Saving The Planet: One Tax At A Time

With Great Britain's continual build-up of inefficient social welfare programs, sickening political correctness over radical Islam, and recent retreat from the Military arena in Iraq, many American Conservatives might be wondering if the British people are beginning to slowly lose the political common sense for which they are known. Then, however, we read stories like this, which give us a slight bit more faith in our Allies across the Pond.

It seems that Britons have begun to accrue some doubt concerning their government's motives when it comes to tax increases aimed at offsetting carbon-emissions. You see, the British Government believes that part of its job is to help the British people atone for their 'sins' - and of course by 'sins' what I mean is 'sins committed against the almighty global warming gods.' So in an effort to pay for what amounts to a National CO2 offset, the British Government has decided to force its citizens to pay for carbon-offsets via taxation - because, hey, what better way for the government to solve a problem than to raise a tax, right?

Well, actually, its really taxes. But hey - details, schmetails.

Nevertheless, a new poll suggests that some 2/3 of Britons feel that their Government is using environmental issues as a front, and that behind this front they are simply raking in extra tax dollars. And, as it turns out, those 2/3 of Britons are right. It seems that the U.K Parliament is taking in far more in environmental taxes than it might need in order to pay for the Nation's carbon offsets.

The estimated cost of this off-set scheme? 11.7 billion Pounds. The amount of money the Government raked in in eco-taxes? 21.9 billion Pounds. A full 10.2 billions Pounds more than they actually needed.

(For us Americans, that would probably be, like, somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion, given the exchange rate and all.....)

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Needless to say, this system the British Government came up with to try and reduce Britons' CO2 emissions hasn't really done anything other than, well, swell the coffers of the British Parliament; and, hell, that's assuming that this whole carbon offsets-purchasing program isn't a big crock of bullshit to begin with. (Which it is.)

So, Americans, beware of the Global Warming doomsayers who warn of catastrophe if we don't increase our taxes on gasoline use; because the only thing that the government does to any great degree by increasing these taxes is increase its available funds - evidence the extra 10 billion Pounds sitting around Westminster Palace.

Finally, there's no question that we need to reduce our consumption of oil - much of that foreign oil serves as a financial lifeline for Islamists - however, the way to do that is most certainly not through increased taxation.

Besides, the idea that we (or our government) could buy 'indulgences' to atone for our sins so went out of style after the Protestant Reformation.

Private Health Care Still Working

Well, that is, if you assume that, when a patient gets something like cancer, the best Health Care system will be the one that keeps the most patients alive. Which, if I may say so, seems a pretty fair assumption to make.

Here's the link.

The important info is in the table on the right side, which shows the survival rates of all cancer patients in European Countries by gender. For good measure, they threw in the United States' rates and, unsurprisingly, they were the highest rates for both males and females. The margin was much smaller for females than it was for males, but I'm guessing the Americans who make up that slightly-more-than 1% edge in female survival rates would caution you against calling that percentage insignificant.

Moreover, if you were to go by the numbers, you might say that there are some things that those in Universal Health Care paradises could learn from us - things such as, you know, how to better cure their patients - but, fortunately for Europeans, a good socialist doesn't have to let facts and figures get in his way.

One other thing to note is that this study, done by The Lancet, calculates the survival rate based on how many of a Nation's cancer patients have survived their cancer 5 years after their diagnosis (with the research being done between 2000-2002). When one expands the research beyond that 5-year period, and looks at the ultimate mortality rates from cancer diagnoses, the United States puts a great deal more distance between itself and many of its, more Socialistic, competitors. At least, that is insofar as some of the most common types of cancer are concerned.

(Indeed, the article I linked to above doesn't quite do the United States' advantage in some areas of the 5-year study justice, for a better look at the numbers click here)

At the end of the day, of course, irrespective of the margin or time frame, the lesson to be learned remains the same: American Health Care does a better job of curing cancer than its European counterpart - despite being less socialized in its nature.

