Damn Foreigner is back, and it’s good to see him among the living (posting?).

His most recent entry was on a topic that is near and dear to his heart: immigration.  He’s a smart guy and makes some salient points.

However, I was left wondering what solution he might offer to fix this thorny problem.  Should we allow anyone into the U.S. without any regard for who they are, why they’re here, or what our needs might be?

I don’t think that’s what he proposes.  But there are some who feel that way.

As a Southern California native, I’ve noticed some things about this area.  To put it bluntly, the quality of life is falling due to overpopulation.  This is a long term trend that I’ve been watching over a period of decades.

When I fly over Southern California, the city extends as far as the eye can see.  From Santa Barbara to the Mexican border, and from Oxnard to Palm Springs.  It’s a solid mass of densely populated metropolis that covers 10,000 square miles.

Our resources are limited.  The land can only hold so many homes.  The roads can only hold so many cars.  The schools only so many kids, the land only support so many people.  The hospitals, the social infrastructure, they are also limited.

From what I can see, we reached those limits a long time ago.  And for better or worse, a significant percentage of Socal’s growing population are illegal immigrants.  They are not the only source of population growth, but according to the INS, for every three legal immigrants that enter the U.S., one enters illegally.  We take in about 900,000 legal immigrants and another 300,000 illegal ones every year.

This is why I feel that strong border control is necessary.

I am not anti-immigration.  I have always said that America’s strength derives from the freedom and diversity of her people.  However, for the reasons I stated above (not to mention national security — a porous border is an obvious asset to those who would harm us), we need to control the rate at which immigration takes place.

I also believe that, as a soverign nation, controlling immigration is our right.  It does not make us racists, despite what many would have you believe.

It’s ironic that when other countries control their borders tightly, they are not accused of jingoism.  To wit, a good friend of mine recently moved to Vancouver to work as an actor.  He’s a law abiding citizen with a clean record, but Canada decided he was not necessary for their work force.  He was compelled to return to the United States, and he did.

I don’t blame Mexicans with a third world standard of living for seeking out a better life.  To be honest with you, if I were in their shoes, I might well be doing the same thing:  trying to sneak across the border.  On the other hand, I couldn’t honestly fault the United States for trying to keep me from entering the country illegally.

DF noted that some who wish to come to the U.S. don’t have a “line” to stand in.  Are we sure this is the reason they cross into the U.S. illegally?  As he said, the process of legal entry takes time.  There is a certain ease to simply crossing the border rather than dealing with paperwork and delays.

Illegal immigration isn’t just bad for the United States.  It can be disastrous for the immigrant.  As DF noted, illegals are ripe for exploitation since employers know they cannot seek the legal protections and remedies that the rest of us enjoy, lest they risk detection and deportation.

U.S. immigration law allows for entry into the U.S. via four basic methods:  family sponsorship, employment, diversity, and political asylum.  There are myriad ways to get into this country legally, but it’s entirely possible that some people simply don’t have a legitimate claim for entry into this country.

For example, Mexico might well be given a low priority on the “diversity” list since so many Mexicans have recently immigrated to the U.S.  So many, in fact, that according to the Southern California Association of Governments, Hispanics are no longer a minority group:

The Hispanic population now represents the largest ethnic group (40.57%) in Southern California, followed by White (38.85%), Asian (10.19%) and African American (7.30%).

The bottom line?  We cannot take everyone who wants to come here.  The demand exceeds our ability to supply, especially here in California where, according to the last census, we took in more aliens than New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey combined.

Last Friday, former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham was sentenced to eight years and four months in federal prison for what has been described as the worst case of corruption in the history of Congress.

I had a theatre professor in college who once said that when you make a choice on stage, don’t be timid – commit to it.  His parlance was, “sin boldly”.  That’s what I thought of when reading the laundry list of Cunningham’s offenses.  He sinned… boldly.  Bribery.  Tax evasion.  Conspiracy.  Lying to government investigators.  The list is long, and the dollar amounts are big.

Was the sentence just?  If anyone was cheated by his actions, it was Duke’s own constituents.  You may want to read their comments.  Some pro… but mostly con (no pun intended).

Political malfeasance isn’t surprising.  What irritates me about Cunningham is that he’s given aviators and the U.S. Navy a black eye, reinforcing every macho “Top Gun” stereotype imaginable.  Okay, that’s not illegal.  But I wish it was.  Organizations like AOPA spend years educating the public about how conscientious aviators are.  I’ve expended a lot of energy on that topic myself, and it all gets wasted when a high profile individual like Cunningham goes off the deep end.

Duke has to repay his ill-gotten gains — at the rate of $1,000 per month.  Since his congressional and military pensions are still in full effect (they can only be stripped in cases of treason), he won’t exactly be left destitute.

The average pension for a former congressman is $55,788 per year, and based on his time in office, he should be getting more than that.  I’d estimate closer to $85,000, based on examples in the CRS Report.  I don’t know what his Navy pension will be, but I assume it would push his income well into the six figure range even while he sits in prison.  I don’t know what you do for a living, dear reader, but to this flight instructor that seems like a lot of dough.

I’m glad the judge gave consideration to Duke’s military service.  Wartime service is honorable and worthy of rememberance.  But I can’t help but feel he’s getting off lighter than a no-name offender would.

So would I.

CafePress has a few gems.  But this one is my favorite.

Iraq is now creeping away from murderous authoritarianism to face the more normal messes of a creaky Third World nation: corruption, poverty, health problems, miserable public services. And that is vastly preferable to what came before. 

American Enterprise editor-in-chief Karl Zinsmeister just got back from Iraq, and he looks at the war’s progress from short and long-term historical perspectives.

His conclusion:  perhaps the sky isn’t falling after all.

If you want to read the Arthur Cherenkoff media analysis Zinsmeister refers to, it’s available here.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written and maintained by the millions of people who use it.  Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and its contents are free and open.

Open communities of this type have a sordid history on the internet.  Without rigorous moderation, these things devolve into a repositories for conspiracy theorists, morons, flame wars, and really twisted stuff like spam.  Usenet is the ultimate example.  It’s 99% noise, 1% content.

Wikipedia has managed to sidestep these landmines.  It’s not perfect, but it does represent the largest and most up-to-date encyclopedia on the planet.  For a free, user-operated web site to be that useful is quite an achievement.

Alas, the grubby Mr. Smiths in Washington are spoiling the party.  Surprise, surprise.  They’re using Wikipedia to airbrush the truth, trash their political opponents, and generally run the joint like it was one of their advertising campaings.  Normally they’d get away with it, but on the internet, IP addresses allow these things to be traced.

It’s reached the point where an RFC (request for comment) has gone out to the Wikipedia community proposing that the U.S. Congress have their IP addresses blocked permanently.

If only the voters could block these clowns that easily…

CNet summarized the situation nicely:

We already know, of course, that politicians live primarily for re-election and typically view the truth as an impediment to the higher purpose of unfettered self-aggrandizement.

Still, we can be excused for feeling mildly nauseated when fresh confirmation of this distasteful aspect of modern politicking surfaces.

The latest episode appeared last week in the form of a report that aides to Rep. Marty Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, deleted references to his broken term-limits pledge and massive campaign war chest on Wikipedia.

Then the trusty editors at Wikipedia got together and compiled a list of over 1,000 edits made by Internet addresses allocated to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The IP address subsequently was blocked and unblocked.

An extensive analysis reveals how juvenile official Washington secretly is, behind the mind-numbingly serious talk of public policy.

One edit listed White House press secretary Scott McClellan under the entry for “douche.” Another said of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma) that: “Coburn was voted the most annoying Senator by his peers in Congress. This was due to Senator Coburn being a huge douche-bag.”

(Keep in mind these are the same holier-than-thou political climbers tasked with writing laws telling the rest of the country how to behave. Or else.)

