So it appears that the Democrats have taken their ball and run off to New Mexico in a huff.  Quite frankly, I hope this little stunt backfires on them, but that remains to be seen.  I find it quite fascinating to watch them, though.  Their complaints hold little water with me and my sympathy quotient towards them is in the negative range.  It seems to me that they have little to complain about, since they did the same thing with redistricting when they were in power. 

But it got me to thinking about the law and programming.  In some ways, the law (and in Texas, the state constitution) is the set of programming instructions (code) that is used to run the government and society.  The problem in this case is that the code allows for the system to be compromised by the operators.  What we need is a set of code that specifies how the districts are to be mapped that the users can’t game.  Specifically, we should gore everyone’s oxen and come up with a system that creates districts strictly on the basis of population and does so in a way that can’t be gerrymandered. 

What I’m getting at is that we should encode a specific algorithm for districts into the law (or most likely in the constitution, given the odd way that Texas is run).  This algorithm would provide the set of steps needed to map the state into a set of districts that each had an equal number of people, regardless of current or past political affiliations or racial breakdown. 

Of course all the special interest groups would come out wailing that we’re disenfranchising minority voters or some similar nonsense.  Frankly, I don’t care because this modern day segregation crap is starting to get on my nerves.  We’re all Texans and it’s about damn time that we started remembering that.  Racial politics is the politics of segregation and discrimination and it’s high time to consign that crap to the trash pile where it belongs.

I truly feel sorry for the people who are finding themselves under the ever growing shadow of the EU.  This is yet one more example of an overreaching bureaucracy expanding to interfere with every facet of life.

Given our overall arsenal, couldn’t we spare just one little nuke?  A stitch in time and all that…

The Texas comptroller has refused to certify the new state budget, citing the requirement in the Texas constitution that all state budgets have to be balanced.

Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn rejected the state’s $117.4 billion budget on Thursday, sending the two-year spending plan back to the House of Representatives to rewrite before the end of the current fiscal year on Aug. 31.

“This is the first time a Legislature has sent the comptroller a budget that is not balanced,” Strayhorn said. “I cannot certify this budget because it is $185,900,000 short.”

The state constitution requires that the Legislature pass a balanced budget and it cannot be sent to the governor’s desk to sign into law without the comptroller’s OK.

“We need a certifiable ‘pay as you go’ budget by mid-July or the schools won’t open in September,” Strayhorn said.

The legislature is claming that it’s just a clerical error and that they put 2005 instead of 2006 by accident with regards to the allocation of some funds.  Regardless, the comptroller says that she cannot simply take their word for it and she has to go by the actual content of the budget as passed by the legislature.

To get an idea of just how messy this budget is, consider this:

Strayhorn said that her office tallied the financial effects of more than 4,000 pieces of legislation to arrive at the conclusion. One of the “paramount” developments was a last-minute transfer of $236 million from the General Fund to the Texas Mobility Fund, she said.

  I’ll never cease to be amazed at how much crap politicians can cram into a 140 day session.  How in the hell are we supposed to keep up with that much legislation? 

This promises to get interesting, because it is likely that the budget will have to be reconsidered in a special session.  Governor Perry was planning to call a special session to consider the redistricting issue (which has pissed off the Democrats so badly).  Now it appears that it may get taken up by budget issues, which might give the Dems leverage to derail the redistricting effort.

As of this morning, the local TV news was reporting that Perry is considering a lawsuit against the comptroller to force her to certify the budget.  I also heard some Democrat on TV saying that social services has been “cut to the bone” and that we should reconsider the “whole tax structure” in a special session.  That sounds suspiciously like socialist double-speak for increasing taxes, which is political suicide in Texas.

I think we’re going to have to watch these bastards really closely during the special session to make sure that they don’t raise taxes.

We learned today that the top U.S. officials in Iraq are being replaced, including General Jay Garner.

Senior U.S. officials say they are unhappy with the pace of reconstruction in Iraq and the negative media attention that has been getting. By replacing the top tier of the U.S. civil authority in Iraq, as well as several other senior members of the civil administration team, the Bush administration hopes to speed up Iraq’s post-war recovery.