This is not a coincidence.

Natural Selection - It Really Works!

This video brings to mind something that Darwin once said.....



....you know, the part about how less evolved members of a species tend to die off and not reproduce.

When Do-Gooders Attack

Here's a simple question for you: To whom does the ultimate responsibility for your own health fall? Stupid question, right? In a reasonable world, your own health would be your own responsibility. Indeed, unless you are a young child, you have the freedom to choose what it is you eat, how much you exercise, and whether or not you smoke cigarettes. On top of being able to choose what exactly it is you do to your body, you, theoretically, can also choose when and where you do these things. In Surfside Beach, South Carolina, however, that's about to change.

Earlier this week, in the name of everyone's health and well-being, 4 of the 7 members of the Surfside Beach Town Council voted to outlaw smoking in public buildings. Barring a miracle, this bill will soon become law when, assuming all Council Members vote the same way, the second vote on it (which Town Council rules require) comes on July 24. Those supporting the bill have cited both concerns over second-hand smoke exposure and concerns over violations of, to quote the Ordinance's sponsor Judy Tuttle, people's "right to clean air."

Whatever the Hell that is.

Indeed, ever since the world discovered that, much to our surprise, smoking something filled with an addictive drug was, in fact, bad for one's health; cigarettes and the companies that make them have become some of the easiest targets for the word 'evil' since Adolf Hitler. Of course, as so often happens in America, anyone and everyone's righteous anger over cigarettes is somewhat misplaced. No doubt, it's easy to pick on a company like RJ Reynolds because, hey, they make cigarettes, and cigarettes are bad for you, and cause health problems, and these evil people not only make them but have the gall to market them, as well; yet, at the end of the day, making a product and marketing it is what all companies do, even ones like Anheuser-Busch, whose products can be equally as bad for your health.

Furthermore, and more to the point, it's much easier for all these people to decry an evil company rather dealing with their Aunt, Father, or friend who consciously decided to pick up a smoking habit back when they were 18. Consciously was the key word in that last sentence. Everyone in this country who smokes, does so of their own free will and at their own risk. If anyone is to blame for the ill-effects of second-hand smoke, it's partially those who actually smoke the cigarettes. Yet, to make them the sole culprits would be both irrational and irresponsible.

As non-smokers, we choose with whom we associate ourselves and which public places we frequent. Consequently, if I as a person am deeply concerned about the effect which second-hand smoke might have on my health, then I should probably avoid dating someone who smokes or frequenting Sports Bars. The government should not be the one looking out for my health - if I'm not sensible enough to take that responsibility upon myself then I better be prepared to pay the price when I age. Nevertheless, by proposing this smoking ban, that is exactly what the Surfside Town Council is doing: making the government, and not the citizens themselves, partially responsible for people's health.

Egregious as it might be, however, the Surfside Town Council's willingness to create a Nanny-state and relieve ordinary folks of the responsibility of their own health is not even the biggest flaw in this particular piece of legislation. Indeed, the biggest concern, for those of us worried about individual liberty, arises from the ease with which the Town Council feels it can regulate people's right to do what they please.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way trying to support or condone smoking, but the fact of the matter is that smoking a cigarette is not illegal, thus leaving people free to do so. It may be bad for your health, but that simply does not give the government a right to regulate it. We have, in essence, a right or, if you will, a freedom to screw up our lives which is every bit as valid as the freedom we have to succeed and make something positive of our lives. We have the freedom to choose and must live with the results, it's simply not the government's job to try and hold us by the hand if we make the wrong choice. In a similar vein, since when can a government, at any level, step in and tell a private business, such as a restaurant, what they may or may not allow within the confines of their property? If a restaurant owner wants to have smoke-free premises, that's his choice, but it's simply not something that the government can mandate.

