home | archives

Opinari.net

Opinari - Latin term for Opinion. Opinari.net is just what it seems: a cornucopia of rants, raves and poignant soliloquy.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Well, America has given the Congressional keys to the Democrats, and they have publicly endorsed a military draft, and given their imprimatur to an impeached judge to chair the Intelligence Committee (a judge that many of these same Democrats voted to impeach not all that long ago).

Sigh.

Is it too late to throw them ALL out and start from scratch?

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 5:22 PM


I read this on an earlier RSS feed during lunch that Instapundit was now being blocked by Websense. I had to see it to believe it...



Hm. An MP3 site, no less. And here I was going to Glenn's site to read what's going on in the world instead of downloading all of those mew-zik files.

Oh well, at least I have the mobile version.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 5:18 PM


Thursday, November 16, 2006

Milton Friedman died today at the age of 94. I’m not an economist, but I have studied the discipline a bit. I consider Friedman to be one of the most important people of my lifetime. He popularized the phrase “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”. In fact, it was the title of one of his many books. His economic philosophy was rooted in the free market. He was an obvious influence on the policies of both Reagan and Bush 43.

I’m inspired today to find a copy of “Capitalism and Freedom” and read it. I only wish more of our elected officials would too. I’m sad to hear of Mr. Friedman’s passing, and I can only hope that his ideas don’t die with him.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 2:57 PM


Wednesday, November 15, 2006

They’ll Never Learn:

I just heard that none other than blogger-hater/pork-lover Trent Lott has been voted in as Minority Whip, and by a single vote no less.

What does this tell the voting public? This tells us that the Republicans learned nothing from the 2006 midterms. This tells us that the Republicans are not taking their constituents seriously. This tells us that we’re more for “business as usual” than “reform and regroup”.

It is these exact types of things that could lead the GOP to exile in the political wilderness for some time. They need to wake up and see that Americans are tired of the corruption, the earmarking, and the willful ignorance of the electorate. Voting for establishment-types like Lott shows they have learned nothing.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 2:35 PM


Monday, November 13, 2006

It appears that the first public pissing contest within the Democratic Party since the 2006 election is going to be for House Majority Leader. Murtha, of course, is an outspoken detractor of the Iraq War and no friend of the Bush Administration. Hoyer is known as a more moderate Democrat, and claims to have more support from his peers, particularly the “Blue Dog” Democrats.

What makes this interesting to me is that Nancy Pelosi claims that her regime is going to be the cleanest, most ethical of our time, yet she inexplicably forgets that Murtha carries baggage of his own. Remember Abscam? Well, most people probably don’t, and I’m guessing Pelosi is banking on the electorate’s notorious short term memory. However, if you’re purporting to be the antithesis of institutional government corruption, why would you start off the new Congress by appointing a tainted official?

MORE:

RedState.com points to the WaPo where we learn that Jane Harman is being passed over as chair of the Intelligence Committee, likely likely selecting impeached former federal judge Alcee Hastings.

Let’s recap. Two qualified candidates without previous blemish are passed over for a scandal-involved individual, and an impeached former member of the federal judiciary by a House leader who swore her tenure would see the most scandal-free, cleanest legislature in modern history.

Madam Speaker, you’re not off to a good start.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 4:39 PM


Sunday, November 12, 2006

Here is some thought-provoking analysis from a former jihadi who tells us how foolish Westerners are regarding the threat of radical Islam.

“Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want."

It will take a wholesale change of Western attitudes, with apologists and Bush-haters alike getting on board before our free societies will look at extreme Islamism as what it really is – a desire to eradicate Western culture and indoctrinate it with theocratic, totalitarian ideals rooted in a perverse interpretation of Islam. Hopefully, we won’t see thousands of innocents die before our leaders come to that conclusion.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 11:23 PM


Wednesday, November 08, 2006

KnoxViews Randy Neal asks “how (last night’s election) will affect our lives this year, next year, and going forward.” That’s an interesting question.

Since the margins of the majorities are pretty thin, I have to think that they won’t affect me as much as they would otherwise. I don’t foresee many policy initiatives getting through that would be considered ultra-liberal (read: socialized medicine, etc.). However, there will likely be some affect.

Will my taxes increase? Almost assuredly. They already have, since Congress failed to extend the deduction for state sales tax. I’m all for reining in fraud and waste, but I believe cuts in marginal rates and capital gains tax rates are anathema to economic growth, and the economic conditions of the last several years prove that.

