M.A.W.B. Squad

Not One Dime

I heard from the RNC today, a standard fund raising phone call.

RNC Caller:  Asks us to give $75.
Me:  We're not giving to the Republicans until they get a spine.
RNC Caller:  Maybe you'd like to give $50?
Me:  No.  Not until the Republicans act like they're the majority party.
RNC:  Maybe a smaller amount.
Me: You don't seem to be listening to me.  We are not giving to the Republicans until they act like the majority party.

It felt good.  You too, can be part of the Not One Dime movement.  Heard first on Hewitt and read on Captain Ed.

On Pinkos and Commies

It's one of those days when nothing captures my fancy.

A staged radio show with Michele?

O.K. Whatever.

Teddy Kennedy's brother in law wearing a wire while talking to Democratic leaders, including Bill and Hillary?

I really should be into it, but I just can't get too worked up about it for some reason.  (I do reserve the right to cackle with glee at some point in the future should more come of it.)

So, you're stuck with my story of raising the next generation of conservatives.  The Boy informed me this weekend that his Social Studies class is full of commies.  He's made this charge before.  The first time it came up the class was told they were on an island, and they had to decide what type of government to form.

Me:  So, did you go for a dictatorship?
The Boy:  Yeah, I tried that first.
Me:  They didn't go for it, huh?
The Boy:  No.  So, Matt and I tried for half the island for ourselves.

His first instinct was dictatorship.  I was so proud.  Eventually though, the group decided to share everything equally...blah, blah, blah.  The Boy called them commies and stalked off.  (Apparently the other parents have not instructed their children in the lessons of the early American colonies.)

His latest beef was a group assignment.  Everyone was supposed to perform part of the assignment, said parts to be assembled to make the complete project.  He reports that once the task had been divided the students took off to fulfill their fancies, be it playing video games on the computer or whatnot.  Since the work was the responsibility of everyone, no one did the work.  "Communists!" he charged.

College professors beware.  He's on his way to you and he's pretty firm in his negative view of socialism.  Oh, to be a fly on the wall!

Abortion Prevents Crime?

Jeff asks for conservative feedback on this NY Times editorial The Miracle That Wasn't which posits that the reduction in crime rates in the 90's correlates to the time-frame in which states legalized abortion.  For example:

But the single most important cause, he says, was an event two decades earlier: the legalization of abortion in New York State in 1970, three years before it was legalized nationally by the Supreme Court.

The result, he maintains, was a huge reduction in the number of children who would have been at greater than average risk of becoming criminals during the 1990's. Growing up as an unwanted child is itself a risk factor, he says, and the women who had abortions were disproportionately likely to be unmarried teenagers with low incomes and poor education - factors that also increase the risk.

It's a theory that doesn't sit well with either liberals or conservatives, and Professor Levitt hastens to add that the reduction in crime is not an argument for encouraging abortion - he personally has mixed feelings on whether abortion should be legal. But he says the correlations are clear: crime declined earlier in the states that had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade, and it declined more in places with high abortion rates, like New York.

Jeff comments:

There are so many very, very scary ways that can be used, I’m nearly speechless. I don’t care if you’re Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Conservative or Liberal, I think the sane reaction is to nod and change the subject; to anything.

But we can’t, can we.

So how do we talk about this?

From a Liberal perspective I want to talk about the roots of crime being found in disempowerment and hopelessness. I imagine one Conservative perspective might be to point to the need for personal moral responsibility on the part of the people making the babies that grow up to become criminals. I don’t know.

Here's my quick take on the issue.

First, I'm not going to buy this theory on its surface.  There are so many factors that we'd have to consider.  Could abortion be one of them?  I suppose it's possible.  But, did he consider whether adoption increased or decreased? Can we assume women getting abortions were teens with low income and education?  (I'm sure nice middle class girls show up at clinics, too.)

