North Dakota Politics

During my time in the USAF, I was stationed at Minot AFB in North Dakota. Apart from the fact that the real difference in temperature from Summer to Winter was 145 degrees or that they actually closed the base for a couple of days because it was too cold, I enjoyed North Dakota. Mostly because of the sheer decency of the people there.

North Dakota has a Good Samaritan law for example, requiring that you help someone in trouble and shielding you from lawsuits if you do. Not that you need the shielding, because folks from North Dakota wouldn't sue you anyway.

People in North Dakota are rural, but they aren't stupid, as Senator Kent Conrad would do well to remember.

Congress Treats Citizens WORSE than Terrorists

Within Senator Dodd's (D-CT) housing bailout bill is a provision to permit the federal government to spy on nearly every credit card transaction or other payment process used by PayPal, Amazon, Google Checkout in addition to Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and American Express.

So, Congress is authorizing the Federal Government to spy on YOUR financial transactions with nary a word in the mainstream press. How unlike the fight to maintain the Patriot Act. Where are the Democrats? Why will they not fight for my right to privacy?

Obama's Fundamentals

Senator Obama has been putting together His National Security advisory team. Their "fundamental" text for American Foreign Policy will be... wait for it...

Winnie the Pooh. I kid you not.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin who is collecting a good montage of Pooh-inspired , National Security Themed art.

Post Racial Presidential Politics

It seems like Sen. Obama doesn't really want to embrace post-racial politics. Certainly, He is not above discriminating against Muslims. Wasn't there an event when His staff was decrying the need for "more white people" at the expense of other ethnicities?

However, I am thankful for one thing... The good Senator has told me that my country is no longer (or much less) racist because we nominated Him.

"I'm proud of America for giving me this opportunity because obviously
we all know it's a sign of enormous growth in this country."

Obviously

Update: Unfortunately, His supporters are unable to take a joke.

Update: Senator Obama apologizes.

Instugator is still waiting for an explanation, something along the lines of, "These were not the staffers that I knew".

In another note, you can still get your copy of the Philadelphia speech here, ironically titled, "A More Perfect Union". Get 'em before many more imperfect things happen to make the speech more irrelevant than it already is.

Conscientious Objections

It is interesting to note how the MSM and blogosphere react to a person who objects to serving in the military or war because their conscience does not permit them too, as opposed to a person who, for example, does not wish to create art that is objectionable to them.

Dale Carpenter at The Volokh Conspiracy lists a number of cases (summarized from an NPR report) where organizations (or individuals) were challenged for not giving homosexuals equal treatment.

He then goes on to to say,

They show that there are indeed antidiscrimination laws that apply to
those who provide services to the public. They show that these
antidiscrimination laws sometimes require individuals and organizations
to do things that these persons and organizations claim violate their
religious beliefs.

Dale lists 4 cases: one pending before a state supreme court, 2 petitioned in front of an ironically named "Human Rights Commission" and one decided by the Supreme court of Vermont.

Dale's summary suffices for the Vermont case,

*Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil
union ceremony. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious
liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need
to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who
would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not
allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Dale says,

I am very wary of introducing a system of exemption for public officers
serving the public with taxpayers' money and charged with administering
the law

Yet he does not recognize that such a system has existed for centuries.

Furthermore, he says,

I think religious accommodation to private persons and organizations
should be generously provided, even where not required by the
Constitution. At the very least, accommodation should be made where it
can be offered without harming the protected class.

I think my issue with his article really stems from this section in his conclusion.

Matters are more complicated when religious persons and organizations
provide services to the public or ask for public funds while at the
same time requesting to be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone
else.

Yet, the concept of conscientious objection is exactly that. An Individual or Group asking to be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else on the basis of conscience or beliefs - and still be allowed to provide services to the public (or benefit from public funds).

Why aren't individuals or organizations permitted to object to an activity - and refuse to actively participate in it, when our culture has a longstanding practice of allowing just that?