As American citizens we have been given a truly unique and awe-inspiring brand of freedom, but with that freedom comes responsibility and with responsibility comes consequences. These three things are inter-related and will be forever connected; thus, when any part of the American government, be it the U.S Congress or a simple Town Council, as in Surfside, tries to eliminate or alter one of the three they will do so to all three. The Surfside Town Council believes that it is a Government's place to step in and try to alleviate us of the responsibility to manage our own health and to try and eliminate the unfortunate consequences of others' poor ability to do so; what they have failed to realize, however, is that in doing so they are also compromising and eliminating some of these same people's freedoms - and that is most certainly not their job.

Those Crazy Brits

Q: What happens when big government gets between an Englishman and his cigarettes?

A: He uses his (classically British) sense of determination to get around it in any way possible; which, in this case, happens to mean turning his Pub into an Embassy for some remote Caribbean Island. (story)

20 bucks says that, by the end of this week, a cannabis joint near you will check into whether or not the Dutch already have an Embassy here in the U.S.

If He Finds Himself In A Dogfight....

...I hope to God that whoever it is that's battling him (in the '08 GOP Primary or the General Election) will destroy Senator Graham with an attack add like this:



Of course, the problem that we opponents of Senator Graham have always had, remains - that being: who do we run against him? The conventional wisdom, for the last few years, was that Thomas Ravenel would be the man who was both willing and able to do it; however, given his recent..... um.... situation...... well, let's just say that getting charged with intent to distribute cocaine is no way to start one's attempt to unseat an incumbent U.S Senator.

The search goes on, I suppose, but if someone in the South Carolina GOP wants to present a serious challenge to Lindsey in the '08 primary, they're going to need to get in on the action soon.
Oh well, for now, at least, I remain optimistic.

Because It Couldn't Possibly Be Their Own Fault

I guess that once one becomes a fervent believer in the religion of global warming, blaming that religion's 'apostates,' if you will, for the world's problems is a logical next step. Well, at the very least, it is for the UN Secretary General, who, in Sunday's edition of the Washington Post, blamed the genocide in Darfur on, you guessed it, global warming.

No, seriously, he did.

But hey, some religious nutbags believe that 9/11 was God's punishment to us for tolerance of gays, others, that genocide in Darfur is God's punishment for not taking global warming seriously enough.

Or, at least, I suppose that's how the logic would go.

Philosophically speaking.

Thing is, religious extremism, no matter whether your religion is Christianity, Islam, or Global Warming, is unbecoming, stupid, and, well, a serious problem for those of us with brains enough to have remembered that age-old wisdom about taking things in moderation.

However, there is another, more important, and perhaps predictable, feature of Secretary Ban Ki Moon's editorial of which one should take note. That, of course, is the startling lack of responsibility he gives the very organization which he heads.

You know, the one dedicated to the principles of Human Rights, World Peace, and whatnot.....

Never mind that millions of people died in a genocide while his United Nations stood by and did practically nothing - just blame the whole shin-dig on global warming. Because, you know, when it comes down to it, that's a hell of a lot easier than looking into why your organization failed so miserably in attempting to stop or lessen the violence in Darfur.

With those kind of passing-the-buck skills, Mr. Moon will fit in quite nicely as the new head of the UN.

Moreover, Secretary-General Moon and his fellow global warming faithful will never be in short supply of that one thing which religious nuts of all kinds share in common: stupidity.

And So It Begins....

In the aftermath of his strong stance on behalf of Ted Kennedy and illegal aliens everywhere, it appears that some of my fellow South Carolinians have reached their limit with our good Senator Lindsey Graham. In the past few days, a couple of new blogs have popped up which concern themselves exclusively with evicting Lindsey Graham from the U.S Senate when he stands for re-election in 2008.

