that I agree with Sen. Chambliss. The US is going to have to make significant concessions in negotiationg an international farming policy. US Wheat, Cotton, Apples, Pears and Canola will have to take some hits. The market can not sustain the artificially low prices of American Crops.

Now is the time for the Bush Administration to lead Congress in stopping agricultural subsidies.

Corrupt President and the Supreme Court

2005-10-11T00:17:00.000-04:00

Here's something that struck me, of the Presidents of the 20th and 21st Century, of the ones that have been seriously corrupt (Harding, Truman, Johnson, Nixon and Bush II), each appointed a Justice for all the ages as well as nominated, though not necessarily appointed, someone who is completely mediocre or useless.

From Harding, we got:

Good Justice: Chief Justice Taft, who is former President William Howard Taft.

Mediocre Justice: Justice Edward Sanford.

From Truman, we got:

Good Justice: Harold Burton.

Mediocre Justice: Chief Justice Fred Vinson.

From Lyndon Johnson, we got:

Good Justice: Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first Black man to serve on the court.

Bad Justice: Justice Abraham Fortas, who, like Harriet Miers was an unqualified White House Counsel before he was appointed.

From Nixon we got:

Good Justice: Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist.

Bad Justice: G. Harold Carswell, who was never confirmed, being too mediocre, for even the Republican loyalists like Sen. Roman Hruska R-NE had to defend his mediocrity.

From Bush II we got:

Good Justice: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. While he is new, his responses and affability during the confirmation process indicate to me that he will be a Justice who goes down in History among the greats with Earl Warren, John Marshall and Hugo Black.

Bad Justice: Harriet Miers: Who claimed this woman was a good choice in the first place?

In short, each President that is corrupt has some good judgment, and some very bad judgment.

Unimportant News to Most

2005-10-10T23:50:00.000-04:00

This may be unimportant news to most, but the President of the University from which I am an alum has been fired.

Am I surprised? Not really. For the four years I attended American University every student knew that President Benjamin Ladner was corrupt. Now the Board of Trustees has fired him. Finally, an affirmation of what we already knew.

See here for the story on the issue.

The Flat Tax Revolution?

2005-10-10T23:10:00.000-04:00

Recently, the conservative and centrist blogosphere have been going nuts over research allegedly proving that low, flat taxes spur economic growth. The articles citing the research are found here, here and here.

Personally, I remain unconvinced. Maybe it is my economics background, but I believe I have a firmer grasp on the issue than most.

Firstly, there needs to be a larger number of studies done. The fact that the evidence is based on only one set of numbers in one year proves nothing. A study done in a time-series manner, looking at the same evidence from the same countries over the span of several years would be a better idea.
Secondly, the flat tax has a penal effect on the poor. While I am a big proponent of the concept of personal responsibility and self reliance, I can not bring myself to justify making the poor and the rich pay the same taxes.
Thirdly, classical economic theory indicates that a flat tax invariably becomes a progressive tax.

As I said, I remain unconvinced. There needs to be more work done on the issue before I'll buy it. I trust the public economists, they actually study this. I've had more limited experience, but more than many of the flat tax advocates. It's time to leave the tax decisions to people who are experts on the subject, and not the businessmen, and the people who only took basic economics courses. I myself will wait for full, econometrically tested, time series data that proves the flat tax idea is a good idea before I buy into it.

ANGELA MERKEL WINS!

2005-10-10T14:55:00.000-04:00

Well, the war in Europe over who will be the next Chancellor of Germany has been resolved. Angela Merkel won, and a Grand Coalition between Schroder and Merkel is now beginning to be formed. The Christian Science Monitor has a good story about the Grand Coalition.

My take on Merkel: She will be a good leader for Germany in that she will press for reforms that a Schroder Government would not even consider. Germany is at a very similar place to where Britain was in 1979 when Thatcher took the reins of the British Parliament. Unions are among the most powerful groups, and the job protection and public spending laws are at what even American Liberals would consider insane levels. Merkel will, with good reason, work to push through reforms that are needed. She has the political wiles, intelligence and force of personality to do just that; however, I believe that the fact that Schroder holds the key ministries that will be affected will slow, and even stall, the reforms.

Uwe Anderson makes a good point:

"It will be a compromise," says Uwe Anderson, a political science professor at
Ruhr University in Western Germany. "The Union will be able to push
through fewer reforms than they planned to, or than we need."

All that I can say is, it's a start. Now is time to wait and watch, and see if Angela Merkel is the Margaret Thatcher of Germany or if she is going to be the John Major. I can not say yet which she will be.

The Republican Civil War

2005-10-09T21:42:00.000-04:00

The war in the Republican Party is beginning, and, like Bull Moose, I believe it is a good thing that this is happening now. Now, you might ask why it is that I think the idea of a party schism is a good thing with midterm elections only a year away, and three years from the end of a Republican Administration. That is a fair question.

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) has said he does not a war within the Republican Party, and that party unity and party loyalty ought to be our focus because that will be what keeps the Republican Party and specifically the Religious Right in power. Well, in the short term it might, but what damage is there to the Republicans by tying them permanently to the idea of corruption, cronyism, big government, and irresponsible tax cuts? In the long term, if Republicans keep going down the road we are headed towards, the Republicans will be doomed.