My second take is that it's irrelevant to me.  Every life is still precious.  Every person is born with the same possibility of redemption.  Moses, for example, committed murder.  David did also, for all intents and purposes, putting Bathsheba's husband on the front lines.

Not one of us is innocent.

So, it's a moot point.  The only possible position I can take throughout life is to encourage good and condemn evil.  Sacrificing our children to the god of convenience can only be evil.

Don't forget as you read that, that I've just said that none of us is innocent.  So, I do not condemn women who have made this choice.  I assure them that God is forgiving and point them toward Him who loves us in spite of who we are and what we've done.

He has prepared a banquet for the return of His prodigals.

Shalom, Jeff.

Update 7:45:  For some reason, when I posted this it wasn't the final version.  So, I've edited a sentence, corrected spelling I'd already fixed, and added the last two lines I'd written.

Happy Crappy Tax Day

It turns out we overpaid our 2004 taxes.  Yet, I was at the mailbox today, sending more money to the IRS and the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.  Why?  Because, April 15th is not only the day your 2004 tax payment is due.  It's also the day that your estimated taxes for the first quarter of 2005 are due.

So, even if we overpaid in 2004 I can count on sending the government even more money on April 15th. Yipee Kai Ai!

It got me to thinking, which is a really dangerous thing in my current frame of mind.  I've not been a happy camper lately in case you hadn't noticed.  (This is the closest I get to soul baring, so pay attention.)

I've been working my ass off.  Night and day.  Literally.  Which any small business owner will tell you is par for the course.  The PiC and I draw salaries from our business.  A regular paycheck with federal and state withholding.  I realized when we were doing taxes that the other checks that came out of the company in the last year, (except expenses of course), have been to pay taxes for the most part. 

So, I could have a normal job, not worry about employees, have a somewhat regular schedule, and draw a regular paycheck like you do at any job.

But, for the privilege of running our own company, employing others, working like dogs, and not having a life, the extra money the company makes above and beyond our salaries is going to the government.   (Income from S corps are taxed at the personal tax rate.)

Doesn't that just suck eggs?

Why in the world should I do this?

Meanwhile, 122 million Americans will pay no federal income tax for 2004, about half the nations population.  But, everyone's hands are out, palms up, asking for more, more, more.

Because we're stupid enough to work our fingers to the bone and pay their share too.

I'm thinking it's time for a change.  I'm sure I can come up with some disability they'll give me SSI for and a doctor willing to diagnose it.  Then I can stay home, sit on my ass, and let everyone else pay for me and mine.  I'll even have free medical with Medicaid!

So get your butt out there and get earning.  I've got needs and I'm thinking it's your turn next year.

Happy Crappy Tax Day!

Noonan on Hillary

Some days I'd like an internet filter tailored just for my protection. Instead of something like Content Filter, which we use for our kids, it'd be called Sandy Filter.  Today it would have warned me that Peggy Noonan should not be read until some time after noon.  Why, you ask?  Well, even a fan of horror films may choose not to watch Halloween or Freddy, Version 10.5,  until after they've eaten breakfast.  The subject, one we can look forward to for 4 long years, is Hillary:

It is pointless to be afraid, but good to be concerned. Why? Because we live in a more or less 50-50 nation; because Mrs. Clinton is smarter than her husband and has become a better campaigner on the ground; because her warmth and humor seem less oily; because she has struck out a new rhetorically (though not legislatively) moderate course; because you don't play every card right the way she's been playing every card right the past five years unless you have real talent; because unlike her husband she has found it possible to grow more emotionally mature; because the presidency is the bright sharp focus of everything she does each day; because she is not going to get seriously dinged in the 2008 primaries but will likely face challengers who make her look even more moderate and stable; and because in 2008 we will have millions of 18- to 24-year-old voters who have no memory of her as the harridan of the East Wing and the nutty professor of HillaryCare.

I've sounded the same warning myself.  I'm just not excited about being reminded of it so early in the day.  But, the proverbial cat is already out of the bag, and Peggy shows no mercy.

