I just saw Kerry’s Communications Director being interviewed. She blames Bush for the fact there is a shortage of flu vaccine. When asked what Kerry would have done differently, she said he would have found more vaccine. When pressed, she said something should have been done sooner.
Wow. That sounds like solid policy.
She also said that Bush is not protecting the health of the American people.
When did that become a function of government?
This morning I report for the jury pool. As I mentioned before, I don’t mind jury duty at all. In fact, I feel like I’m doing something important.
What I do dislike is the assumption that my life story is open for review. The standard form I received asks for such standards as race, sex, age, and whether I’ve ever served on a jury or been a party to a lawsuit. Okay.
I refuse to fill out the rest of the form. And I always have. They have no need to know my wife’s name, occupation, or employer. Nor do they need to know my medical history or education level. Or my religion. They may want that information, but they don’t need it.
When people talk about lawsuits and the costs that come from large awards they always focus on lawyers. That’s the wrong argument. Lawyers are out to make a buck, just like the rest of us. They’ll make as much as they can. Good for them. Don’t tell me, however, that they’re being altruistic and trying to help others. They’re not.
We need to look at jurors. Those large awards aren’t decided by lawyers. They’re determined by juries. A lawyer’s job is to find jury members who will be sympathetic and willing to punish “Big Corporations” or “Big Insurance.” They do this via survey forms and voir dire. They hire jury consultants to help them in this quest. Personally, I’d like to put jury consultants out of business.
A jury needs to be made up of people who are impartial–as much as anyone can be–and willing to listen and make decisions based in fact. For a plaintiff in a negligence suit, that may not be the best hope for their suit. For a criminal on trial who is guilty, that isn’t the desired panel to face. Both want a jury that is pliable and emotional. In a criminal case, the lawyer wants to find at least one who will see things his way, and get no verdict. That puts a load on the court system, and perhaps gets a favorable plea bargain.
This is where lawyers get their reputation for sleaze. Truth isn’t important. Manipulation is.
I don’t like people trying to manipulate me.
As in all national elections, the issue of government spending and taxes comes to the fore. They are false issues. They obscure the real one: What is the true role of the federal government?
I read about Tom Dashle’s reelection bid, and how one activist plans to vote for Bush and Dashle, because Dashle brought the money home. All else was secondary. But the role of a legislator was never intended to be bringing money home in the form of pork. Their role was defined as being representative voices in Congress. The concept was that on all issues before Congress, the congressmen and senators would represent their constituents’ opinions.
The federal government, personified by Congress, has become a distribution center for money. This has become the focus in elections.
What we should really be talking about is how the federal government does the things it is chartered to do by the Constitution. I want to be clear that the Constitution applies only to the federal government, not state and local. The whole point of its ratification was to plainly state what powers and authority it has. All other authority was to reside in the various states.
We talk about conservative and liberal in code to discuss spending and taxing habits. Rather, we should be talking about involvement of the government in our personal affairs. How much involvement in your own life do you want the government to have? It has become clear that neither major party is interested in scaling back the intrusion, but Democrats seem to me to be far more interested in expanding government action in our lives.
There is nothing in the Constitution to even hint at a need for Housing and Urban Development or Education. Health Care? you must be kidding. Environmental issues? States and local governments are more knowlegeable.
The federal government was established to provide for defense and negotiate treaties that would allow for commerce with other nations. It was to eliminate any tariffs between states so as to promote commerce. Beyond those things, it has little authority.
We need to focus on that. And we need to get the major political parties to focus on that. We need to quit asking our representatives to give us something, and demand that they get the government out of our lives. We, as voters and citizens, need to rein in our Congress, not ask for more intrusion. It is oxymoronic for “progressives” to decry the losses in freedom because of the Patriot Act, yet insist on further government involvement through health care and Social Security.
Any government involvement in your life is a loss of freedom.
A couple of weeks ago I tried to put into perspective how history will possibly judge the Presidency of George W. Bush.
Today, Paul Kengor does the same, better, in National Review Online.
Kengor examines how representative government in the world came about because of our radical attempt to change things on this continent over 200 years ago. That gained momentum after our Civil War showed we could survive our own failures, and become even stronger. France’s revolution, an the other hand, reverted quickly to the age-old Supreme Leader example of European governance.
The 20th Century became America’s Century as we spread democracy throughout Europe at the end of WWII, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the early 1970s there were only 40 democracies. As the 20th century ended, there were 120.
Against incredible odds, George W. Bush may have laid the ground for Middle East democracy in the two most unlikely places, the Taliban’s Afghanistan and Saddam’s Iraq. Nowhere were women more repressed than in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Nowhere were humans generally more repressed than in Iraq under Saddam. Between the two, Saddam was the biggest destabilizer in the world’s most unstable neighborhood.
Whatever happens in two more weeks, the wheels are in motion. Bush will be remembered by history as the man who brought the promise of democracy to the last bastion of feudalism in the world. Should Kerry win, he can build on that or be remembered as the one who let it all go to waste.
I heard a portion of Paul Harvey’s show today. One of his listeners wrote in to point out something most of us missed. I wanted to verify Kerry’s words, so I went to the transcript:
These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.
Notice anything wrong?
Judges are not supposed to interpret the Constitution. There is nothing in the authority granted them in the Constitution which gives them cause to interpret it. What they are supposed to do is interpret laws according to the Constitution.
Here, I think, is the biggest disconnect between Democrats and Republicans, and which drives me closer to Republican thought. The Constitution is the guidance for government. If you don’t like what it says, change it, but don’t look to the courts to interpret it.
UML Guy has an interesting solution to offer the candidates.
The bill introduced by Charlie Rangel to reinstate the draft was voted on yesterday. There were 15 co-sponsors, one of whom withdrew from sponsorship in June (Eleanor Holmes Norton). The following are the sponsors:
The motion failed by a vote of 402-2. Only one of the sponsors voted for it–Pete Stark. Not even Charlie Rangel could bring himself to do so.
Need I say any more?
Powered by WordPress