On Specter & The Swine Flu

For those of you who haven’t heard – and especially for those of you who don’t care – Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) is now Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), switching parties, as he says, to avoid getting thumped in the 2010 election primary by another Republican. This puts the D’s in the US Senate at 60, counting the clown from Minnesota.

So, I recall some years ago when the R’s had majorities in the House, Senate, and held the White House, D’s across the nation decried the state of affairs as out of step with the founding principle of “checks and balances.” But it wasn’t a true monopoly. The Senate, as some may know, is designed to protect the minority (unlike the House, which resembles a mobocracy)…to some extent.

The Senate rules seek to adhere to this spirit of protecting the minority by requiring 60 votes to do anything. You must have at least 60 votes to agree to vote on an actual bill. You have to have 60 votes to agree to move from “Morning Business” (sort of like open mic night), to the “Executive Calendar” (where the Senate exercises its right to “Advise and Consent” Executive Branch matters), and to the “Legislative Calendar.” Doing anything in the Senate requires 60 votes. So, when the D’s held 40+ seats in the Senate during the R’s “reign of terror” some years ago, they were able to block anything the R’s wanted to do. If the D’s held party discipline, the R’s wouldn’t have been able to pass anything.

So, the R’s never had unfettered power in DC, even though they had majorities in both the House and Senate, and held the White House. However, thanks to Mr. Specter, the D’s now* have unchecked power (*I’m not sure when exactly he will change his registration, and caucus – or, count himself – with the D’s).

Now, for all those angry R’s out there, let’s not fall into the intellectually bereft argument that this unchecked power violates the “checks and balances” principle. That foolish, lame, and deceptive argument the D’s used a few years back is foolish, lame, and dishonest because “checks and balances” referred to the three branches of government checking each other, not multiple political parties checking each other.

And in this, our bleak hour of R’ness, bear in mind that now that the D’s do have true, unadulterated, unchecked and unfettered power, we can be juvenile and blame them for everything that goes wrong during this season of darkness…including the swine flu ;-)

"Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.”

So I saw an headline in The Oregonian newspaper this morning reporting: “Oregonians sending less to landfills in economic downturn.” It caught my eye, as most headlines are designed to do. I read on…: “It's because there's less garbage -- likely the result of slowdowns in consumer spending, consumption and manufacturing.”

And that’s about where I stopped reading because it got me thinking about something I would hope is common sense. That is, it just seems to make sense that – in bad economic times, as well as good – we should seek to repair broken things (if feasible) or reuse old things.

I think of some well-used pants of mine that had a tear on the pocket. Rather than throwing it out and buying a new pair of pants, I sewed it. (Granted, my sewing skills are quite weak, but the Boy Scouts did teach me some basics.) And, instead of throwing out my old shirt, my wife suggested we use it as a rag.

“Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without,” is an old saying, and it became a saying at some point because it had value. I think it still does.

If I continued reading the article in the newspaper, I’m sure it would say that rather than buying a new dvd player, people are taking their old ones into the repair shop…or just doing with out it for a while. Isn’t this something we could or should be doing in good economic times as well?

Call it thrift, conservation, recycling, or economic survival. Put whatever label on it that is politically comfortable for you. Regardless of what you call it, it’s wise.

President Obama's Good Move

Those faithful followers of my "status updates" on facebook will note that some time ago I suggested some Navy SEALs deal with the pirates off the Somali coast. And, a few days later, they did. I won't claim sole credit for the success of the operation, because some must be shared with the guy who actually had the ability to authorize it: President Obama.

Good move, Mr. President. But be careful to not make it out to be more than it was. It was a small scale crisis. You handled it well, showed an appropriate level of patience and an effort to sort it out by other means. But you didn't wait too long to put an end to all the silliness. And, in three simultaneous muzzle flashes in the dead of night, the world was reminded that - despite strategies sought after by the rest of the world's nations - the United States will not tolerate punks harassing our citizens. Again, good move.