This juvenalia is, of course, thoroughly bipartisan. Another change to the Iraq invasion entry shows that the anonymous congressional editor played up the dubious connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

It’s true, of course, that the cretins who are behind the Wikipedia alterations can (and probably will) do this from their home computers in the future. But the difficulty in policing the political class shouldn’t make us any less alarmed at the most recent evidence of its misdeeds.

The latest AVweb contains a very disturbing article which, while aviation-related, has implications reaching far beyond our quirky corner of the world.  Indeed, this thing comprises a serious erosion of basic constitutional rights that should concern every American whether they fly or not.

…the California Department of Health Services, Radiologic Health Branch, came to the warehouse expressing concern about radium-dial instruments on the premises. This set a process in motion that seems to have no end — even almost eight years later — and thus far has resulted in the destruction of over one million (yes, one million) irreplaceable historic aircraft instruments and related parts, only a tiny fraction of which had any radium. It has also resulted in the razing of one of two warehouses that housed the items since the 1950s. So far, the cost of the “cleanup” has exceeded $7 million and the bill is being presented to Jeff, personally, even though it was a lawfully incorporated company that owned the instruments. Under the law, he cannot even protect his house and family by declaring bankruptcy, so our government has inventoried his house and its contents for possible seizure and sale.

The article touched a nerve for three reasons.  The first and most important of those is ennumerated above.  The second reason is because this all took place at Chino Airport, a well-loved local haunt and home to numerous friends.

The third reason is a personal connection.  One of my co-workers at Sunrise had their Stinson 108 restored recently, and much of the work was done at Chino.  The project was held up for quite some time due to the fallout (no pun intended) from this radium instrument issue.  As I recall, the 108 has instruments with the radium faceplates.

The ultimate irony here is that at Chino — and airports all over the country — pilots toss fuel samples on the ramp every day during preflight inspections.  That fuel contains high concentrations of tetra-ethel lead, a carcinogen which is present in far greater quantities than any collection of aircraft parts, no matter how large.

I flew into Montgomery Field in San Diego yesterday with a student pilot who’s preparing for his checkride. We shutdown the SR22 and decided to debrief the flight over lunch at Casa Machado. On our way out, I was perusing the wall-to-wall photos in the lobby and noticed a black and white picture of two guys sitting in an F-4 Phantom. The photo was signed, “America’s first ace in Vietnam - Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham”.

The photo wasn’t a surprise. Montgomery Field is in his district, after all. But the image of Cunningham smiling from the front seat of that Phantom was quite a contrast from the sniffling, self-admitted felon who’s on his way to jail for accepting millions of dollars in bribes.

Very sad. Cunningham had a fine career in the military. A successful fighter pilot, Top Gun instructor, and member of Congress, he had been granted some of the highest privileges our country can offer a person. And he threw it all away. For what? Weren’t the six figure congressional salary and attendent benefits enough?

Countless Americans struggle for years to overcome adverse circumstances and build themselves up from nothing. Duke Cunningham was handed the world on a silver platter and chose to flush it down the toilet.

He could have been a strong advocate for our aviation infrastructure, a much needed ally in the war against user fees, TFRs, and more. Instead, he’ll rot away in prison. Much like a Richard Nixon, any good he’s done will be overshadowed by the spectacular way in which he’s fallen short of even the most modest expectations Americans still have for our elected officials.

Part of me wanted to take his photo off the wall and tear it in half. Instead, I turned my back on it and walked out to the SR22 and mid-day sun.

If you’re an aviator, aviation enthusiast, or are connected in any way with the aerospace community, then this should be of interest to you.

The Federal government is proposing a permanent ban on general aviation flying in the Washington, D.C. area. The crippling Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) would cover approximately 3,000 square miles and set a precedent almost sure to be repeated in other Class B airspace around the country.

AOPA is encouraging pilots to comment on the proposal. As of right now, there have been more than 9,000 comments registered, and I couldn’t find a single one in support of the ADIZ. Indeed, I’ve never seen more than a couple hundred comments on any aviation docket. Even so, with 650,000 airmen certificate holders out there, the response has not been as strong as necessary.

If you’d like to see general aviation continue to exist, be sure to submit your own thoughts to the Feds.

You know, I just got back from the final aerobatic competition of the season here in California, and was reminded once again how precious our aviation system is. Two of the Sunrise team’s competitors came from 5,000 miles away just to fly with us. The reason? There is no such thing as aerobatics in Japan (or most of the rest of the world). It simply does not exist.

General aviation is almost entirely an American enterprise. It’s one of the things that makes us special, and it’d be a shame to see it disappear, to say nothing of the billions of dollars in economic activity which would go with it (the GA world is about the same size as the petroleum industry).

Anyway, the proposal is now at the NPRM stage. An NPRM is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Basically the government is prohibited from enacting new laws without giving the public a chance to comment. Thanks to the wonders of the internet, you can do this online.

The comment period closes in 16 days, after which the FAA will read the comments and decide how to act.

Here’s what I wrote:

I am a professional, commercial multi-engine instrument rated pilot with more than 1600 logged hours. I am rated to fly land planes, sea planes, gliders, and more. I fly nearly 500 hours per year, mainly VFR flights around the Los Angeles basin. In addition, I’m an aircraft owner, CFI/CFII/MEI, and active aerobatic competitor on the southwest regional circuit.

To put it another way, my livlihood depends on general aviation VFR flying. It’s what I know, and what I love: teaching students to fly radial engine beasts, tailwheel aircraft, and precision aerobatics. I work for the largest aerobatic flight school in the world, one that has won more trophies and trained more pilots to a higher degree than any other. Without question, we are all under heavy pressure from escalating fuel prices, a tight insurance market, and growing regulatory burdens from the FAA.

To be blunt, the stakes are enormous. The world’s only viable general aviation system is at risk. This ADIZ proposal could not have come at a worse time, to say nothing of the fact that it has no redeeming characteristics. Indeed, it provides a false sense of security that achieves an unwanted end by making the skies less safe. Law abiding pilots are saddled with needless restrictions, while those who would do us harm are going to ignore the rules by definition.

The restrictions are needless because GA aircraft pose no threat. They are slow and light weight, meaning they carry very little kinetic energy. They carry little fuel and have limited payload and center of gravity envelopes. Less stealthy than a common car, far more difficult to operate, and infinitely more likely to be noticed as soon as the hangar door is broached.

Security comes from a tight knit GA community, not from fences and flight restrictions. We watch over each others aircraft, we know the sounds, sights, and N-numbers of aircraft using our local airports. We can spot a fraud farther away than anyone in the government, because our airports are “home” to us. We know our neighbors, their habits, their aircraft, and are more likely to investigate anything suspicious. THAT is security.

The Washington, D.C., ADIZ is unworkable. The burdens on controllers are far too high, the security benefits are a mirage, and it must NOT be made permanent. If the capital is to be protected, it should be done by limiting the airliners, not the GA aircraft. Airliners travel at nearly the speed of sound, carry huge fuel loads, and weigh hundreds of times more than a typical GA single engine airplane. If there is a terrorist threat from the skies, that is where it comes from.

There is nothing a terrorist can do with a general aviation aircraft that they cannot do cheaper, faster, easier, and with less chance of detection by using a car or truck. Terrorists want to create massive carnage, not break a few windows. GA is of no use for that.

No, the FAA must implement safer, more efficient and rational security procedures for the airspace in the Washington, D.C., area. Lighter aircraft, flying at slower speeds, should not be subject to the current ADIZ requirements for filing a flight plan, obtaining a unique transponder code and maintaining two-way communications with Air Traffic Control.