Here's the links for you:
- Dump Lindsey Graham
- Boot Lindsey Graham
And for good measure, similar sentiments from one of our fellow Carolinians of the Northern variety:
- Lindsey Graham Countdown Clock

Senator Graham has developed a rather mean liberal streak during his time in the Senate, and he has certainly ceased to represent the majority of South Carolinians - who are true Conservatives. Consequently, I must say, it's nice to see my fellow South Carolinians take issue with this man, and begin the arduous process of a grassroots campaign against him. Of course, while for many in South Carolina (and around the country) it seems to have taken the recent Immigration bill to make them fully realize the extent to which Lindsey Graham is a pathetic excuse for a Senator, some of us had this figured out quite some time ago.

You see, before he got into politics, Lindsey Graham made his fortune as a Trial Lawyer, and not just any kind of Trial Lawyer, but the kind who makes the big bucks suing Doctors through Medical Malpractice lawsuits. Indeed, Graham once secured a $5 million dollar payout in one of his Malpractice cases. The fact that he made some serious money in such a fashion would, naturally, make him somewhat hesitant to support, oh, say, tort reform. And indeed, back in 2003, Graham's very 1st year in the Senate, he was one of only 2 Republican Senators to oppose President Bush's proposed tort reform bill. Furthermore, aside from voting against the bill, he actively campaigned against it, and made clear that he would actively campaign against any such future legislation.

After discovering those few nuggets of information, those of you who've been reading this blog for any period of time will understand why I vowed long ago to never vote for this man - ever.

Given all this, the game now becomes one in which the move falls to South Carolinians, as they must find a solid Conservative who will be both willing and able to beat Graham in the Republican primary. Of course, given the State we're talking about, I highly doubt there'll be a shortage of such folks!

So here's to the 111th Session of the United States Congress (set to begin in 2009); a Congress which will feature Jim DeMint as the Senior Senator from South Carolina.

Bush Makes Good on Promise

Way back when he was campaigning for President the 1st time around, back in 2000, then-Governor George W. Bush made a promise to the American people. He assured them that, once in office, he would be a "uniter, not a divider." Many people, particularly on the left, have been sarcastically/mockingly referring to this remark for the 6+ years of his Presidency. Sadly, their fun is now at an end. Now, finally, President Bush has made good on this promise to unite us all. With the coupling of his proposed immigration "reform" bill and the War in Iraq, both Republicans and Democrats have now, at long last, become united - united in their strong dislike for President Bush's policies.

I'm guessing that wasn't the kind of unity he was planning on - but hey, a politician coming through on a campaign promise happens so infrequently, we might as well try to focus on the positive, right?

Yes indeed, since he has become adamant about giving amnesty to Illegals and not bringing our border security up to par, the very grassroots Conservatives who campaigned for him, stuck up for him, and took heat for supporting him, have now been officially bitch-slapped by him.

Oh, and those grassroots Conservatives? They're hitting the President's Party where it hurts - the wallet, as RNC small-donor contributions are down by an estimated 40%!

I guess not contributing to the RNC is another thing on which Republicans and Democrats can now agree.

So congratulations Mr. President for making good on your promise; I just hope this wasn't what you really wanted.

The Poppies Blow

On this Memorial Day, in honor of all Americans who have served their country, I offer up one of my favorites: In Flanders Fields.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep,
though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Before I conclude, I'll just add one more thought from my favorite General:

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the [soldiers] who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived." ~ G.S.P

Thank you, Veterans.

It's Tough To Give It Up

Yesterday, the South Carolina State Legislature concluded a rather contentious round of Judicial Elections by selecting S.C Appeals Court Justice Donald Beatty to the State's Supreme Court. Of course, in typical South Carolina fashion, in doing so, they unapologetically passed on a Judicial candidate who, to quote The Sun News, had "[more] experience [and a higher] Bar Association rating:" the Chief Justice of the State's Appeals Court, Kaye Hearn.