Social Security will always be a hot button issue for me, but I’m also resigned to the fact that the public doesn’t have the will to deal with the problem. I believe that I can better decide for myself how to handle my retirement. I already do so with a pension fund, a 401k, and an IRA. I believe I should be allowed to do so with the percentage of my income that the Feds already take in the form of Social Security taxes. I agree that Congress shouldn’t be raiding the Social Security coffers and borrowing money for other programs, but I’d also point out that every Congress since the inception of Social Security has done so. I’d even wager that the next Congress will too.

How about prescription drugs and Medicare? I would have to agree that it is an absurd entitlement program in its current incarnation. Retirees that I know didn’t even bother to enroll because it would affect their private insurance benefits. Those that did enroll have found it to be cumbersome and inefficient, not unlike most government mandated programs in our country’s history. So how will a Democratic Congress fix it? Beats me. I haven’t heard any ideas from them except to say “I’m not Bush”.

I know one thing though. I don’t support mandating that private companies negotiate lower prices with the government. That’s against every free market principle I know, and I’m not amongst the folks that think pharmaceutical companies are “gouging” consumers. Drugs cost money to make. Research. Development.  They require incoming capital. Mandatory lower pricing leads to less innovation and companies will exit the marketplace.

I’m going to also issue an agreement on the issue of VA benefits with Mr. Neal. Veterans should get the benefits they have been promised. Period.

Democrats and the environment? Well, historically, I’d say there has never been a government program they didn’t like, so regulating power producers certainly would be expected. Along with that, expect increases in energy rates, while the environmental impact will be marginal at best. Think Kyoto and a 0.7 degree Celsius benefit by 2050.

CAFÉ standards? I’m agnostic about this, although any such regulation will certainly affect the manufacturer’s bottom line. Will the Dems pursue this as a centerpiece of their energy policy? Probably. They most certainly won’t open ANWR for exploration, and alternative fuels aren’t yet cost-effective, nor will offshore drilling or refining capacity increase. Look for gridlock where energy prices are concerned.

Medical insurance? Well, hopefully, HillaryCare will stay off the docket. But how will the Democrats address skyrocketing health care increases? I’ve yet to hear anything substantive on this matter from them. I don’t have the answers to this one, nor have I claimed to. But mandated insurance coverage on the backs of the taxpayer isn’t the solution.

No Child Left Behind? Please. Should we get rid of it? Absolutely. It accomplishes nothing but lowering the bar and “equalizing” the outcome of each child’s education. One has only to look at the reduction and elimination of gifted and AP classes to see evidence of this. Will the Democrats get rid of it? Not likely. After all, it’s a government program. Look for more tax credits for the “working poor” so that they can fund post-secondary education. Real reform, like school choice, is set back years under this Congress.

Raising the federal minimum wage? Why not? Most states have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum anyway. I believe this will be one of the first things Congress will push for, and I believe that it will pass. Should it? Who knows? This just isn’t an issue I care much about.

The war? Here is the major uncertainty. We don’t yet know the direction the Bush administration is going to go after the resignation of Rumsfeld today. We don’t know the degree of conflict the Democrats are willing to inflict upon the executive branch. Will they fund the war effort? Murtha probably wouldn’t were it up to him. It all depends on whether the liberal hawks or the doves win out in the interparty posturing for power. I’d like to think America will fill the vacuum in Iraq until the Iraqis themselves are capable of doing so, but at this point, even a wholesale evacuation of the Middle East wouldn’t surprise me.

As I review what I’ve written and what others have written, I think that mostly, when we aren’t blinded by partisanship, we all want the same thing. Prosperity. Freedom. Security. We just disagree on how to achieve those goals. No matter who is in power, we know America is great, and we’re proud to live here.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 5:34 PM


I’ve had about as much post-election coverage as I can stomach in the last few hours. Other than the things about which I have already remarked, what has struck me has been the tone of conversation coming from Republicans in comparison to what we heard throughout 2000, 2002 and 2004.

The standard Republican mantra today has been “the American people have spoken”, or “let’s learn from our mistakes, and regroup for 2006.”

The common Democratic position in past elections was “Bush cheated” or “Diebold!” or “I’m taking the first flight to Paris and never coming back.”