The proposed rule is also flawed because the evaluation of the economic and operational impacts on pilots and aviation businesses and an analysis of alternatives are insufficient. No general aviation aircraft has ever been used in a terrorist attack. And the government has determined that not a single ADIZ violation was terrorist-related.

In conclusion, this proposal has generated an unprecedented groundswell of criticism. No one armed with the facts supports it. If our government truly is of, by, and for the people, then hollow political “feel good” measures like this one must fall by the wayside.

Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one that sees the “big picture” the way I do. Recently, a fellow pilot in Arizona took the time to write about the escalating fuel prices and what this rise in energy costs is doing to the economy

Groceries are already going up in price here, it’s in small increments but if you think back to last year it’s clear many items are up 30% or more.

Ron, this fuel cost is going to change our country completely. I go through about 20 gallons of gas a week in my car. Not long ago that cost about $25, now it’s $60. Multiply that by 52 weeks a year and it’s now costing roughly $2000 more a year for one car. That’s about what my C310 insurance costs.My 100LL cost has doubled in the last 2 years, and flying is soon to become the private club of the seriously rich.

If you aren’t a multi-millionaire with a million coming in each year that adds up fast. I used to not even give it a second thought when I wanted to pull into a restaurant and buy a meal for me and my kids. Now I think 3 times before deciding. This gas price is pulling money out of areas that once were a routine part of my life and others. Everyone is going to suffer, the restaurant owners I used to visit 3 times a week aren’t going to see me but once every 2 weeks maybe. It just keeps being passed down the chain.

Hope springs eternal, let’s hope prices fall quickly before it wrecks this economy for years and changes a way of life we’ve known since the 1950’s.

Indeed. The fuel prices are really out of control. As I work in the transportation industry, there’s no choice but to pass the cost on to the customer. The Extra 300 we rented for $200 in the mid-late 90’s goes for $311 now. And unless you’re flying it solo, tack on another $55 an hour for the CFI. The Super Decathlon that was recently $130 or so is now $140, and it’s sure to go up again within days.

I wonder if the Chinese are paying through the nose like we are. Or the Europeans. If their gas was $8 a gallon a couple of years ago, does that mean they’re paying $12-15 a gallon now?

I couldn’t agree more about flying becoming a domain of the wealthy. It’s not just the gas prices or insurance. Landing fees are being instituted at more and more places. Santa Monica, for example. We’re totally priced out of airports like McCarran and San Francisco Int’l. And the airports that are cheap are either being closed (Rialto), are overcrowded (John Wayne), or are in such out of the way places that there’s no reason to go there (San Bernardino). The government is now openly discussing user fees, which would discourage pilots from using safety services.

I think that inflation is not only high, but rapidly accelerating. There was an article on CEO pay on CNN.com today which showed how the rich are getting richer. The top 10 CEOs have, over the past ten years, made something like $15,000,000,000. In case the zeros are making you dizzy, that’s fifteen billion dollars.

That’s not how much they’ve made for their companies, it’s how much they’ve been paid by their companies.

This I can at least understand, if not condone. Actually, I take that back. I don’t understand it. But the real estate mania leads me to believe that either a) the average Californian really can afford a $1 million home, or b) there’s something seriously out of whack.

Money aside, the usefulness of the general aviation system is being destroyed and no one seems particularly bothered by it. Except, perhaps, those of us who can’t do much about it. I’ve tried writing letters. A lot of them. I’ve commented on NPRMs, written to newspapers, legislators, and bureacrats. If I’m lucky, a pasty form letter will be my reward, and it will come 3-4 months after I’ve written, so whatever issue or vote was on the radar has long since vanished. You can almost hear the novice voice of the 4th string flunky who printed out this mealy form letter, which by the way doesn’t even address the issue on which I’ve written, but is so generic in nature as to cover anything related to the committee or panel on which he/she sits.

Sure, I like to fly. But it goes beyond that. We are rapidly catching up to the Europeans in socialization. And we’re adding our own pathetic twist in the form of homogenization. We all eat at the same chain restaurants, drive the same cars, shop at the same chain stores, and live in the same cookie cutter homes. You’re not a person anymore, you’re just a number.

This is no way to be. The last refuge of individuality and real character seems to be things like general aviation, which far too many people already see as the pervue of some rich white guys.

Sad to say, the price of things makes them a little more right as each day passes.

The July 25th edition of Fortune magazine features a pretty good analysis of the emerging challenges America faces from the likes of India and China. And, frankly, from our own affluence.

The article is particularly noteworthy because globalization is making it harder to seperate the wheat from the chaff when attempting to define causes and solutions. It’s not an “us vs. them” situation anymore.

Not that it ever was. But American companies now assemble American-designed products using parts manufactured offshore. Or vice versa. A foreign company will assemble their products here in the United States using parts that were manufactured by American. The Honda Accord is a good example. Is it a foreign product, or a domestic one? And while you’re pondering that one, perhaps you can tell me whether the chicken or the egg came first.

It’s tough to even define what it means to be “an American worker” anymore. Does it include only citizens? What about green card holders? And which camp do American citizens working offshore for foreign companies fall into?

I thought the Fortune article was a good read. Most analyses show either a strong bias toward protectionism or delve into some sort of connection to how the World Bank is exploiting the average worker and all governments are evil.

I’ve always felt that our main advantage over the likes of India and China comes from the fact that we have greater freedom and diversity than any emerging economy on the planet. While they didn’t come out and say it quite that way, Fortune touched on it peripherally:

If it all sounds terribly gloomy, it’s important to remember that gloominess has a very poor record in predicting the U.S. economy. Many traits that have helped us meet previous challenges are still with us: flexible labor markets, the world’s most highly developed capital markets, and a culture that moves on from failure and embraces new ideas.

No one out there thinks our diversity is going to go away. But our freedom…. that’s another story. Since 9/11, we’re less free. Ironically, economic success seems to be pushing communist China in the opposite direction. It’s this simple metric that portends the eventual top dog in the struggle for 21st century economic dominance.

They say that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. All I could think of when listening to the news this morning was that whoever’s behind this has quite obviously never cracked open a textbook.

Think about it. The IRA had no success in forcing England’s hand even after two solid decades of this sort of thing. Hitler took over the whole of Europe and most of north Africa, yet the British went about their business, stepping around the rubble of London to do their daily shopping between bombing raids by the Luftwaffe.

It’s the ’stiff upper lip’, and the English have it in spades. It’s one of the most admirable qualities, and one I wish we had more of here in America.

Lesley’s mother grew up in London during the Battle of Britain, so I’ve heard the stories of those years when flour was black, the only meat was Spam, and they proudly ate beans on toast because that’s all there was. Even today the British still eat that stuff, each bite a small testimony to the strength they gained from That Which Did Not Kill Them.

If the terrorists had studied their history, they’d know that while England may have slowly relinquished her empire over the course of last couple of centuries, on the home front they never gave an inch.

Does anyone actually think the Brits will capitulate? Back off? Cower in fear?

Please.

Fifty bucks says they’ve got more troops headed to Iraq and Afghanistan within days. Even the terrorists have got to know that. Yet they strike out in anger like a child throwing a tantrum in a restaurant, pissed off at the world and wanting everyone to suffer. Well go ahead and cry, little baby. There’s a hard lesson coming your way, and Union Jack will be doing the teaching.

The British would never use the phrase “bring it on”, of course. It’s just not their style. But the sentiment is clearly there.

So I’ll be eating beans on toast tonight. And enjoying every bite.

Break out the champaign. It’s party time!

The Transportation Security Administration, once the flagship agency in the nation’s $20 billion effort to protect air travelers, is now slated for dismantling.

Boy, I didn’t see this one coming. Hopefully, the reports of the TSA’s demise will not prove premature. I’d always assumed that once a government agency was given that much power, any attempt to curtail it would only land you in an administrative gulag that’d make Siberia look like a cakewalk.