The installation of former State Department official Paul Bremer as chief of reconstruction efforts, supplanting retired General Jay Garner, is only the tip of an abrupt wider shakeup affecting many of the senior-most officials in the U.S. civil administration in Iraq.

While the reasons given above may well be the truth, this makes me wonder if something more was about to come to light.

Baker’s job with COLSA was to inspect the work being done on a major segment of the missile-defense program. “He would eventually discover a handful of contract arrangements that ‘smelled of shenanigans.’ Each of them involved work being performed by SY Technology, a California-based defense contractor. … ”

Another thing the arrangements had in common was that each involved a contract being negotiated on a sole-source basis, rather than through competitive bidding. And SY Technology had been taken over a few years back by retired three-star Gen. Jay Garner.

Baker says he was first alerted to the questionable contract arrangements in late December 2001.

That month, the Space and Missile Defense Command announced it intended to award SY Technology a five-year contract in the amount of $48 million. The defense command claimed the contract was being negotiated on a sole-source basis because SY Technology was uniquely qualified to do the work. Baker disputed the notion, saying dozens of other contractors were equally qualified.

Maybe there’s nothing to all of this, but I don’t like coincidences.

It would be an absurdity for jurors to be required to accept the judge’s view of the law, against their own opinion, judgement, and conscience.
   —John Adams

An old post of mine on the Dixie Chicks seems to have attracted a response (I need to remember to start turning off comments on old posts).

It’s been a trying morning here so far, so my patience is stretched a bit thin.  Here’s the comment that was left:

I have to say that country music lecterns can’t and won’t stand by their own. We are all entitled to speak our minds and yes – that is a right that all Americans fight for everyday.

EVERY AMERICAN SUPPORTS THE TROOPS HOWEVER NOT EVERY AMERICAN SUPPORTS THE POLITICAL VIEW OF THE AMINSTRATION.

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AND EVERY SOUTHERNER AND COUNTRY MUSIC LISTERN SHOULD TAKE NOTICE.

DON’T HATE THE DIXIE CHICKS FOR STANDING THEIR GROUND.

Stand up to everyone who brings their children to CD bashings that local radio stations host. We should all be ashamed of parents who teach their children to hate others for not agreeing with their political beliefs.

That’s UN- AMERICAN.

Once again, this commenter demonstrates the fact that so many people don’t understand the true meaning of free speech.  Free speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want without consequences to your friendships or career. 

Free speech simply means that the government isn’t standing over your shoulder ready to haul you off to an acid bath or cut your tongue out if you say something the government doesn’t like.

As a free citizen, I have an absolute right to disagree with someone and to withhold support from them if I choose.

There seems to be this sentiment from some quarters that we should somehow ignore what others say and continue to support them no matter what they say.  This seems to include the idea that “standing your ground” is somehow such a noble act that it negates the content of the ideas expressed while standing that ground.  This is complete and utter crapola.

Of course, the commenter couldn’t make her point without resorting to that old canard about hate.  This has absolutely nothing to do with hate and if she’d be honest with herself, she’d realize that.  To compare it to hate is to unnecessarily polarize the debate.  Of course, that seems to be a standard tactic amongst those who don’t understand the debate or would like to focus attention away from it.

Let’s make this absolutely clear once again, just in case some people aren’t getting it:
   Free speech isn’t free of consequences.

Don’t expect me to continue to shell out my hard-earned money to support someone that I don’t like.  To demand that I do so out of some misguided respect for someone “standing their ground” is what is truly un-American.

Jeff Medcalf delivers a full frontal fisking of the former commander-in-briefs, Bill Clinton at Caerdroia.  This had me laughing:

Amazing, Bill Clinton finally realized that it’s possible to have a foreign policy, rather than just stumbling blindly from crisis to crisis hoping that no one notices the brunette under the desk. He’s right though, that the US can’t “kill, jail or occupy all of its adversaries.” Some individuals will need to disappear, and some soon-to-be-former leaders will need to be turned over to their soon-to-be-former slaves for the Mussolini treatment. Thanks for reminding us to use all of our options.

One of these days I’ll be able to type ‘Caerdroia’ without slowing down like I’m driving over a speedbump. 