The Republicans can and should try to return itself to the party of principle and a clear set of ideals. The corruption, while not nearly as serious as 1993, is still going to be detrimental to the Republican Party in the long term. Even though the Republican Party is not as corrupt now as the Democrats were in 1993, they will become so. That is unacceptable.

What a war will do is not only readjust the ideology of the Republican Party (and I hope return the party to the progressive roots of people like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt), but also to make sure the Republicans are the party of reform. By reforming themselves, the Republicans prove themselves the party of reform. Sure, they suffer some losses in 2006, but the Republicans may be able to regroup for 2008, or 2010. In the end, it will be the good thing for the Republican Party, and centre-right and right wing.

The Best Way to End Abortion

2005-10-09T19:38:00.000-04:00

In looking at my last post, I am convinced that I should really comment on the issue of abortion and what the best way to stop abortion is. As I've said, I'm quite pro-life, and anti-abortion; however, I maintain that I am not in favour of overturning Roe v. Wade. While Roe was poorly reasoned in the first place, overturning it will do nothing good.

My argument is for demand-focused abortion reduction policies. Proper medical care for women, poverty reduction efforts that do not involve hand-outs, efforts for reasonable means of birth-control and reasonable sexual education policies are all positive ways to reduce the number of abortions.

If the key is to reduce the number of abortions, it is illogical to outright ban abortions, something the overturning of Roe would not accomplish anyways. What I propose is to reduce demand for abortions, which will, through market forces, reduce the supply of abortions. Just fixating on and codifying our moral opprobrium will do nothing to reduce the number of abortions. If, on the other hand, our goal is to express our moral outrage, then a blog, such as this one, is all that is needed.

In short, Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, but rather the matter should be dealt with via the market. Ultimately, if we work to raise society up, try to bring forth a society in which children are valued, and can be cared for by responsible parents, be they biological or adoptive, then the market will reduce the number of abortions. Otherwise, the number of abortions does not really change, but our moral outrage is codified. Where does that leave us? It leaves us legislating morality without actually coming up with solutions to the problem.

The Harriet Miers Nomination...Who Made What Promises?

2005-10-09T17:13:00.000-04:00

Recently, there has been obvious concern about the nomination of Harriet Miers. Obviously she is a crony pick for the court, but the problem is not, to my mind, that she is a crony, but that she is unqualified for the bench. On the other hand, the AP has a good story.

Look at what's going on in Washingon:

Specter and the committee's top Democrat, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, are considering having Focus on the Family founder James Dobson testify at Miers' confirmation hearings. Dobson has said he is confident Miers opposes abortion, based on private assurances from the White House.

Disputing that, Leahy said Miers assured him that she had not made any promises on how she would vote on Roe.

"If assurances were given of how any nominee — whether this nominee or anybody else — and somebody gives assurances how they're going to vote in an upcoming case, I would vote against that person," said Leahy, who appeared with Specter on ABC's "This Week."

This is an interesting point. Should anybody promise to vote a certain way on any case, then that nominee ought to be rejected. That alone is wrong of the nominee, and also among the worst ethics violations a judge could commit. Simony went out of fashion in the Seventeenth Century. Since this is neither the Seventeenth Century, nor a Papal Appointment or Election, a promise of votes for a side in any Supreme Court case is supremely unethical just for a Supreme Court Seat.

If Dobson knows something we do not about Harriet Miers, then he has an ethical duty to reveal it to us.

On the other hand, at this point, I have no reason to distrust Harriet Miers, so if she has said she did not promise votes to anyone, then I believe her.

At issue as well is whether or not she can sublimate her own opinions to a consistent and coherent legal theory. If, as the article indicates, she can separate her own beliefs from her judicial opinions, then perhaps she will make a better Judge than previously thought.

Defending Miers, Texas Supreme Court Judge Nathan Hecht said Miers was going to overcome the criticism and would not step aside. He said the former corporate lawyer was an abortion opponent, but said that does not mean she would vote to overturn Roe.

"Legal issues and personal issues are just two different things. Judges do it all the time," he told "Fox News Sunday."

If this is the case, then we are all set, and this will not be as bad as it could be.

Now, do not mistake me, I would not mourn the passing of Roe, being personally pro-life, but of other critical decisions. Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia and many other decisions could come up for overturning. As such, I think we are owed a VERY GOOD explanation of how Harriet Miers thinks and her intellectual ability before she is seated on the court.

Hat Tip Donklephant

My First Post as a Blogger

2005-10-09T16:47:00.000-04:00

Ahh yes, how good it feels to finally be blogging.

Why don't I start off with a few of the basics about myself. I am a 22 year-old College Graduate from the American University in Washington DC. My degree was in Economics. At this point I am job-hunting, but hopefully will have one soon. I am a registered Republican, but liberals, don't let that drive you off. I am, as my Blog's title says, an unrepentant, loud-mouthed, angry centrist. Despite that, I am a very traditional Catholic, and gay. Yet, I somehow manage to mingle the three of them together somewhat well, though that depends on whom you ask.

I got started with this blog as part of a clarion call to the reform of the American Political System, taking it away from both the political parties, and moving the United States to the centre. It's time for the Centre of both parties to come together, to my mind, and form a grand coalition, where the vast majority of America is, politically speaking.