Lick 'em or join 'em?

The Democrats are choosing between two options.  The House of Representatives is forming a committee to investigate Benghazi, with Rep Trey Gowdy as chairman.  Option 1 for Democrats.  Refuse to participate, make it an all Republican deal, and then trash it as political witchhunting.  Option 2.  Put some Democrats on the committee who can slow things down, waste time, give the witnesses softball questions that make them look good, raise procedural objections, and in general water down the proceedings. 
  Which option to take?  Option 1, abstention, only works if the public can be persuaded that there is nothing in the Benghazi story.  Polls suggest that this won't work, they show a majority thinks Benghazi is a shameful scandal, being hushed up by the administration.  Certainly the failure to send troops to the rescue, the firing of general officers who refused to call back rescue missions, the mysterious CIA operation set up in this sinkhole, the attempt to call it a political demonstration sparked by an obscure internet video, and the denial of security assets requested before hand by officials on the scene, go together to make an ugly and shameful story. 
Option 2  only looks good for Democrats only if they decide Option 1 won't work. 
Good Luck Democrats. 
 

Reform the Congress

As the November election approaches everyone is looking to see the Republicans take "control" of the Senate.  Should that happen, Obama will have to warm up that famous pen, and veto stuff.  And sign his own name to it.  Right now, one man, Harry Reid, does the veto for Obama, in secrecy.
  That should not be allowed in a democracy.  Every Congressman ought to be able to submit a bill and have it voted upon.  This business of the Congressional leadership's ability to silently trashcan bills they don't like ought to stop.  For that matter, each house ought to be required to vote on every bill the other house passes. 
  And this business in the Senate where it takes two votes to do anything ought to stop.  Right now they hold one vote one whether they will vote on it and a second one to actually pass it.  This is ridiculous, wastes time, and obscures each senator's real actions.  Plenty of slimy senators vote one way of the first vote and the other way on the second vote.  You gotta be a real political junkie to figure out just what senator so-and-so is really doing up there in DC, out of sight of his district. Most voters don't pay that close attention, they have lives to life after all.
   Then we ought to demand that each bill be read aloud on the floor before the vote on it.  That will cut down on those 1000 page bills that no one understands.  Any bill too long to read aloud is a bad bill. And any bill must be printed (letterpress on paper) and distributed to the press, the public and all Congressmen BEFORE it comes up for a vote. 
   Then we ought to adopt the Confederate States of America practice of demanding each bill laid before Congress must address a single topic, that topic to be announced in the title of the bill.  No more riders.  The Supreme Court ought to hold bills violating that rule are un Constitutional. 
   And English is the language of the United States, plain English.  Fancy Latin words will invalidate any bill. Sentences must be active voice, subject-verb-object.  No compound sentences. No outside references, clauses that read "in accordance with such-an-such" , where such and such is some other document.  A bill ought to stand on its own, no external references, which nobody has the time to find and read.

Scratch one university, Rutgers

Dis inviting Condolezza Rice as a graduation speaker shows a university locked in the grip of crazies.  Condolezza Rice is an inspiring figure, a black woman, born into modest circumstances, who by pure ability rose to become US secretary of state, the third highest office in the land (after the President and the chairman of the federal reserve, and above the vice president).  This is an amazing story, any university student  should be inspired to emulate.   Graduation speeches tend to stick with you, I can still remember some lines from my own graduation speech and that was a long time ago.  I'm sure Condolezza Rice would have been memorable graduation speaker.  And Rutgers drove her away. 
   Ringleader in the anti-Rice crusade is Rutgers professor Deepa Kumar.  She "teaches" journalism and "media studies" what ever that might be.  She writes about Islamophobia, imperialism, anti muslim racism.  She appeared on Russia Today, a Russian government sponsored propaganda show bragging about her "victory" in driving Condolezza Rice off campus.  
   That Rutgers would have this kind of fruitcake on the faculty says a lot of things, all bad, about Rutgers.

What would America fight for?

Cover story from The Economist, a London based weekly news magazine.  Written from the point of view of Europeans, terrified that the Americans will let the Russki's eat them up.  The article reaches no worthwhile conclusions.  They don't know what the Americans might do.  For that matter I don't think we Americans know what we might do. 
   With the exception of the Brits, the rest of Europe has disarmed, and can offer no more effective military resistance to a Russian invasion than the Ukrainians have.  Plus, the Russians can turn off the heat all over Europe if they please, so the Europeans are timid about economic sanctions.  In actual fact the Russians have more sanctions to lay on the Europeans  than the Europeans have to lay on the Russians.
   So far, the Russians are attacking an non NATO member, and are going to some trouble to disguise their land grab as another Anschluss, (the people really want to become part of Russia).  After the Ukraine aggression has cooled off, say in a year or two, the Russians may try the same thing on a NATO member.  Would the US live up to its treaty obligations and defend NATO members?  The Europeans fear that we won't. 
   And if we don't, the Russians will move on Europe, country by country, and in a few years control everything up to the English Channel. 
   

So what is he guilty of?

  A Florida high school student (I didn't catch his name off the TV) is in the dock for hacking into his high school's computer and changing other kids grades, for money.  The TV showed him in orange coveralls and handcuffs.  Clearly the prosecutor is preparing to throw the book at this teenage boy.  Nice looking boy too, thick dark hair, combed neatly, regular features, slender, should have no trouble getting dates at school.  Dates will be harder come by in the clink.  
   Clearly this is a practice to be discouraged.   Changing people's grades, transcripts, medical records, land ownership records,  bank account records, driving records, and you name it, should not be allowed.  No way, No how.
   But,  what crime is this kid guilty of?  It isn't robbery or burglary.  It isn't murder, manslaughter, arson, barratry, assault, perjury, embezzlement, income tax evasion.  Forgery perhaps?  Traditionally forgery is printing false paper money, or creating other false documents.  But we could expand it.
   For once, I'm thinking we need to pass a law, criminalizing this sort of thing.  Broaden the law to include altering records of any kind for profit.  Give this crime a name,  say fackery, for forging by hacking,  Spell out the test of the crime, and the penalties.  Give the judge some discretion to let first time offenders off with something less than prison, say probation or even a slap on the wrist   
   And let's have some penalties for officials who fail to take obvious security measures, such as requiring passwords to access sensitive  records, demanding a password change every six months, keeping computers with sensitive records OFF the internet. 

         

340,000 layoffs equals 288,000 "new" jobs?

The Obama administration keeps touting figures for "new" jobs.  They never did spell out what makes a job "new".  I'm thinking that every single hire is counted as a "new" job.  In the same week they claimed 288,000 "new" jobs, they also announced 340,000 new claims for unemployment benefits, i.e. 340,000 people got laid off.  First thing anyone does after getting laid off is go right down and file for unemployment.  Put the two numbers together and we lost about 52,000 jobs last month.  They don't say that on the evening TV news.
   They do say that GNP growth has dropped to just about nothing.  0.1% is the number given, which is so low it might as well be zero. 
  Obama doesn't talk about that either.  At least he isn't blaming it on George Bush any more.

White House Coorespondent's dinner

Getting a lot of press coverage this morning.  Obama has a fancy dinner for all his lovers in the press.  How is this news?  We know the press loves him and covers for him.