Conscientious objectors have been permitted, for centuries, to avoid serving in various military organizations or conflicts because of their religious beliefs. The implications are two fold, one is the state has no authority dictate the conscience of an individual and the second is that the individual would probably not perform well if compelled to do so. Wikipedia entry here.

Why is it that today, governments are eroding a person's right to conscience, especially since there are precedents that argue for that right and have done so for millenia?

The right to conscience is getting pretty short shrift today, as evidenced by the cases decided by "Human Rights Commissions" - which have held in nearly every case, that the right to not be 'discriminated' against trumps the right of an individual (or group) follow his conscience.

I guess, if we are willing to throw some religious or conscience objections under the bus, we might as well throw them all - after all, it is only a matter of degree.

AP is Banned

I agree with TechCrunch on this issue. No more AP.

Dude, Where is my Global Warming?

Read this.

This says it all

It has been nearly 3 years since Hurricane Katrina and people are still living in government provided housing.
When is enough enough? When will Senator Obama deplore the excesses of a 60 degree thermostat?

Read this.

Canada Human Rights Tribunal v Mark Steyn Pt 1

Ok, for those just joining the human race.

Facts:

Mark Steyn is a journalist from Canada, now living in the USA.
He sometimes writes for Maclean's, a magazine in Canada.
Canada, tired of unrestricted Free Speech, wrote a nice little law that makes it a crime to:

7
(1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be
published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice,
sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private

Mark Steyn wrote a book, America Alone

Maclean's published an excerpt of the book

They have been brought in front of the Human Rights Tribunal because they published something that, "is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt"

If you violate this law you can be tried via an executive committee know as a Human Rights Tribunal. (These are executive branch of government organizations, because, well, a Judicial proceeding has to follow those pesky rules of evidence thingys)

Evidence may be admitted to a Tribunal that may not be considered evidence in a court.

If the Tribunal orders it, they may award money to the complainer to compensate for 'injury to dignity, feelings and self respect'

So What? to follow

Mark Steyn's case is just beginning and is being liveblogged.

Not even worth 3/5

Democratic delegates from Florida and Michigan will be seated with 1/2 vote each at the Democratic convention in Denver. Here is what is widely considered the best MSM article about the controversy.

Some key points: Each Delegation will be seated with 1/2 a vote.

Florida Results:

Hillary 105 pledged delegates, Barack 67. Each delegate receives 1/2 a vote.

Michigan:

Facts:
Senator Obama was not on the ballot, Senator Clinton was. She won 55% of the popular vote.
The categories on the ballot were:
Named candidates (Hillary and others except Sen. Obama)
Uncommitted

The decision for Michigan was to count 'uncommitted' as 'Not Senator Clinton' and award them to Senator Obama. The result, 69 delegates for Sen. Clinton, 59 'uncommitted' delegates recommitted for Sen. Obama.

Quote of the Day, from Rep. Robert Wexler, right after he insisted that Florida's delegation should only get 1/2 a vote.

"no one in the state of Florida has championed voters' rights more than I!"

Come again?

Related: Sen. McCain has asked that Florida and Michigan delegation to the Republican National Convention be seated with full votes.

Implications:

Here is a difference between how Political parties perceive themselves and how they really function. In this case, the Democratic Party initially stripped the delegations of Florida and Michigan of their votes as punishment for those states moving their primaries. The Republican Party had the same sentiment and reduced the voting power of each of those delegations by 1/2.

The perception of the national parties is, they are in charge of the election calendar and state parties need to bow to their wishes. This is no longer true. Faced with the prospect of disenfranchising the voters of 2 states, the two parties have currently adopted the same decision; each delegate gets 1/2 a vote.

What will happen in 4 years? Will the states of Florida and Michigan change their calendar back into the good graces of the national party or will other states stake a claim to a different part of the calendar (perhaps in violation of the national party wishes)?

Regardless, the monopoly on power of the national parties has been diminished in this exchange - and it is impossible to close Pandora's box. Which shows us the difference I mention above.

Perception of the National Parties - We are in charge of everything.

The reality - State parties can control their own calendar. What else can they control?

Previous Posts: Here and Here.