In other words, the S.C State Legislature didn't feel that it needed to select the most qualified Justice for the position. You see, the winner of this State Supreme Court nomination, Justice Beatty, happens to be black, and, thanks to the fact that only 1 African-American has served on the State Supreme Court since Reconstruction, in recent years the Legislature has taken some heat for the lack of 'diversity' on the Bench. So to be blunt, the election of Beatty to the S.C Supreme Court was the purest form of Legislative politicking and political ass-covering. Indeed, to make matters worse, the 3rd Candidate for the position, Appellate Court Justice Brian Williams, necessitated multiple rounds of balloting for the position, because a solid block of Legislative Republicans refused to vote for Beatty, whom they deemed 'too liberal'. In fact, at the end of the day, the Justice who, on paper at least, appeared to be the most qualified candidate for the job ended up a distant 3rd in a contest of 3.

Confused yet? Heh, you probably should be - the politicking, bargaining and outright vote-swapping which go into South Carolina Judicial Elections have become notorious in the last decade. Indeed, the blatant dubiousness of the behind-the-scenes action that went into South Carolina Judicial Elections prompted, back in 1997, the creation of a Judicial Merit Selection Committee; in order that South Carolina's abominable method of Judicial Selection might be made somewhat less worse.

See, South Carolina, along with Virginia, is one of the last 2 States in the Union which select the Judges for the top 3 State Courts (Supreme, Appeals, Curcuit) via an election within the State Legislature. As you might expect, this particular system not only invites but enourages the practice of cronyism; and, indeed, of the 14 Justices serving on South Carolina's Supreme and Appeals Courts, 9 of them were, at one point in their lives, members of the State Legislature. In neighboring States (excluding Virginia, of course) similar Courts have generally between 0 and 2 members with such experience - despite the fact that all such States have more than 14 Judgeships available.

Moreover, on top of the blatant cronyism found in this Judicial Selection method, one of course finds the aforementioned occurrences of vote-swapping, bartering and deal-making. While these are, unsurprisingly, typical features of the Legislative (lawmaking) process, one would think that when it comes to selecting Judges for something as important as your State's Supreme Court, Legislators might go out of their way to burden themselves with the efforts necessary to determine and select the Judge best qualified for the available position. Afterall, the Judicial Branch of Government is, in theory at least, supposed to be the most objective and impartial of the 3 Branches. Sadly, this is not the case in South Carolina. Politics, interest groups, and in-State regional influences are what determine the awarding of South Carolina judgeships - not credentials.

The dubious nature of this politicking got so bad that, in 1996, even the typically lackadaisical residents of South Carolina were forced to take notice and demand reform. The result was the adoption of a new State Constitutional Amendment, the following year, mandating that all Judges 1st be approved by a Judicial Merit Committee before being voted upon by the State's General Assembly. Of course, in a political maneuver that would have made even the slickest of Lawyers quite proud, the new amendment was worded such that 6 of the 10 people sitting on the Merit Committee are none other than elected members of the State Legislature.

In other words, the core nature of the system remains the same, South Carolina's State Legislators, exclusively, select our State's Judges, and thus the flaws of the old system remain with us in the new - and that's why South Carolina needs a change. Legislative Selection of Justices is, to put it mildly, an outdated and downright terrible method for selecting Judges. I mean, if the 3 branches of Government are to be equal, doesn't it seem a bit irrational that one of the 3 would be entirely a function of another? But that's what South Carolina has - the Judiciary Branch of the South Carolina Government really is just an extension of the State Legislature. Couple that fact with the fact that the S.C Governor remains one of the weakest such officers in the Country, and you have what is, relatively speaking, one of, if not the, most powerful State Legislature in the Union.

When it comes to Judicial Selection, there is, admittedly, no easy answer. However, there is one, very clear, wrong answer - Legislative Selection. South Carolina would greatly benefit by changing its Judicial selection process to something which closely resembles the Federal model. In other words, Gubernatorial appointment with State Senate approval. In doing so, this State would go a long ways towards solving the two problems I mentioned above: the dependency of the Judiciary and the weakness of the Chief Executive.

