While the Texas legislature is meeting to find new and novel ways to suck our pocketbooks dry to pay for the public school elephant, we should also be on guard for other nefarious items, such as HB50 (Rep Smith, Tarrant), HB309 (Rep McClendon), and SB25 (Sen Zaffirini), all of which appear to be identically worded bills that would establish authority for sobriety checkpoints in Texas.

The very idea of checkpoints of any kinds makes my skin crawl.  These so-called representatives need to be hounded from office for violating their oath to preserve and defend the constitution.

A test of one of the potential components of the ballistic missile defense system failed today.

President Bush’s drive to deploy a multibillion-dollar shield against ballistic missiles was set back on Wednesday by what critics called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two years.

The abortive $85 million exercise raised fresh questions about the reliability of the first elements of the plan, an heir to former president Ronald Reagan vision of a space-based missile defense that critics dubbed “Star Wars.”

Looking at the Google News feed for this story it was hard not to notice the gloating of the media at this turn of events.  It seems to me that the purpose of testing is to uncover these kinds of faults and fix them.  If all you have are successful tests, then it would seem that something is missing from those tests. 

I think the unfortunate thing is that there are a lot of people who for some misguided reason think that defending ourselves against missiles is morally wrong.  There is significant overlap between these idiots and the press, so any failures tend to be trumpeted as a case for the whole system not to work.  Intercepting ballistic missiles is a nontrivial operation, so it will take a while for the technology to reach maturity.  I also doubt that we’ll ever come up with a foolproof system without perfecting our energy weapons capability (or at least it seems easier to me to track and hit a missle with a directed energy weapon like a laser than it would be to intercept it with a rocket, although I’m not a rocket scientist…). 

With the normal stoicism of the Bush administration, I suspect they can easily weather the bleatings of these idiots, although the weaker members of Congress may vacillate when it comes time for further funding.  Given that the government of North Korea is batshit crazy, has nukes and missiles, and is a perfect example of the “success” of socialism we need a missile defense system sooner than later, just in case Kim Jong-il decides to take a few running dog capitalists with him when his country finally descends into chaos.

One of the themes of the MSM (as noted here) on the Bush victory is that the gay marriage issue brought out the Bush voters.  Perhaps it did in some states.  But I can tell you that this isn’t the case for a lot of people who voted for Bush.  In fact, I despise the Republican position on this issue (as well as a number of other moral ones) and I was deeply disturbed by the results in those 11 states that had various marriage bans on their ballots.  There was one and only one reason I voted for him (and I had to hold my nose to do it): the war on Islamist bastards who want to kill us (or whatever name you want to give it).  We can argue about gay marriage and other moral issues later, after we’ve either killed all the terrorists or made them give up (I don’t care which, I just want them to leave us the hell alone).

I suspect most of the “mandate” the Republicans got was really based on the fact that a lot of people saw the Democrats as fundamentally unserious when it comes to our country’s security.  I remain very wary of many of the other parts of the Republican platform and agenda and will be watching them very closely.

I keep hearing people on both sides saying that the country needs to “come together” and somehow the President is expected to “unify” the nation.  I can tell you right now that it won’t happen.  First, I think there’s a bit of disingenuousness on both sides, since I get a strong sense that both really mean “those idiots need to do it my way” when they say we need “unity.”  Second, I don’t see how the President will be able to work with people who think he’s the second coming of Hitler. 

The ideas of majority rule and mandates also won’t help here.  I find it a bit ironic that the same Republicans who tout that this is a Republic and that mob rule is bad suddenly have found religion on the popular vote.  I seem to recall these same people pointing out how the popular vote didn’t really matter in 2000.  I suppose I’m not surprised.  Still, one of the things I consider a fundamental guiding principle of our Republic is that the minority is supposed to be protected from the whims of the majority.  The idea that the minority is supposed to STFU and sit down is ananthema to our system (despite what I may think about that minority; 55 million of you voted for John effin’ Kerry!?  What were you thinking?!).  To think that they’ll suddenly have a change of heart and go along with the majority is a delusion.  I know that Clinton’s reelection in 1996 didn’t change my thinking.  I wasn’t suddenly going to roll over and “get with the program” based on the whim of the majority (yes, I know it was actually a plurality, but it doesn’t really change my point).