And on top of all that, It's time for a woman. Almost every young woman in America, every tough old suburban momma, every unmarried urban high-heel-wearing, briefcase-toting corporate lawyer will be saying it. They'll be working for, rooting for, giving to the woman.

"It's time for a woman."  This statement is grounded in our sense of fairness, a concept we have learned all our lives.  We begin to teach our kids to take turns before they start school.  Surely, if every President in our entire country's history has been a man, it must be a woman's turn by now?

It sounds right even to me, but it's not right.

Logic dictates that we choose our President based on their qualifications for the job and their vision for our country.  We don't choose our President because of their sex, or because it's only fair to "take turns."  If a woman is the best candidate for the job, great!  I'd be happy to pull the lever for her.

Hillary is not that woman.  I expect to sound the same warning repeatedly over the next four years.  My only request is that I be allowed a piece of toast or a bowl of CoCo Wheats each morning before I have to consider a second Clinton administration.

Fake but Accurate Again?

If you read Powerline, or listen to NARN, I'm sure you've heard of the memo reported by the Washington Post and ABC news to be Republican "talking points"  on the Terri Schiavo case.  Powerline writer John Hinderaker explains the suspect origins of the anonymous memo in his Weekly Standard article.

To sum up, then: (1) The memo itself conveys no information about its source. (2) It is very poorly done, containing a number of typographical errors, failing to get the number of the Senate bill correct, and using points cribbed word-for-word from an advocacy group's website. (3) The politically controversial statements are out of place in a talking points memo, and seem, on the contrary, ideally framed to create talking points for the Democrats. (4) Somewhat bizarrely, after the contents of the memo had been reported, someone corrected those typographical errors--but only those errors that had been pointed out by ABC. (5) No one has reported seeing any Republican distributing the suspect memo; the only people confirmed to have passed out the memo were Democratic staffers.

A REASONABLE CONCLUSION would be that the "talking points memo" might be a fake, created by Democrats to cast aspersions on the motives of the Republican leadership.

I'm trying to figure out how to use this strategy to our advantage here at M.A.W.B.  We would definitely want the "fake but accurate" memo to attack the Squad, so when it's exposed as a forgery we reap the sympathy of the masses.  Everyone loves an underdog.

Now we only need to pick our issue.  I'll throw out a few ideas to get the ball rolling.......

• A memo exposing Bundy as a secret Michael Jackson fan who owns every CD he's ever made.
• A memo exposing Headstrong Elf as the owner of a Dr. Kevorkian painting.
• A memo exposing Calamity Jo for running a wife-rental racket.
• A memo exposing Macaroni Penguin's police reports for her wild weekend parties.
• A memo exposing housemouse as a lobbyist for light rail in Minnesota.
• A memo exposing St. Kate as the owner of a Che T-shirt who's memorized Mao's Little Red book.
• A memo exposing Eloise as head of Minnesotans for Hillary in 2008.
• A memo exposing me as a travel agent for the government of North Korea.
• A memo exposing Twice Blessed as a Star Tribune shill.

I've laid the groundwork. It should be easy to find someone to "leak" the fake memo once we determine the most effective smear.  I think we can make this tactic work for us!  (If nothing else this post should be a test of my blog mates sense of humor, she says with fingers crossed.)

Offender Island: M.A.W.B. Policy Paper

In recent days we learned that yet another young girl was abducted from her home, sexually abused, then killed by a registered sex offender with a long record.

Which leads me to echo Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

I went to the Wisconsin site, to see what sexual predators live in my neighborhood.  I know they're there, because I read about them in the local paper all the time.  (One was the owner of the closest convenience store.  His victim was a young girl who lived down the road.  He's now in jail.) 

In just two zip codes, there are 12 registered sex offenders.  Many of them preyed on children.

Wisconsin doesn't see fit to give me their addresses, but my best guess from searching phone records is that one of them lives two houses away from me.