Not that I expect the issue to be raised anytime soon, especially by the State Legislators who stand the most to lose by a change in the process. Besides, change is something that rarely happens quickly in South Carolina politics - something which, given its people and the all-powerful nature of its State Legislature, should come as no great surprise.

The 2008 GOP Race Comes Home

Last night I watched the 2nd Debate between the Republican Candidates for President, and while I can't say I was all that impressed, this was certainly much better than the 1st one on MSNBC, which was basically a contest to see who could say "Ronald Reagan" the most. Part of the reason for that, of course, was the fact that FOX hosted this debate, and they did an awesome job. The questions were tough, the format was good, and the only real flaw was that they seemed to completely ignore Duncan Hunter. The debate was hosted right here in the great State of South Carolina; although, despite this fact, the candidates, surprisingly, weren't overbearing in their attempts to pander to South Carolina's social Conservatives.

Alright, well, enough with the blah, and on to some real (well-sort of) analysis of the candidates!

Ron Paul would be golden if he could just manage to utterly and completely avoid talking about foreign policy. Seriously, the guy nails fiscal issues and domestic policy on the head....but then he starts talking about 9/11, Iraq, Iran, and other International issues and I suddenly get this burning desire to smack him in the head with a baseball bat.

On the other hand, he could be Tommy Thompson, who makes me want to wail on his ass with a baseball bat every time he opens his mouth. Please, GOP, if you have some decency left in you, do all that you can, use the Police if necessary, to prevent this man from coming on stage at the next debate. He adds abso-freakin-loutely nothing to the debates - and he....Just. Needs. To. Go.
For that matter, Jim Gilmore can also be banned from coming up on stage. While he's not nearly as irritating as Thompson, his presence on stage, like Thompson's, serves no purpose other than to waste air time that could be spent on other, more important, candidates.

As much as I like the guy, Tom Tancredo (who after bombing in the 1st debate, did very well last night) has absolutely no chance at the nomination. Zippo. None. However, I do hope that he stays in the race so that he can keep chiding the other candidates on Illegal Immigration.

Duncan Hunter, as mentioned above, was completely and utterly ignored. Honestly, I think he got 4 questions total during the entire 1.5 hours. He nailed what he got, but it's hard for a lesser-known guy to make headway when he gets no airtime. Brit Hume, you must work on this for next time.

Sam Brownback is just another run-of-the-mill, big-government Republican. Unless you really dig the hardcore evangelical thing, there is absolutely no reason to let this guy back into the debates. I don't dig the hardcore evangelical thing. Therefore, I think he should join Gilmore and Thompson on the sidelines. Besides, he has no chance anyways.

John McCain, so far, has looked extremely defensive in these debates. For him, that's not good, since his campaign numbers, recently, seem to have been going in the wrong direction. He needs to take a new, more aggressive approach. He's certainly not my favorite of the candidates out there, and won't be voting for him, but I have to admit, I do admire (and agree with) the principled stand he has taken on Iraq and on foreign policy in general. You gotta admit, at the end of the day (despite Rudy's whole "I was Mayor on 9/11" thing) McCain does have the most credibility of this batch when it comes to National Security issues.

Speaking of Rudy, he clearly had the line of the night when he smacked down Ron Paul's childish "blame America for 9/11" argument. Clearly, National Security is Rudy's forte and he looked very comfortable there tonight. However, there is this little problem he has; that being this whole 'pro-choice' position he's got going - and he got crucified for in this debate. Rudy's chances of winning the nomination now sorely rest on his claim (which he, interestingly, hinted at on stage tonight) that he is the only Republican nominee capable of beating Hillary in the general election. Unfortunately, he may not have the chance to prove that. In my opinion, tonight, Rudy lost any chance he had of winning the crucial S.C primary. In this State, a fair number of Democrats are more pro-life than Rudy, and for most of the Republicans, this issue ranks pretty high on their list of importance. Put another way, South Carolina doesn't have some of the Nation's strictest abortion laws for nuthin'.