In other words, we have “here’s what we did wrong” as opposed to “here’s what they did wrong.” In my estimation, in the limited time of my life in which I have followed politics closely, I have to say that, while I shudder at the thought of dealing with liberal governance, I also believe that Republicans make better losers than Democrats. And maybe that means the bile emanating from Washington will be less prominent. Or, maybe that’s just wishful thinking.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 3:15 PM


From the NRO this morning:

One thing I want to be clear on is that this isn't the apocalypse and al-Qaeda is not going to take over the Middle East in 2 years but that they will make a great deal of headway there if the US is emasculated in the interim as a result of domestic politics, particularly if the legislative branch now treats the executive as though it is part of an enemy state.

I’m very interested in how cooperative the legislative and executive branches are going to be regarding foreign policy in the Middle East. “Creative redeployment” is obviously not going to deter terrorism worldwide or despotism in the region. Yet, as far as I can tell, that is the only policy alternative I have seen from the Democrats.

I’m hearing the John Murtha will be heading the committee for Military Appropriations. Knowing his personal beliefs about the war in Iraq, will this mean that the House will simply refuse to fund any initiatives by the Bush Administration for the war? As the post above asks, will the President simply be treated as a hostile enemy, or will there actually be some effort to win this war instead of running away from an obviously volatile, and historically important event in the history of our civilization?

Only time will tell.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 10:46 AM


It is encouraging to hear this morning’s post-mortem Republican rhetoric about such things as “limited government”, “reducing spending”, “immigration reform”, etc. It’s a shame they didn’t see this coming before now. I equate the Republicans right now to an undisciplined preschooler. They know what’s fundamentally right, but they do the wrong thing until they get spanked.

Well, consider Election night 2006 a metaphorical form of corporal punishment, administered by the electorate. Maybe now they will sit in their room, sob a little bit, pick themselves up, and return to the principles they’ve been so eloquently espousing this morning.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 10:36 AM


While I am thinking about it, congratulations to former Vol quarterback Heath Shuler, who won a House seat in North Carolina yesterday. And may he do better in Washington as a statesman than he did as a football player.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 8:47 AM


Observations Post-Election 2006:

  1. There is something to be said for an opposition party. Quite plainly, one party rule is dangerous, and pulls the country too far in one direction – at least the electorate expressed this view yesterday.

  2. In the House, look for Pelosi and company to start the anti-Bush ball rolling at some point. Get ready for “All Impeachment, All the Time”

  3. If GOP had governed with the principles upon which they were elected, I believe they would still be holding majority rule. Inexplicably, conservative governance went into extended hibernation between 2004 and 2006. They have only themselves to blame.

  4. Ironically, the Democrats had to recruit moderate to conservative candidates to put their liberal leadership in power.

  5. Maybe we’ll actually see a few vetoes issued from the Presidential pen.

  6. Maybe the Democrats in Congress will now divulge an actual plan for governance that isn’t “we’re not Bush”.

  7. Note to Republicans: the sun still rises in the East. Learn from your mistakes. Return to your original ideals of limited government and low tax rates and you’ll be back in power in no time.

  8. Note to Democrats: don’t get cocky, and don’t overstep your bounds. You still were given only a narrow legislative majority. If you learn anything from the last few years, it’s that political capital only goes so far.

  9. If anything, the next two years, at least for political junkies, should be quite interesting.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 8:14 AM


Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Election Day Minutae:

I don’t know about you, but I feel more secure knowing that Panama is now a member of the UN Security Council. Way to go, Panama!

Apparently in Kentucky, you have to vote for at least one candidate in every race, or else you’ll get punched out by an election worker.

Oh, and Britney is leaving Kevin. Surely this is the October… er, November surprise we’ve all been waiting for!

And finally, if embryonic stem cell research isn’t enough for you, how about cross-species stem cell research… as in crossing the bovine species with Homo Sapiens? Now there’s an issue Michael J. Fox can get behind!

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 3:59 PM


I’m a pretty solid political junkie, so normally I’d be home watching cable news and following returns on Election Night. Tonight though, I have a softball game at 9:15 CT. What to do? Well, since I have a mobile device, I can go to http://mer.ap.org. Voila, instant election results in the palm of my hand.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 8:47 AM


Monday, November 06, 2006

On Voting:

Since Election Day is tomorrow, I’ve been pondering a few things, one of which is voter fraud. Allegations surface almost every election now, and I’m sure they will in 2006. Two primary issues seem to be the root of the distrust of the system – black-box voting, and lax voter registration laws.