There will be no unity in this country, not with the deep divisions that were highlighted in the recent elections.  To expect unity is to fool onself. 

I keep wanting to see today’s election as the end of a long and trying election cycle.  I’d like to breathe a sigh of relief that it’s finally over.  Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to be able to say it’s over at the end of the day today.  I’m afraid that if the election results are close that the Democrats will deploy a plague of lawyers into the battleground states in order to gum up the works and put stink on the whole operation in the hopes of maybe pulling things their way. 

I’m very wary that this thing could be dragged out for months.  I hope it won’t, but I’m still afraid that it will happen.

I thought I’d slip into the Keller Town Hall during lunch and vote early.  I was surprised to see that there was a fairly considerable line when I got there.

(Sorry about the poor image quality, but I only had my picture phone with me at the time.)

It took about 45 minutes from the time I entered the line until the time I was finished.  I was also surprised to see that they were using electronic voting machines after having downloaded the sample ballot, which was of the “fill in the line” style that I’ve grown used to.  After checking my voter registration card, the election worker gave me a printout with an access code that is used to activate the machine (which I assume also tells the machine what ballot to give you).  The machine itself was fairly easy to use, at least for someone like me who uses computers, PDAs, and cell phones all the time.  I would expect that some of the elderly voters will have problems with it, though, unless the font size can be increased.

I didn’t look at the specs of the voting machine too closely yet to see if it generates a paper trail.  There definitely wasn’t any kind of printer on the machine itself, although there could have been some kind of audit trail generated at the controller system.  I certainly hope so, anyway.  I don’t trust the fate of our elections to flash memory, no matter how rugged it may be. 

Update:  I checked back on eSlate’s site and found the following in their “FAQ” with regards to audit trails:

eSlate’s Cast Vote Verification System provides election officials with a complete trail to support recounts or audits. eSlate can provide a Cast Vote Record, either in paper or electronic form, for each voting device, or on a precinct basis.

That doesn’t tell me everything I wanted to know, but at least it says that it is possible to create a paper audit trail.  Let’s hope that this feature is being used.  Can you imagine the lawsuits that would result if one of the voting machines had a memory card go bad without an audit trail?  How about in a really close race?  Unlike those idiots in Florida who couldn’t be arsed to read the directions and select the right candidate and then claimed disenfranchisement, this would would be the real deal—votes tossed in a black hole.

I went off on somebody yesterday in the comments to this post.  I don’t usually do that.  People who have read this site for a while know I’m usually pretty mellow.  But there’s one area that pushes my buttons and I’m going to have to learn to calm down.

Why is it that some people feel the need to attack other RKBA supporters if they aren’t Republicans and/or they don’t care for George W. Bush?  My post was about how I don’t think Bush is a really good friend to RKBA and I was trying to imply that I’d need a clothespin to hold my nose as I voted for him, given that I didn’t see any other choice.  (On a tangent, a lot of people harp on the Second Amendment, but I think that too easily lets people forget that RKBA is a human right and it would exist regardless of the 2nd.)

As I mentioned in the comments, I’m neither a conservative nor a liberal (at least in the current usage of the term).  I’ve tried on a number of parties and ideologies over time.  When I was in college, I was a Democrat as I didn’t know any other position.  That’s just how I was raised.  My father was quite a bit older than my mother and he had survived the Great Depression as a teenager (he was 18 in November, 1929).  As far as he was concerned, Democrats could do no wrong and FDR was a god among men.  As I got out into the “real world” I started noticing how things weren’t as simple as the Democrats made things out to be.  Idealism is nice, but it tarnishes a bit when it meets reality.  After the 1994 crime bill and assault weapons ban passed, I really started questioning things, as RKBA was an area I never compromised, despite my Democratic leanings.  That got me started moving towards the Republicans to the point where I actually considered myself a Republican around the time of the 1996 elections. 