Mitt Romney treaded water tonight. Not near as great a performance as he had in the 1st debate, but he didn't really hurt himself. Of course, given how low his poll numbers are in S.C (he's polling behind 2 guys who haven't even declared yet!!), that may not be what he wanted or needed. Indeed, while Massachusetts may have been ready for a Mormon Governor, it appears that the South is still not ready for a Mormon President. It sucks and it's unfair, but it still may be his doom.

The former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, was, in my estimation, the man who clearly came prepared tonight. In the past, I haven't thought highly of his chances, but he turned in a standout performance tonight. His comparison of Congressional spending to John Edwards in a beauty parlor was the most memorable line of the night, and he clearly, more so than any other candidate, helped himself up there last night. He scored some good points with S.C voters when he took Rudy to town on abortion, he had excellent responses to the challenges/though questions that were posed to him, and of all the guys who were there, I thought he was the winner.

However, overall, as I said earlier, I'm still not, in any way, overly impressed with this GOP field. However, the coming of late entrants into the field may be a saving grace. Here, of course, as political junkies will surely know, I'm speaking of former Tennessee Senator and long-time actor, Fred Thompson. Indeed, while Huckabee was the winner of those present, the overall winner of this debate may just be Fred. In case you haven't heard, Fred has been rumored to be entering the race for some time now, and all indications are that he's going to jump in at some point. He's been polling extremely well among the GOP base, generally finishing in the top 3, despite not having yet declared; and sitting around and letting voters be unimpressed with the current crop of candidates, while they beat up on each other, may be a well calculated, and intelligent, move on his part.

So there you have it, that's my take on South Carolina's 1st 2008 GOP debate; and here's to hoping we have more debates that are as well-run as this one, and, while were at it, here's to hoping Fred Thompson is around for the next one.

Oklahoman Diversity

Found this and it was too funny not to post.

Now, having been there a few times in my life, I know that Oklahoma isn't exactly the 'Melting Pot' capital of the United States....but, um, I had no idea their definition of diversity could be so.....uniform.

Apparently, a few years back, the Oklahoma Governor, by executive order, created the "Governor's Ethnic American Council" for the State of Oklahoma. From what I gather, it's supposed to help advise the Governor on matters that concern Ethnic Americans....oh, screw it. Just click here, scroll down, and look at the names of the Council's members.

You just gotta love all that ethnic diversity, eh?

Did I mention that the Governor, Brad Henry, happens to be from the self-proclaimed Party of Diversity?

Oftentimes, with politics, the jokes just write themselves.

Oh, A Change Could Do Them Good

With the conclusion of the high-profile debate earlier today, the race for the Presidency is entering its final stages. In France that is. What, did that one pass under your radar? Well, it shouldn't have. Indeed, all Americans interested in seeing someone, anyone, put a stop to the massive economic, cultural, and societal decline that's happening in France should take note of a man by the name of Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy is one of the two candidates who made it to the final round of voting in the French Presidential election. His opponent, Segolene Royal, hails from France's well-established Socialist Party making Sarkozy, particularly by French standards, a real right-winger of a candidate.

And let me assure you that, in France, the term 'right-wing' is quite relative.

Indeed, only in France would one be branded as "a danger to the Nation" for suggesting that, with a 12% unemployment rate, it might be time to take a second look at the mandatory 35-hour work week; or, in the aftermath of the massive 'youth' riots a couple years back, that tightening up the immigration policies and enforcing "law and order" might be a good idea.

