George W. Bush has used his veto authority less than any other President in recent history. His father used it more than most other Presidents. I believe that all Presidents should use it much more often. In fact, I believe that any law to be foisted on the American people should be compelling enough to gain the support of a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress. That is, a strong argument can be made that the President should veto every bill that reaches his desk -- even those he likes. A possible exception is any bill that rescinds an existing law.

The country could manage very well without most of the laws that Congress passes. Many come from knee-jerk reactions to isolated incidents blown into impending catastrophes by the media. An example is the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act precipitated by the perception that 'big money' was taking over campaigns for national office. Unfortunately a veto-everything policy won't protect us from all bad law; the Sarbannes-Oxley, Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002, coming out of the Enron and WorldCom scandals, passed 423-3 in the House and 99-0 in the Senate.

The Senate already has rules in play that essentially require at least a 60 percent majority for a bill to be passed. It would only take seven more votes to make it a two-thirds majority. But the Senate could eliminate that rule and make it possible for them to pass a bill with a vote of 51-50 (tie vote broken by the Vice President). The house can pass a bill with a 218-217 vote. So laws can be passed that have a major impact on our lives by 269 members of Congress with 267 members dissenting.

Some might say that is the way a democracy is supposed to work -- by majority rule. But our form of government is not a pure democracy; it is a constitutional republic. In a nutshell that means that we get to elect representatives by a plurality of the voters, but once elected they are on their own. Practically speaking, our only recourse then is to vote against them when they are up for re-election. As far as I know there is nothing in the constitution to prevent the President from vetoing every bill that comes before him, forcing the Congress to try to override the veto.

---

Yesterday I wrote about how majority rule might not always be in our best interest. Today I have a real-life example here in my local area. Twenty-five years ago South Walton County was lightly developed, even along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico. That was about the time that Janet Reeves and Dave Hillgenberg opened their businesses on US Highway 98. Reeves operates a gift shop and Hillgenberg operates a glass and mirror service.

Fast-forward to today and you find a thriving retirement and tourist community of hotels, resorts, restaurants, condominiums, vacation homes and supporting businesses -- most of them along US Highway 98. Since South Walton had 'progressed' from mostly pine forests and sand to an upscale community where many of the homes are priced in the millions, the majority of the new residents decided that businesses should abide by certain standards of appearance. This majority also decided that these standards of appearance would be retroactive -- that no exceptions would be made for small businesses like those of Reeves and Hillgenberg. Never mind that the new standards would place a serious burden on their bottom line.

One could argue that the intent of such standards is just that: to drive businesses that don't measure up out of business. The tax structure already achieves that end -- intentional or not. As property values increase, property taxes increase, and at some point some types of low volume businesses are unable to generate a profit. The proprietors are then forced to sell to a more profitable business. And they can't always depend on getting what their property is really worth. For example, it might be a very small piece of property sandwiched between two much larger properties. If neither of the adjoining businesses want it, who else is going to buy it?

Anyway, back to Janet and Dave. They sued the county arguing that the "scenic corridor guidelines designed to give the area a uniform look" should not apply to them. They lost. A federal judge said neither Reeves nor Hillgenberg had enough evidence to make their case. The judge apparently believes that their businesses can be sacrificed in order to give the area a uniform look. Since when is a 'uniform look' a valid public interest?

Yes, Reeves and Hillgenberg probably could have made the required changes in the appearance of their businesses for the money they spent on the suit, but I applaud them for not doing so. What will this country be like in fifty years if everyone caves to the tyranny of the majority? How long before Starbucks wants your house?

---

People often admonish others not to worry so much. They say things like 'take one day at a time' or 'live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself'. A popular song advised us: "Don't worry, be happy." The title of this post was the signature phrase of Alfred E. Neuman, a fictional character in Mad magazine. For the most part these people mistake thinking and planning for worrying. I believe that if you spend no time thinking about tomorrow you will eventually join the ranks of the homeless bums.

Of course the intent of some is to console the heavily laden, to encourage the discouraged, or to lighten our lives with a little humor. But I frequently see evidence that some people take the advice literally; they live like there is no tomorrow. I have encountered people who don't think they need to plan for the future because they strongly believe that God will take care of them. These same people believe that God works in mysterious ways, but they don't seem to consider the possibility that the way God will take care of them is to let them die of starvation or hypothermia. I think what these people really mean is that their family, friends and neighbors will take care of them.