However, my brief foray into the Republican party was not to last.  Their social conservatism was simply unacceptable to me.  Having a number of gay and lesbian friends, I couldn’t accept their views on homosexuality.  Further, even as a Democrat, I had a strong respect for individual rights and the Constitution, so I never could see a justification for continuing the war on (some) drugs, or the war on porn, or the war on people’s right to die, or anything else where I didn’t see anyone else being harmed.  I started exploring other ideological alternatives, finally coming to rest in the Libertarian party by the 2000 elections.  I even toyed with hard-core anarcho-capitalism for a while, but ultimately gave it up as unworkable. 

So, like everyone else I suppose, 9/11/2001 changed things for me.  When Harry Browne started sending out essays on how it was America’s fault that we were attacked, I found that my core values couldn’t accept that.  Even back when I was a Democrat, I was for a strong national defense (I suppose that was the Southern Democrat upbringing, which is probably why Zell Miller’s speech at the Republican National Convention resonated with me a bit).  So I found myself in agreement with a Republican president when he went into Afganistan to root out Al Queda (and the Taliban, which supported them).  I reluctantly agreed with his decision to go into Iraq.  Despite the absence of WMD, I’ve come to fully support him on that as we’ve learned more about how things were in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

I used to say I was a single-issue voter, and that issue was RKBA.  If RKBA was the only issue, I wouldn’t vote for Bush.  However, I understand that our country’s security takes precedence over all the other things I hate about Bush’s policies.  I just hate having to be forced to make that choice, and I’m going to complain about it from time to time.

I’m not going to enthusiastically support George W. Bush.  I’m not going to join the RNC.  I’m not going to ask “How high?” when the NRA says to jump.  If that somehow makes me a traitor to RKBA, then so be it.  However, anyone who really knows my position on RKBA and continues to think that is deluded. 

I suppose the question for Republican NRA members to ask themselves is whether they want as many allies as they can get in the fight for RKBA or do they want ideological purity?  If they want allies, they will have to accept that some of us aren’t conservatives and don’t belong to the RNC.  Otherwise, they can continue to attack other RKBA supporters, thereby alienating potential allies.  It’s their choice.

Update:  In an interesting display of synchronicity, Stephen Green expresses a lot of the same ideas, although he does so more eloquently than I did.

In keeping with the idea I had earlier about decreasing the power of the entrenched lifetime politicians, I also had an idea for a Constitutional amendment that would make it easier (hopefully) to remove bad laws from the books.  It allows for a sort of super-jury review of a law that can be requested against any act of Congress.

Upon ratification of this amendment, a Review Panel shall be created.  The Review Panel shall have the power to expunge laws previously passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President of the United States.

The Review Panel shall be composed of twenty members from each state, chosen randomly from the electors thereof, for one year; and each member shall have one vote.

The Review Panel shall choose a presiding officer and other officers.

The Review Panel shall meet at least once per year, at the same time as the Congress.  The Review Panel may meet at other times as deemed necessary by the presiding officer.

Congress shall make no law regarding the Review Panel.

When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall randomly select from the electors of that state to fill such vacancies.

The Review Panel shall have the authority to nullify or revoke any law.  The executive authority of any of the several states, members of the Congress, and the President of the United States may submit Requests for Review directly to the Review Panel with the consent of the presiding officer.  Further, upon receipt of a petition containing the signatures of one percent of the electors of the several states combined (without regard to the apportionment thereof among the several states), the presiding officer will initiate a Review.

Upon receipt of a Request for Review or of a petition, the presiding officer shall bring the matter before the Review Panel for consideration.  Upon a majority vote of those members present, the law under consideration shall be rendered null and void.

The Review Panel shall publish a record of its proceedings at the end of each session, or at such other times as the presiding officer shall decide.