But, again, this was a small scale crisis, and should not be used as a foreign affairs trophy by the administration. Nor an attempt to somehow redeem the Democrat party from consistent troubles they have had (don't spend too much time debating this - I've heard enough democrat pundits concede this point) handling similar crises in past administrations. Let us all accept this episode with the pirates for what it is: a good move in a small scale crisis. And, perhaps, "hope" that this pattern of decision making in the midst of crisis holds true in larger scale events.

The Hand Off from 43 To 44

I was on the road all day today. Thanks to the modern miracle of XM Radio, I was able to listen to what everyone else watched. I hope you watched.

Like no other time before, my mind was thrust through memories of American history; from George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, etc. This all occurred quite by surprise. I dwelt a lot about what I think of President George Bush (that he's a good man to the core, and kept our nation safe); I thought of President Obama (that he is a pragmatist, and appears to be a good man as well).

I mused over the transition process from one Administration to another, and how every report on this transition have been sterling. A much maligned outgoing president embracing the incoming president and offering him every courtesy and form of assistance that was asked for. It was noted by some commentators on the radio that they found it particularly interesting that Presidents Bush and Obama embraced a number of times in public over the last day or two - that none of them had ever recalled seeing that level of affection between presidents in a transition.

I'm proud of President Bush. I'm proud of President Obama. I'm proud of what the Presidency means to America, and what America means to the world.

I'm sad for the people I spoke with today who said (and all those others out there who thought): "I just couldn't bear to watch it", because they voted for the other guy. I'm sad for those who said (and thought): "I am so glad Bush is out." I'm sad for them because they failed to see, learn, and incorporate the lesson that their respective heros just taught us: There's a time for debate and campaigning. Then there time to let it go and move on.

Graciousness, courtesy, and class above all. Thanks, Presidents Bush and Obama, for your examples.

Go America.

I May Regret Saying This

So after the dust has settled from the November election, I've had time to reflect on things.

I have a sense of relief in regards to the Presidential election. Don't get me wrong, I voted for the other guy, and think he would do a better job - but a sense of relief all the same. "Why is that?", I wondered. I think it's because I no longer have to be a proxy punching bag for my guy in the White House.

George W. Bush, I believe, is this generation's Harry Truman. Reviled on his way out of office, and looked back on history with a grudging nod of respect. 40 years from now (y'all can harass me in 40 years if I'm wrong on this), I predict history will look on George Bush and note a number of shortcomings - but will generally look upon him favorably...all things considered.

They'll see that he did what he thought was right, not politically expedient. This can be both admirable and frightening. Admirable in that we want a leader who leads, and doesn't stick his/her finger in the air. We all know the mobs are fickle at best, dangerous at worst. We want someone who will stick to his guns.

However, Dwight Eisenhower (a man I hold in high esteem) once said that "governments had to be concerned with public opinion and, as much as possible, must never be thought to be wrong in vital decisions." Like him or not, President Bush didn't pander. He seemed to have a refreshing disregard for the public opinion. Refreshing, of course, if you agreed with what he was doing. He infuriated many because, I think, people either disagreed where he was going, or perhaps were inclined to support him, but didn't because he didn't appear to care if the public was on board with him - he was going to do what he thought was right, whether or not the people were with him.

So, he rebuilt Iraq at the cost of American lives and treasure. The trauma that has come out of that exercise is reflected in his low approval ratings. The same low approval ratings Truman had when he (and his party) were tossed out by the American people after he rebuilt Europe via the Marshall Plan.

*****************
One other source of comfort. When you're in the minority (said one Congressman after his party lost the majority on The Hill), "we give them the gavels, they give us the grenades." When you're in charge, you have to be responsible. When you're in the minority, you can lob grenades and kibitz.