I don't believe a person should spend countless hours organizing every trivial detail of his or her life, but I do believe that some time spent in thinking about and planning for the future will mitigate a lot of worries.

---

What's the big deal about the word faggot? OK, it's not a kind thing to call someone, but neither is it kind to call the Conservative Political Action Conference -- where Ann Coulter implied that John Edwards is a faggot -- a hate fest. People of all political persuasions use unkind words every day. Can you count the times the left has used an unkind word in referring to Dick Cheney and Karl Rove?

Anyone that knows anything about Ann Coulter knows that stirring up controversy is her style; that speaking bluntly is her trademark. The furor over her remark is more about a chance to attack Coulter than about any real harm done to Edwards. How can being barked at by a right-wing attack dog harm a political candidate that spends his days trying to convince the Poor America (of his Two Americas) that he is their savior while living in a 29,000 square foot house?

While he does appear a bit effeminate, I've never had any reason to think Edwards is gay. I don't think Coulter does either. This was just her rather colorful way of expressing her dislike of Edwards. I don't like Edwards either; if I listen to him for a few minutes I start feeling nauseous. I've lived my whole life in the deep South but I have an unexplained distrust for anyone who talks like their mouth is full of grits -- even though I love grits.

_______________

I can live with not calling homosexuals bad names, but I confess that I can't treat them just like everyone else. Good golly Miss Molly! THEY'RE NOT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! I can't take them seriously when I have that image in my mind of what they do when they're alone together (at least it used to be when they're alone together). I don't treat women just like I treat men because they're not just like men. If homosexuals insist on being different they shouldn't be surprised to find that others will treat them as if they're different.

I know I'm not a homophobe; I'm not the least bit afraid of homosexuals. If I need some work done I will hire the person that I think will provide the best value, regardless of sexual orientation. If I have a house to rent I will rent it to anyone that I think will take care of it and pay the rent on-time, regardless of sexual orientation. But if I'm choosing a new friend I'll probably lean toward a straight person.

Perhaps it's because I'm just too old to adapt. I don't think young people with tattoos are attractive either.  Uh... I should have said 'young women', not 'young people'.  I didn't mean to imply that I think young men without tattoos are...  Well, you know what I meant.

---

Canada.com's National Post has a series of articles on The Deniers of global warming.  The intent of the articles is to show that the science of global warming is clearly not as settled as most of the alarmists claim.  They show that there are many very reputable scientists who are quite skeptical of the assertion that warming is man-made or that disastrous effects are imminent.  The last article reports that a French scientist who had a role in issuing the original warnings about warming is now having second thoughts.  Here are links to the articles:

• Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
• Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
• The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
• Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
• The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
• The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
• Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
• The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
• Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
• Limited role for C02 -- The Deniers Part X
• End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
• Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
• Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers Part XIII

---

But he won't. He doesn't have the courage to stand up to the outrage it would elicit from the liberal media. He has already shown that. He failed to resist their call for an independent counsel to be appointed to investigate the supposed leak of Valerie Plame's identity. He allowed the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald even though Attorney General Ashcroft knew at the time that Richard Armitage was the 'leaker'.

I'm not going into all the details again here. I've posted on this before. If you're interested, there is a good summary of the case and reaction to the verdict at National Review Online.

Why Fitzgerald was allowed to proceed with an investigation that focused on White House 'insiders' when he already knew that Armitage was the 'leaker' is beyond comprehension. In my opinion another independent counsel should investigate that.

Libby's defense team will petition for a new trial and, failing that, will appeal the conviction. President Bush could spare us from all that by giving Libby a full pardon now. He has botched this whole affair just like he has botched just about everything since he has been in office. He has a chance to do something right. But he won't.

---

Bush haters are now crowing about the conviction of Lewis Libby. They are saying that it proves the corruption of his administration. Any reasonably intelligent adult knows better. It just means that the liberals won this battle -- at least for now. A slick prosecutor and a sympathetic judge can elicit whatever verdict they want from the average jury. If you believe that a jury trial always produces the right verdict, then you are, quite simply, a fool.

Of course the Bush haters know this. But they don't care. They don't want to pass up the chance to get in a few good licks. And it would probably be the same if the scenario were inverted.

Bob Novak has a good overview of the case at Townhall.com. His July 14, 2003 column, in which he mentioned that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, triggered this whole affair.