Sarkozy, of course, for all the juvenile, ad hominem attacks he has endured at the hands of his opponents, is not, in any way, a "danger" to France. Hell, given the abominable state of the country these days, he might be the closest thing to a savior they've seen since De Gaulle. While Royal has been running a campaign based on emotion, mudslinging, and...uh, her own ego, Sarkozy has been running a campaign based on his qualifications and his positions on the issues. Indeed, in France, there appears to be no real question as to who is the more qualified candidate, they've conceded that one to Sarkozy, the real question seems to be whether a legit, policy driven President will serve them better than a pandering, ideologically-scattered President who they're not as scared of.

Political competence as a secondary issue - only in France.

Sarkozy, however, has bet that a majority of French voters are, in fact, smarter than I'd give them credit for, and will choose his ability over Royal's nonsense - and so far, the polls indicate that this bet will pay off. So what exactly might a Sarkozy victory mean? Well, consider some of his campaign platforms:

- Easing the restrictions on Overtime work, partly by reducing/eliminating the taxes placed on post-35th hour wages.
- Tightening up the immigration policy and keeping better track of all the immigrants who are allowed in
- Increasing criminal sentences and reducing crime, especially violent crime
- Lowering personal taxes

Sounds reasonable, no? To my, admittedly, outsider's eyes, the consequences of a Sarkozy victory would be a re-introduction of common sense into French Politics. Moreover, it would seem to indicate the beginning of a period of liberalization (in the historical, Jeffersonian sense of the word) in economic policy. In short, a Sarkozy victory might be a forbearer of change in French politics. That can only be a good thing.

I suppose we'll see on May 6th, when the 2nd vote takes place, whether or not the French agree with my assesment, and if they are willing to change and start down what could be a very long road to recovery. On the Campaign trail, Mr. Sarkozy has said that "the French are not afraid of change. They're waiting for it." Indeed, let's hope so - and let's hope that Sarkozy, if elected, actually delivers on the promise of change; because no 1st-World-Country needs change more than France.

The Suit Run Amok

Check out this story, and just try to tell me it's not the most ridiculous thing you've seen this week. I mean, seriously, $67 Mil for a dry cleaning mistake??? C'mon now:

" Plaintiff Roy Pearson, a judge in Washington, D.C., says in court papers that he's been through the ringer over a lost pair of prized pants he wanted to wear on his first day on the bench.

He says in court papers that he has endured "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort."

He says he was unable to wear that favorite suit on his first day of work.

He's suing for 10 years of weekend car rentals so he can transport his dry cleaning to another store. [ed. note: the amount he's suing for totals $67 million]

The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson's seemingly pained admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal.

'Satisfaction Guaranteed.' "

While we're on the subject of advertising slogans, here's one for you: 'Got Liability Reform??"

What does it say about the legal atmosphere we have in this country, that this Judge/plaintiff would actually take this case to court? It either means:

a) The guy feels he can win (and that speaks volumes); or
b) He feels that our court system is some kind of grievance forum, where people get to come and give other people/companies a bad name by complaining about their faults.

Of course, the above notwithstanding, the good ol' trial lawyers and their lobbyists will happily explain how this particular case, while outrageous, is not really indicative of the overall lawsuit industry (and it is an industry) in the United States - but it is. Only in U.S Court can you sue McDonalds for having hot coffee, or anyone you so choose for causing you 'emotional pain,' whatever the hell that is. Indeed, to go back to my point 'b)' above, it seems the Legal System of the United States, sadly, no longer concerns itself with Justice or common sense; instead, the Courtroom has become something of a group therapy session. People come and whine, complain, and flat-out bitch about how badly something has made them feel - which, naturally, is the jist of it. Simply put, these days people take someone else to court, not to seek justice, but in order to feel better about themselves.

In fact, for the plaintiffs, it's not so much about the money as it is just wanting to solve 'emotional' problems. The lawyers, of course, who help convince these people they have 'emotional' problems, are the ones really in it for the money. So in a nutshell: Overly-greedy Trial Lawyers + 'Emotionally-unstable' Morons = The Modern American Judicial System.

Hell of a world, huh?