My first encounter with the TSA occurred at John Wayne Airport in 2002. I was singled out for “additional screening” because I was dressed nicely. At least, that was the official answer. I asked the screener why all the folks singled out were white. The answer: to do otherwise would be racist.

Then there was the time I made the mistake of asking a screener in Seattle why they were confiscating tweezers from airline pilots when those same pilots would only minutes later be occupying a cockpit containing a large, razor sharp crash axe.

Yeah, that was a mistake. Don’t confuse them with logic. Or questions. And whatever happens, don’t stand up for your rights. Or admit to possessing a pilot certificate.

The Washington Post article was a bit more diplomatic:

The TSA has been plagued by operational missteps, public relations blunders and criticism of its performance from both the public and legislators. Its “No Fly” list has mistakenly snared senators. Its security screeners have been arrested for stealing from luggage, and its passenger pat-downs have set off an outcry from women.

I’m really starting to like the Post. They don’t just report the news, they use it as the source for a genuine comedy routine.

The agency’s very existence, in fact, remains an open question, given that the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security contains a clause permitting the elimination of TSA as “distinct entity” after November 2004.”TSA, at the end of the day, is going to look more like the Postal Service,” said Paul C. Light, a public service professor at New York University and a Brookings Institution scholar who has tracked the agency since its birth in February 2002. Light calls the TSA “one of the federal government’s greatest successes of the past half century,” and likens it to the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the late 1950s, which was also born amid great public excitement to serve an urgent national need.

Mr. Light cracks me up. First he compares the TSA to the Postal Service (which is insulting to the USPS) and then compares them both to NASA! One agency clogs our mailboxes with junk. The other put a guy on the moon.

Please.

The TSA’s day ended before it began. Any agency whose genesis is a panic induced rush to “do something” about security is going to end badly when that panic abates and Americans want to live in America again.

I predict this is only the start of a backlash against many of the irrational changes that took place after 9/11. The more odious provisions of the Patriot Act come to mind. The moronic flight restrictions around Washington DC, too. Even the little things count. British Airways recently announced that it was tossing out the plastic silverware in favor of metal.

Fare thee will, TSA: we wish we’d hardly known ye. Unfortunately, we did.

Few things make me truly angry, but this one comes close.

In the wake of the rising death toll from the Asian tsunami (currently 60,000 80,000 dead and still counting), United Nations emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland has implied that the United States is cheap because our initial federal aid package is only $35 million.

With all due respect to the United Nations — and I’m not sure much respect is warranted at this point — that is pure bullshit. And it’s made so much worse by Mr. Egeland’s own employment history. He was the head of the Norwegian Red Cross, and therefore must know that his implications are false because the Red Cross gets most of it’s contributions from individuals.

I hardly know where to start in refuting this insanity.

Let’s begin with the fact that the U.S. provides official foreign aid assistance through a government organization called the U.S. Agency for International Development. USAID, like every other part of the government, has a budget. They cannot spend money they don’t have. That is illegal. They had only $35 million of uncommitted funds left for the fiscal year, so that’s where the $35 million came from. To increase the funding, USAID will have to receive an appropriation from Congress.

Then let’s look at Secretary of State Powell’s statement that by the time all is said and done, the United States will provide “billions” in assistance. Even if we wrote a check for $1 billion right now, what good would it do? Who can spend a billion dollars that quickly? They can’t even locate all the bodies yet, let alone count them, bury them, and triage the needs of those still living.

Egeland knows this. But he doesn’t care, because this is not about helping the people who are suffering. It’s about making the United States suffer a political embarrassment.

That’s why he and his ilk enjoy pointing to the OECD figures on foreign aid development that are based on gross domestic product percentages. If you look at it that way, Norway donates the most (0.92% of GDP) and the United States is dead last (0.14%). We must really suck, huh?

On the other hand, perhaps we ought to consider the fact that the U.S. has dispatched an entire naval battle group to the region, along with C-130s hauling supplies, and more volunteers than you can shake a stick at. These things are not included in the OECD numbers.

Neither is private giving. Coming from a country so highly socialized that the concept of private giving must be astonishing, Mr. Egeland chooses to turn a deaf ear to the notion that anything significant can be accomplished unless it is done by a large government agency. But if you want facts, how about this one:

Americans last year gave an estimated $241 billion to charitable causes — domestic and foreign — according to a study by Giving USA Foundation. That’s up from $234 billion in 2002.

At a total GDP of $10.9 trillion, that means we’re spending 2.3% of GDP on charitable giving, or $870 per person for every man, woman, and child in the nation.

A quick look at Amazon.com’s site would show that in less than 24 hours, nearly $1,000,000 $2,000,000 has been donated by private individuals toward helping victims of the tsunami. I just donated $1,000.

Churches, synagogues, and other religious groups are raising money all across the country.

Worldvision U.S. has a message on its web site indicating that “due to overwhelming response to the devastation in Asia, you may experience delays making a donation online”. So many people are donating that it’s slowing down computers. Yet Egeland (and I’m sure much of the U.N. agrees) would call us stingy.

When you consider the true per capita charitable contributions of the American populace, I guarantee we will be at the top of the list. By a mile.

What really burns me up about this Egeland thing is that the guy spends a lot of time in New York City, where the United Nations has its headquarters. How anyone in the Big Apple could be under the impression that Americans are stingy after 9/11 is beyond me. Not only did we open our hearts and pocketbooks to those in need, but it’s the first thing we remember when tragedy befalls others around the globe.

You’d think the United States might be worthy of the benefit of the doubt.

For the past week, I’ve been having an interesting discussion over at Damn Foreigner on the subject of military recruitment.

Manish wrote an article suggesting that since there are so many supporters of the war, it shouldn’t be hard to find new recruits for the Army unless those who support it aren’t willing to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

His analysis seemed a bit oversimplistic and I said as much in reply to his post. It’s turned into a relatively long — but civil — comment thread.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find a place or person with whom to discuss opposing political viewpoints in an intelligent yet respectful manner. This is especially true on the internet, where contemptuous speech and peevish behavior are the norm. All the more reason to find these moments of sanity so refreshing.

I doubt I changed his mind. Nor did he change mine very much. But the civil exchange of ideas is where growth, knowledge, and understanding begin. I’ll go out on a limb here and state that we could probably use a bit more of that — not just in political discussion, but in general.

Don’t you agree?

MSNBC is reporting that Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign had $45 million left going into the final days before the election, plus another $7 million in a legal and accounting complaince fund, much of which was never spent.

If Kerry really thought he had a chance to win — and regardless of party affiliation, who didn’t? — why would his campaign sit on millions of dollars that could be spent in places like Ohio and Florida? When it’s a tight race, campaigns are known to spend themselves into considerable debt trying to reach every last voter.

While it’s a sure bet that the full $52 million did not go unspent, I’d wager that a solid $20 million remains in the campaign’s bank account. That could have financed some serious ad buys in the battleground states.

Perhaps Kerry was in the dark about this. I can’t think of many other explanations. He campaigned hard up to the last minute. Kerry even went so far as to remember children who had given their piggy banks to him in his concession speech. In retrospect, it’s like rubbing salt in the wound.

If I’d given my hard-earned money to the Kerry campaign only to learn that it had gone unspent, I would not be happy, especially since there’s no chance of gettin that money back. If I’d seen my son or daughter give up their allowance, I’d been even more upset. They gave to the campaign, and now that money will be used for another candidate or issue, perhaps one the donors don’t even support.

I can only think of one explanation for the unspent money: if Kerry knew he was going to lose and was sure to run again in 2008. Is it possible the campaign’s polling data was much worse than they let on?

Senator Harry Reid has been selected as the next minority leader in the U.S. Senate, succeeding South Dakota’s Tom Daschle after his reelection loss to John Thune.