---

To believe that we can 'embrace' multiculturalism without any damage to our culture is like believing that you can pick up a turd from the clean end.*

If we are to have multiple cultures they have to be different from our culture. I suppose it's possible that a culture exists that is superior to ours, but I haven't discovered it yet. If another culture is superior to ours why would they want to move here? So, it is quite likely that any new culture that we might welcome to our country is inferior to our own. At least in our view -- and our view is what counts.

The Church of Multiculturalism holds that embracing a different culture means that you don't try to change them. You don't try to assimilate them into our culture. If you do then you have to go looking for another culture to 'embrace'. You must encourage them to stay the way they are which, remember, is inferior to our culture. If they don't stay the way they are we can't continue to enjoy their weirdness.

So, the pattern is clear. Welcome new backward cultures to our fair shores. Encourage them to congregate and establish their own communities in order to perpetuate their backwardness. Pretend that this is a good thing. Embrace them often -- if you can find the clean end.

Seriously, I think that most of the people that come here legally are laughing up their sleeves at the multiculturalists. They come because they want a better life for themselves and their families. Sure, they might preserve some of their customs, but mostly they want to live differently than before.

*Adapted from I Can Plainly See.

---

USA Today has an article titled: Experts Close the Lid on 'Suitcase Nukes'. It quotes a few experts in making the point that a nuclear bomb that can be carried in a suitcase by one man is highly unlikely. I suppose the article was prompted by the currently running "24" season in which Jack Bauer is trying to catch some terrorists with suitcase nukes.

The experts are probably right, but so what if they are? Do they think terrorists are going to abandon their mission because they can't fit their bomb into a suitcase? They don't have to get a nuke inside a building to wreak havoc; they just have to get it inside or very near a city. They can transport it inside a small truck or large SUV. Today the size of the device is not the limiting issue. The limiting issue is the availability of the materials and expertise.

The suitcase nuke threat is a creation of Hollywood and the media. It is not a real-world issue. Don't feel safer because you know that nuclear bombs can't be carried in suitcases.

---

Senator Mel Martinez clearly believes that the federal government should be in the housing business. On March 8 he released this announcement:

U.S. Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) today joined Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) in introducing the reauthorization of HOPE VI -- a program that works to eliminate dilapidated and dangerous public housing, replacing it with new mixed income communities.

The senators should have taken a clue from their own announcement: "dilapidated and dangerous public housing." Do you suppose they gave any thought to why public housing is dilapidated and dangerous? Let me offer a little help. There are two principal reasons. First, it's run by government bureaucrats -- the same kind of bureaucrats that operate the VA hospitals and try to keep illegal drugs and immigrants out of the country. Second, it's inhabited mostly by deadbeats. That's the reason they needed housing assistance in the first place. Putting a deadbeat in a new house is not going to mend his or her ways.

If the senators did take a clue, it seems to be that if we mix in a few non-deadbeats the deadbeats won't be so obvious to the general public. They seem to want to hide the deadbeats among more responsible residents. But where are they going to find responsible residents who want to live on the same street with a bunch of deadbeats? Do they plan to bribe them? Perhaps they intend to integrate the deadbeats into existing neighborhoods. It's not clear from the announcement.

"This reauthorization builds on the current program and makes it better," said Martinez. "This isn't just about funding the creation of public housing, it's about community involvement. This bill requires a greater community commitment so that we're not just rebuilding housing; we're revitalizing neighborhoods and making them sustainable communities."

Alright Mel! You go guy! Actually Mel, you're beginning to look a little bufoonish. Do you really believe that a few assertions from you are going to make this happen? Have you ever seen a public housing area that didn't turn into a ghetto within a few years? It will take more than pipe dreams to make this work.

With 14 HOPE VI grants, Florida ranks 2nd in the number of grants awarded in the nation and 10th in the amount of award dollars. Through grant awards and leveraged dollars, HOPE VI has generated over $736 million for the state of Florida.

Oh, I can see clearly now. This is about pork. You're bringing home the bacon. The program doesn't have to have any real chance of working as intended. It doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional. It has worked for you when it is approved and funded.

Before becoming a senator Martinez was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. That is, he has previous experience at creating ghettos. I don't know why we even have a Department of Housing and Urban Development. Nothing in the constitution permits the federal government to provide housing to private citizens. Don't bother pointing out the 'provide for the general welfare' thing. The emphasis there is on 'general'; it doesn't say 'provide for the welfare of specific individuals'.

---

• <-- Previous page
• 1
• 2
• Next page -->