I think I'll hold onto my grenades for now. President-Elect Obama is a pragmatist, I believe (see www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/12/05/obama-tries-the-parliamentary-system/#more-506). A lefty, to be sure, but a pragmatist. Which means whatever scary left proposals he may have, he'll have to trim them back a bit to get the "blue dogs" in the House to go along with it. If he doesn't, then I'll throw the grenades.

Religion & Education

So there I was, driving into work this morning. Waiting at a light behind an SUV with surfboards strapped to the top (picture me jealous), I read the bumper sticker affixed to the window: "Religion is a crutch for those who cannot think for themselves."

No longer jealous of this driver, I thought: "If that's correct, then education must be a crutch for those who cannot think for themselves."

(note the correct usage of the "if/then" structure)

Is It So Hard?

So there I was, sitting in the stands of the night show at the Polynesian Cultural Center, waiting for things to get underway. Having been thoroughly luau'd about 30 minutes before, my body was moving quickly into full food-coma mode when I heard an oft-spoken piece of instruction preceding most performances: "Please refrain from using flash photography during the performance, as it can be dangerous to the performers."

I leaned over to the hot gal sitting next to me and whispered, "I wonder how long it will take for folks to ignore that?" Sure enough, the lights dimmed, the performance began, and the dancers and singers were greeted with a virtual strobe light coming from the audience.

Ushers began walking up and down the aisles with largely lit signs reading "no flash photography"...to no avail. It's almost as if the sign invited more flashes. I leaned back for a few moments in my chair, and pondered the scene before me.

A simple request was made. A portion of the scofflaws present may have not understood why a blinding light flashing in the eyes of Tahitians twirling and throwing flaming sticks might be dangerous - but there are always stupid people out there, and there's not a whole lot we can do about that.

But for those who either heard the "flash photography can be dangerous to the performers" warning, or simply chose not to concern themselves with the safety (or the audience's enjoyment) of the show, I was compelled to ask myself: Is it so hard to follow the rules?

This is a question I often asked myself during the last 10 years of working for a lawmaker. For those who haven't worked in the business of lawmaking, it's hard for you to grasp the excruciating amount of work that goes into crafting a law that is designed to protect people from themselves, and the selfish acts of others.

Let's take, for example, the school zone speeding laws. Rather simple, I think: "slow down when children are present." That really shouldn't require a law. It's common sense and courtesy. But noooooo, too many people like to think of themselves as the exception to the rules (again, there are people out there who are simply stupid, but there's not much we can do about that). But, because there are so many self-declared "exceptional people" out there, we've got to write laws that define when a school zone begins, where it ends, how slow you must go in it, and during what periods of time and season this speed limit will be enforced. Then we've got to outline the proper ways of enforcing this law. How large the fine should be? Can cops use photo radar? If so, does a cop need to be present? Do the cops need to put out signs some distance ahead of the zone warning people of the photo radar? What if the person driving the car does not own the car? Who's liable for the ticket? Who's insurance gets dinged? Then there's the court system, tracking the fine, setting the bail, processing the paperwork. Then we have to raise taxes to pay for all of this enforcement.

All of this (and more) because people out there think they are the exception to common sense rules. And even with all of this, people speed through school zones.

Multiply this scenario thousands of times over, and you wonder why we have so many laws, and our government is so huge. For every law that has been written, there have been hundreds of cases of people willfully (and knowingly) violating common sense, and putting other people at risk in the process. (Again, I must repeat, there are stupid people out there who just don't know they are violating common sense. But for those who aren't really stupid....)

Just as the photographers in the night show were asked to: 1) not do something; and 2) given a legitimate reason not to do it. Nevertheless, they continued to fire off flashes.

And, at the end of the day, I wonder how many of those flash pictures actually turned out. In a large, dark arena, shooting from a distance with flash at a stage that is blazingly bright...I wonder if any of those shots really turned out. Or, if they could have simply spent $15 bucks, bought the DVD of the performance, and contributed to the student-performer's educations.

Morons.

The one up-shot of all the flashes was that they kept my food coma from overcoming me.