It was a smart choice. I met Sen. Reid on a couple of occasions when I lived in Las Vegas, and he nominated me to the U.S. Naval Academy (I also received a nomination to Colorado Springs from then Congressman James Bilbray). I’ve been watching his career since he was southern Nevada’s sole congressman in the mid 80s.

I predict he’ll be an effective leader for his party in the Senate. Unlike House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Reid is a usually moderate, never shrill, and has shown a willingness to make reasonable compromises when necessary.

Reid has his own mind and does not blindly tow the party line. He is a big supporter of the mining industry, which puts him at odds with the environmental lobby. He opposed third trimester abortion and even garnered the approval of the NRA on his gun control. A true westerner at heart (a cowboy?), he is his own man. And like many of those folks, he’s soft spoken guy with a level head who does not seek the spotlight. In many ways, Reid is the antithesis of a Bill Clinton or John Kerry.

He’s also “old school” in the sense that he made a slow climb up the ladder over many years rather than rising out of political obscurity to buy his Senate seat with a self-funded $100 million campaign as so many seem to do today. He’s also extremely dedicated to the people of Nevada, having been a lifelong resident of the state. That puts him head and shoulders above Sen. Hillary Clinton, who moved to New York specifically to run for that state’s senate seat.

It’s also worth noting that Sen. Reid knows how to take a hit for the team. Literally. In 1981, Reid chaired of the Nevada Gaming Commission and was fighting organized crime’s control over gambling in Las Vegas. The mob attempted to kill him by wiring his car to explode. The plot failed, but Reid never backed down.

Who knows, maybe one day he’ll even climb the final rung and run for president. Were he to capture the nomination, I predict he’d do a lot better than John Kerry.

The verdict is in: I’m a genius. My election prediction came true. I correctly called both Florida and Ohio for President Bush, predicting those two would push him to victory. And so they did.

I was a bit off on the popular vote, thinking Kerry would do better. My rationale was that the hard core blue states of New York and California — which have a combined 56 million residents, nearly 1/5 of the total U.S. population — would land strongly in Senator Kerry’s column and thereby impact the national popular vote total. However, the President did comparatively well in both states.

In California, Bush received 4.3 million votes, a 44% share. Kerry came away with 55% and 5.3 million votes. I was expecting the split to be more along the lines of 70/30 in Kerry’s favor. But in looking at CNN’s county-by-county breakdown, the Republican party is strong in most parts of the state. It’s the coastal areas, specifically San Francisco and the Los Angeles basin, that hold they keys to Democratic strength in the state. Most of the rest of California goes Republican. The eastern two thirds of the state are pure red.

New York is about the same. Any way you slice it, President Bush did pretty well.

There were a few surprises. For example, my former home state of Alaska has re-elected Lisa Murkowski to the Senate in a race I expected challenger Tony Knowles to win. Her appointment to the Senate by her father — while no worse than Jean Carnahan taking over Mel Carnahan’s seat after his death — was widely expected to result in a backlash from voters in the 49th state.

As of now, it looks like the GOP managed to:

• retain the presidency
• gain four seats in the Senate
• gain at least four seats in the House
• gain one governorship (Washington)
• defeat the highest ranking Democrat in the Senate

Not bad for a day’s work. Well ok, it was more like a couple of years worth of work. But it represents the largest shift away from the Democratic party since 1980.

The defeat of South Dakota’s Sen. Tom Daschle was especially significant, because it represents the first time a Senate party leader has lost re-election in 52 years. It’s easy to understand why. A powerful senator can route tremendous Federal resources to his state, and an electorate is loathe to exchange that for a freshman who’ll be lucky to land on a fisheries subcommittee. I’m a bit sad to see old Tom go, because he’s an avid pilot and strong supporter of general aviation. He’s opposed user fees, ATC privatization, and other cockamamie things.

Though it has been a big night for the GOP, it’s not all flowers and sunshine. This election will consolidate power, making the GOP a larger (and more legitmate) target for both the opposition and the voters in ‘06 if Republicans don’t deliver the goods. Of course, this would only happen on a case by case basis. My impression of Congressional elections is that the electorate never looks at them as national referendums. Those races are won or lost on local issues. Few people vote for a representative based on how he or she will affect the partisan balance of the House.

I’m glad the presidential popular vote margin was large. Whoever won, I was hoping it would be by a sizeable margin. Bush won by more than 3.5 million votes, which means the lawyers have less opportunity to stage an encore of their Y2K performance in court.

As the 2004 election’s loose ends are tied up, it’s time to turn our attention toward healing, coming together, and moving forward. The problem is, I’m not sure how we do that. Is the GOP suppsed to abandon the platform it ran on in order to accomodate those whose candidates were rejected by the voters?

It’s been sad to see the way some Democrats are stuck on the “what’s wrong with 50% of the country?” mantra. There is nothing wrong with 50% of the country. If you really think 150 million Americans are crazy, then perhaps moving to Canada is not such a bad idea.

When the GOP wins election after election and claims ever larger majorities in House, Senate, and governorship seats, perhaps the proper question to ask would be, “Why don’t more voters pick our candidates?”. The country hasn’t changed, it’s the Democratic party that’s different. Maybe Zell Miller, Ron Silver, Ed Koch are on to something. Perhaps Sen. Richard Shelby, Sen. Ben Campbell, Sen. Bob Smith, and others who switched to the Republican party did so for a valid reason.

The President and the GOP are far from perfect. But until the Democrats reinvent themselves and the way they play the game, this red state trend will not change. I’m hopeful this election will inspire the Dems to do that soul searching, because a well balanced two party system keeps everyone on the up and up.

Election Day is here!

Yeah, you bet I’m excited.

I had my doubts, friends, that the day would ever come. The campaign seemed to go on and on like a mad cross between the Simpson trial and Groundhog Day. The closer we got to November 2nd the slower time seemed to go, until the hands on the clock were actually moving backward as if Ralph Nader was holding them there by sheer force of conviction that yes, he could still win this race.

I’m not one for making predictions — at least, not ones that pan out. But in this case I’ll make an exception since I’ve got a 50/50 shot at it. The popular vote will essentiall be a tie, but Bush will win the electoral vote by claiming both Florida and Ohio.

To be honest, I’m not that concerned about who wins the presidency. It looks as though the balance in the House will remain about the same and the Republicans will pick up two seats in the Senate, so even if Senator Kerry becomes President Kerry, nothing is going to get rubber stamped into law. And as others have observed, there is something to be said for letting the other party’s guy be the punching bag for a few years. If Kerry were to do well, it would be good for the country. If he were to make a mess of it, it would only cement him as a single-term president and damage the left’s hold on power.

What little concern I do have over the presidency comes from the fact that the Supreme Court may have several vacancies during the next four years, and the impact of SCOTUS nominations will be felt across the land long after the 44th president is gone. I think Bush would be more likely to select justices who interpret the Constitution strictly, whereas Kerry might favor activists and make his choice based on one or two issue litmus test. Kerry is not a man of political conviction, and that would not serve him well when the special interests started coming out of the woodwork to clamor for or against a potential Supreme Court nominee.

My primary concern, as I wrote at Damn Foreigner, is that faith in the American system remains firm. It takes a lot of character to be so close to becoming the most powerful man in the world and yet take the high ground when you lose by a hair. Despite the way Nixon’s presidency went to hell when he finally was elected, Tricky Dick certainly put the nation before himself in choosing not to dispute his razor thin 1960 loss to John F. Kennedy.

So even above my hope that President Bush wins reelection today is my fervent prayer that whoever loses does so with grace and puts the country before themselves by telling the lawyers to lay off.

Wishful thinking, I know.