The members of the Review Panel will receive compensation for their services in the amount of their customary wages during the time of their service in addition to any costs associated with travel to and from the meetings of the Review Panel.  This compensation shall be paid out of the treasury of the United States.  They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of the Review Panel, and in going to and returing from the same; and for any speech or debate in the Review Panel, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

With the concurrance of the presiding officer, the Review Panel may meet through electronic or other remote means, provided that a secure method is provided for ascertaining the presence and identity of each voting member.

I think our Founders originally viewed serving in Congress as a duty that people would take up for a time, after which they would return to their former lives.  This would keep the government “in touch” with the real world and real life concerns.  Of course, they also conceived of a much more limited government than we have now.  The idea of someone serving for 20 years or more in Congress would likely have appalled them.  Consider these examples:

• John Kerry: first elected 11/06/1984
• Ted Kennedy: first elected 11/06/1962
• Tom Delay: first elected 11/06/1984
• Charles Shumer: House or Representatives from 1980 to 1998, Senate from 1998-present.

I could go on and on, there are a lot of examples to work with.

What if we were to start treating serving in Congress a bit like jury duty?  The House of Representatives could have members who are randomly selected from their House district.  Those who are selected would serve for a one year term and then go home.  Of course, I recognize that this could be a hardship.  Being uprooted from your home and job and family for a year would be a big disruption.  To make it work, those who are selected would have to be paid enough to live with their family in Washington, DC for the year (as well as make up their current income level) and have some kind of guarantee they’d still have a job when they returned (kind of like when someone is deployed as part of the National Guard or reserves).

To prevent this from being a form of conscription, there would have to be an “opt-out” capability.  Perhaps when you register to vote you could also indicate that you were unwilling to be considered for House duty.

As for the Senate, I’d suggest that the direct election of Senators should be repealed and the job of selecting them returned to the states.

I don’t know that this would work out, but I’m getting sick and tired of life-long politicians running the federal government.  Perhaps if we had some people with real-world experience they wouldn’t be so quick to legislate everything.  Or even if they were, perhaps they’d all have such different viewpoints that nothing would ever get done in the House unless it was clearly needed.

Gridlock isn’t necessarily a bad thing. 

I’d been considering this whole scuffle over who did what during Vietnam as an annoying distraction at best, given that there wasn’t a proverbial snow-ball’s chance that I’d vote for John Kerry.  But the latest statement  (link via Instapundit) from Democrat “strategist” Mary Anne Marsh has opened up a whole new can of worms.

“George Bush betrayed his country by sending us to war on false pretenses, and George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.”

I’ve never thought that someone has to have served in the military to be qualified for President.  What really matters are character and honor (neither of which I think Kerry has).  I’ve also thought that the whole “chickenhawk” thing was particularly odious.  I think it’s a cynical attempt by the left to quickly squash any dissent, and I immediately discount anything else that someone says after I hear that word.

I graduated high school in 1988.  I had high ASVAB scores and had several recruiters trying to get me to enter the service (I would have surely had to have done a bit of extra PT, but it wasn’t out of realm of possiblity when I was a senior).  I was interested and gave it due consideration, but ultimately decided to go directly to college.  If I had gone into the service, though, I would have likely been in position to have been sent to Desert Storm I in 1991 (one of my classmates was there). 

If we extrapolate this to its logical conclusion, it would seem to mean that anyone who doesn’t go fight in whatever war they’re eligible for has also betrayed their country (and let’s not even consider that some people might have been sent to noncombat areas even if they were in the service).

I guess this means that I have to confess that I have betrayed my country by not going to fight in Desert Storm. 

Actually this means that I have to say a hearty fuck you to the Democrats and especially to that bitch Mary Anne Marsh.  It was bad enough that the Democrat party got hijacked by the hardcore socialists and their destructive agenda.  Given my thoughts and feelings on socialism, I didn’t think it was possible to dislike the Dems any more than I already do.  Well, Mary Anne, you’ve managed to do it.  I’ve gone from an enemy of the Democrat party to a permanent, implacable foe.  I had at one time hoped for sanity to return to the Dems (I used to be one, a long time ago), but at this point I don’t give a damn.  You’re dead to me. 

This may have just decided my vote for me (even if I have to hold my nose to do it).