Steven Den Beste gives us his thoughts on real liberalism and the decidely anti-liberal positions of the “Liberals.”  He closes with this:

Berkeley Liberals advocate strong use of governmental powers in many other interventionist ways, always with the best of intentions, but with little concern for my fundamental right to be left alone. And that is why they are not liberal, because the fundamental liberal position is that government should not needlessly meddle in the lives of citizens.

Thus the paradoxical result: I am a “Conservative” because I am a liberal. Berkeley Liberals are “Liberal” because they are not liberal. They believe in government intervention, including censorship and direct punishment of dissent, so as to enforce orthodox thought and behavior. That’s not liberalism, that’s tyranny.

One of the things I’ve found so disturbing about so much of what is entailed in the whole “Politically Correct” doctrine is that is seems diametrically opposed to diversity of thought while disingenously claiming to hold up the ideal of free speech.  By squashing dissent (I’ve always wanted to use that phrase ), they manage to drive their opponents underground.  Only in a robust marketplace of ideas will we be able to determine how a person truly thinks about a topic.  I’d rather know that my neighbour is a Klan member ahead of time (instead of finding out when he and his friends are at my door in robes with a cross).

I disagree with almost everything the left and the “Liberals” stand for (and with much of the right as well).  I will fight to the death for their right to say what they believe, but I will also fight to the death over any attempts to implement their ideas.

In an earlier post I wondered where Condoleeza Rice stood on the issue of guns and gun ownership.  I couldn’t find much on the topic, so I decided to read Condi: The Condoleezza Rice Story by Antonia Felix.  But it didn’t take long before I discovered the author’s biases on this issue.

“W is for Women” was one part of a calculated move to undo what previous Republican campaigns and National Conventions had done—create a gender gap between the parties.  Barbara Bush and her group sought to portray George W. as the face of a new and improved Republican party committed to education and women’s health—a far cry from the angry, warrior-like tone of the pro-gun, anti-abortion, macho-white-male party of past GOP conventions.  (Pg. 16, emphasis added)

The author makes the frustrating equation between “group identity” and politics that has become so much in vogue these days, most commonly among those who would practice divide-and-conquer politics.  I fail to see how being pro-gun automatically equates to being anti-woman.  In fact, I would suspect that this woman and these women would beg to differ.  Anyhow, at this point, I’m beginning to wonder if the author will be able to move past her biases to address this topic.

My searches for other sources of information on Ms. Rice’s views on guns have turned up little of relevance (the main problem being that of late the term “smoking gun” is often associated with any search for her name, making it hard to find the relevant hits).  I found one encouraging article, but unfortunately I could not find the original source.  The copy is being hosted by the New York State Amateur Trapshooting Assocation on their website.  It appears to be a copy of a George F. Will article from Sunday, August 6, 2000.

In a pleasantly meandering conversation over lunch in San Francisco last summer, Condoleezza Rice, then still provost of Stanford but already unofficially what she now is officially, George W. Bush’s senior foreign policy adviser, was asked her thoughts about gun control. “I am,” she answered crisply, “a Second Amendment absolutist.” Growing up in Birmingham, Ala., in the early 1960s, when racial tensions rose, there were, she said, occasions when the black community had to exercise its right to bear arms in self-defense, becoming, if you will, a well-regulated militia.  (Emphasis in red in original)

I will continue reading and searching…

I’ve been boiling over this one all day, ever since a friend forwarded me an email alert about Texas House Bill 194, which is currently assigned to the Juvenile Justice & Family Issues Committee.  This steaming pile of excrement was filed by Pasadena-area (a suburb of Houston) Republican Representative Robert Talton.

Let us examine HB194 (text current as of today, use link for updates):

By:  Talton                H.B. No. 194

            A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

                        AN ACT

relating to disqualifying certain persons from serving as foster parents. 

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

    SECTION 1.  Subchapter B, Chapter 264, Family Code, is
amended by adding Section 264.1062 to read as follows:

    Sec. 264.1062.  FOSTER PARENT DISQUALIFICATION.  (a)  The department shall inquire of an applicant who is applying to serve as a foster parent or of a foster parent whose performance is being evaluated whether the applicant or foster parent is homosexual or bisexual.

    (b)  If the answer to the inquiry required by Subsection (a)
is affirmative, the department is prohibited from:

        (1)  allowing the applicant to serve as a foster parent; or

        (2)  placing a child or allowing a child to remain in foster care with the foster parent whose performance is being evaluated.