One of the most interesting election scenarios would be a 269-269 tie in the electoral college. In that instance, the Senate would pick the vice-president and the House would, via state delegations, select the president. So we could end up with Bush and Edwards in office. It’s also theoretically possible that John Edwards could end up as both President AND Vice-President at the same time.

Anyway you slice it, it’s going to be an interesting day. I’ve got a staging rehearsal for Turandot at OCPAC later on. Thank God for opera! I’ll be doing something productive rather than self-immolating in front of the television.

I stumbled upon something interesting on the web the other day, the Lifetime Savings Account.

The LSA is a Bush administration proposal for a new kind of retirement account that might best be described as a Roth IRA on steroids. The discovery of the LSA proposal was exciting to me, because as a sole-proprietor with “variable” income, my only regular avenue for tax-advantaged retirement saving has been the Roth IRA. The problem with Roths is that the contribution limits are extremely low, maxing out at $3,000 per year. Obviously, unlike the 401k, there is no employer matching my contributions, not to mention no discounted stock purchasing, no options, no perks of any kind to sweeten the pot.

I established a Roth IRA because it has one big advantage over other retirement accounts. Your Roth IRA contributions are made “after tax”, so they don’t give you any tax break today like you’d get with a traditional IRA or 401k. But when you retire in 40 years or so, the money can be withdrawn from a Roth IRA tax-free.

At least, that’s the way it stands today. One never knows when a future cash-strapped Congress will turn on those of us who have built our retirements around the tax-free withdrawals promised by that very same body and start taxing the withdrawals.

I also like the Roth IRA because the long term trend over the past century has been toward higher taxes, larger government, and wider deficits. This suggests that taxes in the future will be higher than they are today, and any strategy that minimizes them at that point will be well worth the minor pain one endures today by losing the tax break on retirement account contributions.

The Lifetime Savings Account is an improvement on the Roth IRA because it increases the annual contribution limit to $5,000 while still allowing contributions to an expanded Roth IRA at $5,000 per year. That allows up to $10,000 of after-tax income to be placed in a future tax-advantaged retirement account. LSAs — as proposed, at least — would also remove many of the restrictions on withdrawals and contributions. This translates into greater freedom for Americans to use their own money as they choose. Freedom is a good thing.

LSAs were proposed by the Bush administration in January, 2003 and reached Congress in 2004 (S2263 in the Senate and HR4078 in the House). Both bills were referred to their respective finance committees where, as far as I can tell, they simply sat on the desk for the remainder of the 108th Congress.

With Keogh, 401k, SEP-IRA, and other retirement accounts typically having far higher contribution limits, I applaud the Bush administration for filling this hole and expanding the options for self-employed Americans. Now all the Congress needs to do is pass the legislation. It’s a shame the bills were stuck in a drawer this year. Hopefully the 109th Congress will display a little more moxie.

A decent rebuttal to some common arguements against LSAs can be found here.

I’ve already sent in my absentee ballot, but if I hadn’t, this is the kind of thing that would tilt the table in favor of the President.

Tony Snow reported last night that his contacts within the Kerry campaign indicated that they are conceeding Florida and will transfer resources to other battleground states.

This is surprising. Both candidates have practically lived in Florida over the past few months, and the overall polling data still shows a tight race. Kerry’s internal polling must reflect the CNN/USA Today/Time numbers which give Bush an eight point lead. I can’t think of any other reason for them to back out at this late date.

Indeed, Florida is not being spoken of much at all right now, as if the state somehow end up in Bush’s column without any fanfare. When CNN lists ‘battleground states’, they’re now omitting Florida. Fox is doing the same, though it still shows up in their graphical breakdown of the hotly contested states.

If Florida’s 27 electoral votes go to Bush, the President will be left with a 261-228 advantage, only nine electoral votes shy of the 270 needed for reelection. Senator Kerry will absolutely have to win Ohio plus three out of the four remaining toss-up states (Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Wisconson) to pull off an electoral college victory. And even then, the one remaining state that Bush claims has to be either New Hampshire or New Mexico. If Bush wins Wisconson or Minnesota in addition to Florida, it’s all over.

Disclaimer: this assumes there are no other surprises on election day. And that there are no ‘faithless electors’ in the EC. And that any legal challenges are successfully navigated by the winner. Void where prohibited. Yadda yadda yadda.

As if the legion of aspiring rap ‘artists’ who come upon the House of Rapp and conclude that I must be able to help them with their careers isn’t enough, here’s new evidence that rap causes brain rot: (via VodkaPundit)

If Osama bin Laden ever buys a rap album, he’ll probably start with a CD by KRS-One.

The hip-hop anarchist has declared his solidarity with al-Qaida by asserting that he and other African-Americans “cheered when 9-11 happened,” reports the New York Daily News.

The rapper, real name Kris Parker, defiled the memory of those who died in the terrorist attacks as he spouted off at a recent New Yorker Festival panel discussion.

“I say that proudly,” the Boogie Down Productions founder went on, insisting that, before the attack, security guards kept Blacks out of the World Trade Center “because of the way we talk and dress.

“So when the planes hit the building, we were like, ‘Mmmm - justice.’ ”

The atrocity of 9-11 “doesn’t affect us the hip-hop community,” he said. “9-11 happened to them, not us,” he added, explaining that by “them” he meant “the rich … those who are oppressing us. RCA or BMG, Universal, the radio stations.”

Parker also sneered at efforts by other rappers to get young people to vote.

“Voting in a corrupt society adds more corruption,” he added. “America has to commit suicide if the world is to be a better place.”

In related news, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is “a little put off” by the comments. But hey, they love his music, so no harm no foul. Right?

I suppose a few comments on the third and final presidential debate would be in order, since I did force myself to sit down and watch the whole thi-Zzzzzz..wmmmfmw….zzzzz….

Okayokay, I’m awake. I wasn’t sleeping, just resting my eyes.

After ninety minutes of talking points, one begins to think the Zucker brothers were watching a presidential debate when they wrote Airplane!. “I haven’t felt this bad since we saw that Ronald Reagan film…”

Why punish myself? I already voted via absentee ballot. More importantly, why punish you? I have no beef with you. You’re nice. And besides, we all go way back and uh, I owe you for the thing with the guy in the place.

Instead of noodling over which of the two suits had the fish for dinner, I elected to play around with CafePress a bit. I’m the last person on the internet without an online store of some kind. Even Bubb Rubb has one for Pete’s sake.

Of course, “dat’s only in da mornin”.

Anyway, have a look at what I came up with. I think the mousepad is especially cool.

I managed to catch the Bush-Kerry debate this evening, and I have to say it felt like Sen. Kerry came out on top.

My expectations for President Bush were high, despite his reputation as a poor public speaker. The thing about Bush is, he’s improved a lot as a speechmaker in the years since the last election, and although the campaign and pundits downplayed expectations, I really thought he would come out swinging on foreign policy since that’s seen as his big advantage, not to mention the area where he’s placed most of his focus during the past four years. Instead, he seemed flustered and stammered for the first hour, whereas Kerry was quite composed, spoke clearly, and was obviously well rehearsed.

Content-wise, the debate was more of a draw. Kerry didn’t blow it, but neither did Bush hit back when the Senator played fast and loose with the truth. For example: early on in the debate, Kerry said the Bush administration had spent $200 billion in Iraq, when in fact nowhere near that much has been spent. Plus, the $200 billion figure is the appropriation number approved by Congress. Of that amount, 40% is earmarked for Afghanistan and 60% for Iraq. Since Kerry does not quibble with the President on Afghanistan, we’re really talking about a much smaller number.

When Kerry rehashed the tired old line about opening fire stations in Iraq while they close in the U.S., I wanted Bush to remind him of the $8 billion earmarked by the administration for first responders. But as with many of Kerry’s attacks, Bush never got around to responding to them.