Two *#&$ZW*#& Houses Away

He was convicted for "Repeated Acts of Sexual Assault Against Same Child".  It appears he was released in 2003.  I have kids.  Of course, no one saw fit to notify me.  After all, we wouldn't want the public to make the criminal uncomfortable after his release.  We can't be trusted with our vigilante tendencies.

Which leads me to publish M.A.W.B.'s first official policy paper.

If you trust us to be your female dictators, (isn't it cute how I pretend that you have a choice?), our administration plans to take the following actions against sexual predators:

1.  Buy an island way, way out in the ocean.

2.  Upon their release from prison we will drop off sexual predators at the island.

3.  Wave good-bye as the boat leaves them there forever to fend for themselves.

We can't lock them up forever, so this seems like the next best thing.  There they can be free to form their own society with the goals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As long as they're happy somewhere out of reach of our children.

Minnesota seems to only have Level III sex offenders on line.  (Might be something for any candidates for office to talk about during their campaign.)  You can find out if your state has on line registration here.

Of course your best defense is suspicion, used liberally, with a dash of common sense.  That, and the second amendment.

An Internet Lynch Mob

I'm sure many of you have read about the attack from the left on Powerline, and Hindrocket specifically, via e-mail and telephone and the resulting ill advised e-mail he sent in reply, (for which he then apologized.)

It's unfortunate, but none of us is above making a mistake, especially when personally attacked.  I know that I am often grateful for the delete key.  I'm very careful about what I put into writing, because these things never go away.

Hindrocket acknowledged he made a mistake, and the e-mail was certainly out of character from what we know of him.  To understand what might drive such a response, let's examine some of the comments on the post revealing the e-mail's contents:

This commentor suggests the e-mail be forwarded to the MN Bar Association.

Another commentor, that I refuse to link to, publishes John's work number in the comments, encouraging others to call him at his law office and demand that he apologize to President Carter,  throwing in a suggestion to inform his law partners and their clients.

konopelli suggests the e-mail be forwarded to Time's executive editors, and the partners at John's law firm.

In addition, there's at least one post at Kos, which I again won't justify with a link, trying to organize against his law firm's clients.

Is it any wonder someone might lose their composure under these kind of personal attacks?  It's fine for Ward Churchhill to call 911 victims little Eichmanns, but if conservatives exercise their right to free speech, attacking their family, their workplace, and them personally is fair game?  The left won't rest until they personally destroy those who disagree with them politically.  Every aspect of their opponents personal lives should be exposed and ripped apart for the pleasure of the mob.

Let's take another recent example.  Can you imagine the outcry if a conservative site outed a closeted gay liberal?  Yet, Kos, Atrios and their ilk can out a conservative closeted gay, ala Jeff Guckert, and it's a gleeful moment!  A coup to be trumpeted!  Yeah!  Another personal life destroyed!

What we're witnessing is the equivalent of internet lynchings, from the party of diversity and tolerance. Democratic internet activists have become the party of hate and political racism.  It's as ugly as cross burnings and those that engage in the practice deserve to be shunned by civil society.

The Guru at Minnesota Politics, says the matter is Fini as far as he is concerned.  However, the sentiment isn't borne out by Guru's actions.  If he/she was truly only interested in highlighting the "coarsening of discourse and the dehumanization of other people through technology", the least he/she could do would be to prominently ask the readers of both posts to refrain from taking any action personally against Powerline or its authors, and to edit any comments that encourage the internet lynch mob to take action.

Mitch has covered the controversy in his posts, The Brain Gap and Anatomy of a Mugging.  He says in the latter:

By the way, Mr. Guru; your big "break" in the blogosphere came about due to a serious ethical indiscretion of your own. You published an email which, however intemperate, was intended as private communication, sent with a presumption of confidentiality. Publishing it is the sort of violation of confidence should earn you a solid non grata label, whoever you are.  It won't matter to the lefty blogswarm, of course - to them, ethics is a four letter word.