Detractors of black-box voting claim that there is no proof that one’s vote was logged correctly. They also complain about the platform dependence of the software, and the ease that the software can be hacked. I believe those folks are right to have such concerns.

Advocates of stricter voter registration laws believe that one should not be able to vote unless one can prove one’s identity, and such proof should consist of a photographic ID. Opponents claim that this is tantamount to racism, disenfranchisement, and all sorts of other similar types of vote suppression. The fact is votes from ineligible people should be suppressed. Period.

As I see it, these two issues seem to be the ideal place where Democrats and Republicans can arrive at a strong compromise for voting reform. Why not propose the following?

Require any software used for voting machines to provide a receipt for one’s vote. Allow for changes in case one’s vote was incorrectly recorded. Establish a voting software commission that audits source code without requiring the developers to publicly disclose their intellectual property, and allow the same commission to recommend changes both in the process and in the software. On the registration front, require all voters to have indisputable identification, with no exceptions. Limit or eliminate same-day registration. Provide a streamlined (maybe even a taxpayer-subsidized) means for poor individuals to acquire the necessary identification needed to be able to register to vote.

Establish identity. One vote per eligible person. Provide traceability and validation. Such ideas only make sense if we’re truly trying to count all votes correctly. It’s not about counting only the votes that will provide your favorite party victory. In a representative democracy, it’s about making sure the right representatives are selected by the right people. Surely, even in today’s partisan environment, we can agree on that.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 11:02 AM


Election Predictions:

I’m not one for much political prognostication, but I thought I’d give it a shot in 2006. While the media believes (or hopes) that there will be a massive Democratic onslaught, I’m inclined to believe the following:

  1. The economy is generally good and that affects most people.

  2. The war in Iraq is an inflammatory issue, but most people aren’t as riled up about it as the Democrats would hope.

  3. Illegal immigration is an inflammatory issue, but Republicans fear Speaker Pelosi far more than they fear Julio and his six offspring crossing the Rio Grande.

  4. “Politics is local,” and a great many folks like their representatives while abhorring everyone else’s.

  5. In Connecticut, the independent candidacy of Joe Lieberman will help Republicans by bringing out more Republican voters who dislike the idea of Ned Lamont winning.

  6. There will be SOME exceptions to rule #4.

So where does this leave my predictions? Santorum and DeWine are sure losers. Cardin probably wins, and I believe that Corker and Allen will win too. Chafee is a likely loser (which won’t hurt my feelings in the least). Missouri, New Jersey and Montana are too close to call. Nonetheless, I believe the Republicans will hold onto the Senate.

As for the House, I don’t see how the Republicans hold onto it, but I don’t believe they will lose it by much. In fact, I don’t believe the Democrats will own a governing majority in the sense that there will be too many conservative Democrats to allow much of a liberal agenda to proceed. I’m predicting a 15-18 seat pickup for the Democrats, including former Vol QB Heath Shuler in western Carolina. However, I don’t believe that the Dems will pick up the CT seats (Shays, Johnson and Simmons). I’m predicting that all three seats stay with the GOP. I’m also predicting a Texas split with Lampson winning Delay’s old seat, and Henry Bonilla retaining his.

And one more pick – the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative passes, and by a wider than expected margin.

It all depends on turnout, and, despite the unconditional hatred for President Bush, I’m not sure that’s going to be enough in many places to turn the tables toward the Democrats.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 10:06 AM


Sunday, November 05, 2006

On the Vols-

I'm still bumming about the loss to the Bayou Bengals. Great game as a fan. Bad game as a Vol fan. I'm still convinced that Russell fumbled on that last drive. I have no idea why there was no review of the play. Anyway, at least this season isn't near as bad as last. And I keep telling myself - at least I'm not a fan of Georgia, 'Bama, or Michigan State. Now THAT would suck.

Labels:

.: posted by Dave 11:32 PM


Need ASP.NET, VB, VB.NET, or Access development?

Contact me through Guru.com.




Opinari Archives


Recommended Reading


Blogroll Me!

Proudly blogging on a Treo 650 using Vagablog 1.9.
This page powered by Blogger, and yours should be, too!