Kerry was wrong about the subways closing down in New York during the convention — they remained open. A small issue.

He was also wrong about the U.S. going it alone in Iraq. Not such a small issue.

There are about 30 nations involved, compared with something like 34 nations during the first Gulf War. To be sure, the contingent is getting smaller, but that’s to be expected. Major combat is (on paper at least) over with, and control of the country has been handed back to the Iraqi people. As the Iraqis bring more and more of their freshly trained troops online, the allies will draw down their own contingents. But England, Australia, Bulgaria, Poland, New Zealand, Thailand, the Netherlands, Moldova, Singapore, El Salvador, Lithuania, South Korea, Georgia, Italy, Albania, and others still have troops there.

I don’t understand why the President didn’t hit Kerry with these and other facts. Kerry came out with a lot of specific numbers, names, places, and dates. The President seemed to to have a hard time with these things.

The debate felt like a win for Kerry not because the facts were on his side, but because like all debates, the winner is determined more by style and poise than anything else. The televised 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate is a good example. Were the viewpoints espoused by Kennedy superior to those of Nixon, or did Tricky Dick’s five o’clock shadow and perspiration-soaked upper lip give Kennedy the edge in that very close election?

Swing voters probably got a better impression of Kerry than they did of the President in this debate. For that reason, I’ll put this one in John Kerry’s column.

Andrew Sullivan received an email that has a familiar ring to it.

I am a 33 year old wife and a mom of a 15 month old boy living in a wealthy liberal enclave of Los Angeles called Hancock Park where people go to the farmers market on Sunday, discuss the “plight of the poor” as their nannies stroll their young ones in Bugaboo Frog ($800) strollers on the magnolia tree shaded sidewalks on Fridays, and bash Bush, well, everyday.

This is a very common scene in the wealthier parts of Orange County, a famous ‘Republican stronghold’. Personally, I think this description is a huge misnomer. I’ve been here since 1989, and while everyone loves to talk about how conservative Orange County is, the reality is quite different. And why shouldn’t it be? The moneymakers in Hollywood are largely Democrats. Billionaires like George Soros are definitely supporting the Kerry-Edwards team. Senator Kerry would like you to believe that he’s being propelled by the support of his middle- and lower-class base, but it ain’t necessarily so.

Last Saturday, Lesley and I were returning from an enjoyable ‘two martini lunch’ at the Salt Creek Grill and decided to drive through the inland portions of Laguna Beach. We wound our way past hundreds of homes, but not a single one was worth less than a million dollars. Most are probably in the $5 million range. We’re talking rich with a capital ‘R’. There were Kerry-Edwards signs on many of the lawns, but I didn’t see a single Bush-Cheney.

Lesley thought it was probably due to the fact that Laguna Beach is an art colony, but I’m not sure that’s the answer. Laguna Beach is home to several famous art festivals and galleries, and its heritage is certainly that of an artists colony. But the folks with $5 million homes and matching Mercedes 500 series convertibles aren’t artists, they’re corporate types and business owners with high paying jobs. I don’t mean to dog on Laguna Beach. It’s one of my favorite places. But the disparity in political advertising was curious.

Laguna Beach is even home to a sizeable Kerry campaign operation right on Pacific Coast Highway near the famous Pottery Shack (which recently went out of business, unfortunately). Here in Irvine, where the median home price is nearly a million bucks, I see the same pattern: lots of Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers, not a single one for the Bush campaign. The only place Bush paraphernalia has been in evidence is in the older sections of north Orange County. Fullerton. Santa Ana. Garden Grove. But these are much less affluent areas.

Could the answer be something as simple as a climate of fear among conservatives? I don’t think so. The most famous blogger from Orange County is Kevin Drum, a staunch Democrat. We’ve elected several Democrats to Congress, including two Senators. Village Voice Media felt strongly enough about O.C. that they publish a newspaper here. Not a very good one, mind you. But it’s the thought that counts. I would even go so far as to say that most of my friends are registered Democrats.

If you want numbers, UC Irvine 2000 Annual Study found that Orange County is much less conservative than is generally believed:

Often stereotyped as a bastion of conservatism, Orange County does not fit the profile when it comes to social issues, according to UC Irvine’s 2000 Orange County Annual Survey. Though most county residents describe themselves as moderate (31 percent) to conservative (43 percent) politically, many hold liberal views on social issues.

The study found that residents of O.C. favored abortion access, gun control, gays serving openly in military, strict environmental laws, and held some non-conservative views on the issue of income taxes.

So what’s going on here? Just a holdover from the time when ‘wealthy’ was associated with ‘conservative’? If that’s the case, Kerry must be the bizzaro candidate because he would hold the distinction of being the wealthiest occupant of the White House in American history. No one else even comes close. The Los Angeles Times reports that the Kerry household has a net worth of $1 billion.

If you live in O.C., I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on how conservative the county is.

I had no idea that eBay was a topic on the presidential campaign trail.

Earlier this month, Vice President Dick Cheney was stumping in Cincinnati when he brought up eBay as an example of why economic data isn’t fully factoring in a robust recovery. “That’s a source that didn’t even exist 10 years ago,” he said, pointing out that the data munchers aren’t accounting for the fact that “400,000 people make some money trading on eBay.”

Sensing that it was something worth pouncing on, the person angling to replace Cheney as the country’s VP took aim. “He said people are selling a lot of stuff on eBay,” John Edwards said. “When we count the bake sales and lemonade stands, we’ll have a roaring economy.”

Nice sound bite, Senator. I can almost hear James Carville in the background, madly scribbling away on little yellow post-its and shoving them to the guy running the teleprompter.

Unfortunately, it’s a very inaccurate sound bite (again, Carville comes to mind). Bake sales and lemonade stands are run by PTA members and children. eBay, on the other hand, has moved $30 billion in merchandise over the past twelve months. It boasts more than 114 million registered users, 48 million of whom have been active in the past year. The Motley Fool also reports that sole proprietors and small companies have opened up more than 121,000 domestic eBay stores.

But wait, there’s more.

Let’s not forget to sing the praises of eBay’s PayPal, either. The financial-transaction specialist claims 50.4 million accounts, and this past quarter it helped speed up $4.4 billion in payments. Closing on deals and transferring funds faster and safer mean that the proceeds are being made available sooner. Do you think that kind of monetary turnover is helping the economy? You bet.

Yet one of eBay’s greatest contributions to this country is that it is such an efficient high-margin machine that it will pay out more than $300 million in income taxes this year.

If that’s Sen. Edwards’ equivalent of a bake sale, perhaps he should take a hint from Dan Rather and use the internet instead of just mocking it.

Dan Rather and CBS News have jumped the shark.

Or should I say, started to jump it and then thought it would be better to land directly in the shark’s mouth.

As if it’s not bad enough that they put this story on the air when it was clearly forged, Rather just made an appearance on CNN where he expressed total confidence in the documents and said he has personal knowledge that they are valid.

In addition, Powerline has a statement from CBS News stating that there will be no internal investigation. They may as well start kicking bloggers and asking them “What’s the frequency, Kenneth?”, because the longer they postpost the inevitable retraction, the more they look and sound like William Tager.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where he sits on the Aviation and Highways Subcommittees. How ironic it is, then, that he knows absolutely nothing about general aviation except that it’s imperative it be eliminated immediately.

On the third anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Rep. Weiner made an attack of his own by introducing H.R. 5035. Richard Daley would be proud.

This bill (H.R. 5035) would require the Department of Homeland Security to create a method of screening all passengers and property on each flight of all passenger aircraft in the U.S., including general aviation aircraft of all types. It would also prohibit any non-airline aircraft from flying within 1,500 feet of any structure or building, and prohibit non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with a population of 1 million or more. It would further require that pilots of all aircraft in U.S. airspace remain in contact with the Federal Aviation Administration, presumably by radio, regardless of altitude or location.