    (c)  Notwithstanding a negative answer to the inquiry required by Subsection (a), if the department determines after a reasonable investigation that an applicant who is applying to serve as a foster parent or a foster parent whose performance is being evaluated is homosexual or bisexual, the department is prohibited from:

        (1)  allowing the applicant to serve as a foster parent; or

        (2)  placing a child or allowing a child to remain in foster care with the foster parent whose performance is being evaluated.

    SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2003.             

Short, direct, and to the point.  At least Rep. Talton is up-front about his bigotry.  And yes, that’s exactly what it is.  If we were to take this bill and substitute Black or Hispanic or Jewish for “homosexual or bisexual” would it still be acceptable?  Hell, NO!  This is the same kind of overworn, rehashed crap about homosexuals and pedophilia that these nutbags have been peddling for years.

This is not an issue about so-called “special rights” either (damn I hate that phrase).  I do not claim that adoption of foster children is a right.  I’m approaching this issue from that of state-sponsored discrimination against a segment of society.  If Rep. Talton were running a private adoption service and had this policy, I would think him a damn bloody fool for doing it, and I would complain about it, but I would recognize his right to do so.  However, government must deal with all citizens equally.  Such discrimination by government is simply not acceptable nor is it compatible with a supposedly free society.  If we allow the government to discriminate in this fashion, where does it end?  Where do we draw the line?  What group is next? 

You may be saying to yourself that this doesn’t affect me.  Why should I care?  Or you may even be mightily pissed off at me for protesting this if you agree with Rep. Talton.  But if we allow government to usurp the power to make these kinds of decisions there will eventually come a time when your own ox is gored.  What if there comes a day when Christians are a minority and are falsely associated with some socially taboo crime, like child molestation?  Who will stand up for you when someone proposes a bill that prevents Christians from adopting foster children?  Those who support this bill definitely won’t have a leg to stand on at that point and those who currently face discrimination certainly won’t be interested in defending the new minority.

Now, allow me to fire a salvo directly into the heart of the Republican party.  This is exactly the kind of crap that makes me nervous about Republicans.  Just when I think you’ve overcome your old bad habits, something like this pops up again.  If you’re really interested in projecting the image of being “compassionate conservatives”, you’ll excise this cancer from your midst.  I’ve voted for some of you, but it’s been grudging at best.  If this kind of nonsense continues I will vote exclusively Libertarian or I won’t vote at all.  And don’t bother to bleat that this will effectively give a vote to the Democrats.  As I’ve said before, Republicans are not entitled to my vote.

I’m really pissed off about this one.  My gay and lesbian friends are human beings, not some kind of disease that is to be feared and shunned.  I may not be able to convince other citizens of that, and they’re entitled to their opinions (no matter how wrong).  I will fight to the death for their right to speak their minds.  But I will also fight them to the death over any attempt to implement the ideas that they are espousing.

Note:  The issue of fitness of homosexuals and bisexuals as parents cannot be addressed at the group level.  Fitness can only be determined for individuals, which is why foster parents are interviewed and investigated to determine their fitness.  I will not entertain arguments about pedophilia or child molestation.  As far as I am concerned that is uninformed prejudice of the worst sort and not worthy of being addressed.  Am I stifling dissent?  Guilty as charged.  But then this is my forum.  If you disagree, you’re welcome to do so on your own site.

Penultimate Note: I suppose some people think that this is about the children, but the above bill carries the implication that current foster parents who are homosexual or bisexual will have their children removed.  How does it help the children to rip them away from their current parents after all they’ve been through?

Final Note: I don’t support legislation that singles out any one group for any particular reason and I strongly believe in the right of free association.  So I happen to oppose this bill, no matter how fraught with good intentions it may be.

Update:  Fixed some typos above.

Update 2:  I should clarify that my thoughts on the equivalence of race and sexual orientation are based on the idea that a person’s sexual orientation is not a choice.  I realize that in some cases people do choose a sexual orientation for various reasons.  However, that does not make the case that all homosexuals do so.  It has been my general experience that it is not a choice.  Purposefully treating a segment of the population differently because of an inherent characteristic is discimination.