As much as I disagree with the internet lynch mob, I don't think the position that this was a private communication is valid.  It's common policy for blogs to state that any e-mail sent to them will be fair game for publication.  Looking at Minnesota Politics today, it carries disclosure to that effect on its front page.  (I have no way of knowing if it was there before this incident.)

However if the Guru were not interested in encouraging the lynch mob, she/he could have allowed John Hindraker to apologize privately and deleted the e-mail without going public with it.  Let me be clear, Guru is the equivalent of the soapbox speaker inciting the crowd to violence.  My point is this.  Blogging etiquette does not prohibit the publication of private e-mails, but one hopes the Guru's own code of ethics would lead them to make the choice to discourage any personal attack on Powerline or its authors, (even if it would be necessary to withdraw both posts.), unless Guru thinks it's acceptable to destroy a persons life for the error of sending one ill advised e-mail.

Civil Discourse

Flash of Centrisity and Tony Snow both demonstrate class in this exchange.

The Once and Future President Clinton

New York Magazine's February 21 issue has a very long article about the Presidential prospects of Hillary Clinton.  In case you missed it,  a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll conducted on Feb. 4-6 shows Hillary leads the Democratic pack, with 40% of her party already likely to support her for the nomination.

I've been watching Hillary since she joined the Senate, and she's been playing a hawk when it comes to the war on terror.  My impression is her candidacy would be the most likely force to pull the image of the Democrats back to the center.

If you spend any time around Hillary’s fans, supporters, or brain trust, this is more or less the refrain you come away with. And these people aren’t necessarily being disingenuous. Since serving in public office, Hillary has scrupulously positioned herself as a centrist: She sits on the Armed Services Committee; she has spoken out in favor of the death penalty; she voted for the war in Iraq, then voted unambiguously for the $87 billion extra to sustain the troops (and without Kerry’s grammatical sleight of hand—she voted for it before voting for it again). She has always spoken credibly about the role of religion and faith in her life. There are no love beads in sight: She wears the pantsuits, she’s got the coif. And she’s the human equivalent of a Thermos bottle—you have absolutely no clue what the temperature is of the contents roiling within.

She even has her Republican colleagues in the Senate singing her praises.

“I think she could win every state John Kerry won. And she’d probably be a better candidate in the swing states.” —Lindsey Graham, Senator (R)

“On the Armed Services Committee, Hillary has been anything but an ideologue,” he continues. “Anything but that. When I’ve got a new piece of legislation, and I’m looking for an ally on the other side, she’s one of the first people I call.”

It appears she's also become more comfortable around people after leaving the White House, gaining support along the way.

And in New York, Hillary is certainly no longer Nurse Ratched. She has managed to transform her approval ratings from 36 percent (April 2000) to 65 percent (last week). Among married women, her most surprising problem-constituency in 2000, her numbers are now at 64 percent. The latest Quinnipiac polls even show she’d beat Rudy if he ran against her for Senate in 2006.

We know that Bill Clinton wasn't responsible for the bubble in the economy he happened to enjoy.  It was propelled by Y2K and the age of the internet.  The axe had already begun to fall before he left office.  But, people long for days of peace and prosperity and they will associate the Clinton name with both.

Also, if you're honest with yourself, I bet you can name at least a few women in your life that voted Republican in the last election, but would pull the lever for Hillary if she appears centrist, (and she will), because many believe it's time for a woman to hold the highest office in the land.  Besides, there's a built in safety factor, because with Hillary they get an order of Bill a la carte.

What is it going to take for conservatives to prevent another Clinton White House?  The answer is conservative women, which is why it's a perfect time for the M.A.W.B.  We will need to convince the women in our lives that although it is time for a woman to be President of these United States, Hillary is not the woman we should choose.

Of course the other side of this formula is finding a Republican nominee up to the job.  We can't afford another Dole candidacy, and I see few rising rock stars on the horizon.  Who would you pick to take on the Clinton challenge?

Read the whole thing.