This comes from a guy who’s on the aviation subcommittee. Unbelievable. You can almost hear the insincere, catch-all bleat about “homeland security” spouting from this talking head at a news conference. Concerned look on his face. “Just doing it for the children”. A paragon of purity and virtue, protecting us from the careless yahoos and dangerous Americans who would actually have the presumption to fly their own aircraft.

(Note to self: I wonder what my blood pressure is right now…)

I hate to bring common sense into this, but one wonders how Rep. Weiner proposes to handle the increased load on air traffic controllers. Right now, 95% of flights are VFR and flown without any control from anyone except the pilot. Now if you’re not involved in general aviation, this might sound like some kind of security problem. “You mean all these pilots are flying around without anyone knowing where they’re going?”

Yes, Virginia, that’s exactly what I mean.

Before you get too riled up about it, consider that an ordinary car weighs more, carries more, goes as fast, and has more kinetic energy (in other words, destructive power) than a GA airplane. Remember, we’re not talking about airliners here. These aircraft weigh less than 3,000 lbs and carry about 50 gallons of fuel. A car is more stealthy and far easier to obtain and operate. So why on earth are you allowed to drive your car without letting the government know where you’re going?

Shouldn’t every passenger in your car receive a thorough background check by the government first?

Shouldn’t your possessions and person be searched every time you want to drive your car?

Shouldn’t you be required to remain in constant contact with the federal government while you operate your car?

A car is a greater threat than any general aviation aircraft could ever be. Have you any idea how many crimes (violent and otherwise) are committed using automobiles every year? How many people are killed in and by cars?

Getting the picture?

Even if strangling GA this way was a good idea, an overburdened air traffic system would never be able to cope with an instantaneous 2000% increase. Surely Rep. Weiner has an answer for this. After all, he’s on the aviation subcommittee.

On the other hand, maybe the evidence suggests that Weiner knows absolutely nothing about aviation. Prohibiting airplanes from flying over “any city with more than one million people” is exactly the same as prohibiting automobiles from driving in any city with more than one million people. Only a sophmoric simpleton would suggest such a thing.

Weiner’s bill seeks to “prohibit aircraft from flying within 1500 feet of any structure or building”. The Federal Aviation Regulations already contain provisions for minimum safe altitudes over populated and unpopulated areas (14 CFR 91.119). Read the regulation for yourself. Rep. Weiner wants to eliminate the “except when necessary for takeoff or landing” part.

The real question here is why Rep. Weiner is proposing this bill in the first place. An election year ploy? Perhaps. But considering his response when the Concorde made it’s last flight (”goodbye and good riddance!”), his self-proclaimed crusade to “rid the skies of noise”, and his misplaced attacks on GA, it seems more likely that he’s a dangerous NIMBY crackpot. Whoever is responsible for appointing this guy to the aviation subcommittee should have to answer for it.

In addition to being a Democratic whip in the House, Weiner’s web site exalts his status as a “leading spokesman for Democrats across the nation” as well as “one of the 50 most influential Jewish Americans”. Speaking as Jewish person myself, everything about this guy makes me sick.

You can bet a lot of letters are going to fly over this bill. And I’m going to be the one writing quite a few of them.

Many in this presidential campaign have taken to using the word “extremist” to describe anyone with an opposing political view. In print, on the web, in casual conversation, the word pops up all the time. It’s getting old. Fast.

For example:

• Pro life? Then Kerry’s an extremist who’s killed millions of people.
• Didn’t vote for Bush? The he’s an extremist who seized the White House in a coup and single-handedly destroyed democracy.

Please. If anything’s extreme here, it’s this sort of elevated rhetoric. Perhaps the problem here isn’t Bush or Kerry. If either of the above sound like something you’ve said lately, then maybe the problem is you. Throwing the word around like it was a McDonald’s drive-thru order only devalues it until nothing is conveyed except a mealy-mouthed political disagreement. It convinces no one. Does nothing to foster thoughful discussion. It says “this is the way it is”. It’s the political version of “Welcome to the O.C., bitch.”

Hell, I once had a guy call me an extremist. He said I was (and this is a direct quote) “worse than the terrorists”. This was only weeks after 9/11. My crime? I supposedly cut him off in the traffic pattern when I was flying my plane. That’s one pilot talking to another pilot. To this day, I still wonder what the hell was wrong with that guy.

“Extremist” should be reserved for things that are truly extreme. Like this group of lovely people in London who are throwing a convention to celebrating the 9/11 attacks:

Bakri called 9-11 “a cry of Jihad against unbelief and oppression” and said the aim of remembering it is to “revive the commandment of Jihad among the youth of the [Muslim] nation.”

Bakri said the convention also will feature a lecture about the Islamic religious roots of “slaughtering the infidels,” referring in part to the beheading of foreigners in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

It will include films by al-Qaida, the Tawhid and Jihad organization and the Brigades of the Two Holy Places in the Arabian Peninsula.

Also, the conference will feature a film on the most recent operations in Chechnya, he said. He added that one of the speeches, by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida’s military commander in Iraq, will be translated.

Another lecture, he said, will be dedicated to the memory of three al-Qaida commanders: Abd Al-’Aziz Al-Muqren, killed in June 2004 by Saudi security forces; his predecessor Yousef Al-Ayyiri, killed in June 2003 in a clash with Saudi security forces; and Abu Hafs Al-Masri, a top al-Qaida military officer, killed in the U.S. attack on Kandahar in late 2001.

According to Bakri, the anticipated criticism of Al-Muhajiroun for the organization’s insistence on memorializing 9-11 will be “a simple sacrifice in comparison with what we must actually do — that is, support the Jihad led by bin Laden.”

If that doesn’t fit your definition of “extreme”, did I mention that children are fair game for terrorist attacks? (via Wizbang)

An extremist Islamic cleric based in Britain said yesterday that he would support hostage-taking at British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.

All this so they can take control of England and turn it into a Taliban paradise.

Como se dice, “Why are these people not in jail?” It would be nice to think that if al-Muhajiroun were in the United States, they’d be put behind bars for treason. According to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].” I’m all for free speech, but when you’re publicly advocating collaboration with those we’ve declared war on, it’s time to turn around and see where that line is.

Next time we’re tempted to describe an American politican or judge as an extremist, it might be worthwhile to consider what’s really extreme in this world.

Like the man said in Ecclesiastes, there is a time for everthing under the sun. Including putting politics aside. I sent this message to President Clinton today:

Dear Mr. President,

I was saddened to hear about your upcoming heart bypass surgery and wanted to wish you well as you face this medical challenge.

I’m not a Democrat and I never voted for you, but just as we were all Republicans on the day Reagan was shot, we’ll all be Democrats on the day you have your surgery.

Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Ron Rapp
Irvine, CA

You can send the 42nd President a message here.

I was saddened to hear yesterday that President Clinton will be undergoing heart bypass surgery. It’s amazing that Ford and Carter are still going strong while the relatively young Clinton is suffering from advanced heart disease. President Ford is nearly 92 years old, whereas Clinton just turned 58!

Someone should do a study comparing time in office and post-White House lifespan. It seems the longer one serves as president, the shorter their lifespan after they retire. Ford only had a portion of one term, so perhaps that’s the secret of his success. If stress kills, this theory would make sense. Hell, all you have to do is compare photos of them on inauguration day and when leaving office to see what that job does to a person.
(continue reading…)

I was impressed with President Bush’s acceptance speech this evening.

I’d never describe the guy as a master Toastmaster (probably because that sounds really gay), but his delivery has improved tremendously since the 2000 campaign. I didn’t even notice that the he spoke for more than an hour. President Bush is still no Bill Clinton when it comes to speechifying, but that’s fine. There is such a thing as too p